Customer Reviews

Why Johnny Still Can't Read: A New Look at the Scandal of Our Schools

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

``Why Johnny STILL can't read'' is even better than the original work, ``Why johnny can't read''.

The first book was mainly a primer on phonic reading, with enough about the phonics debate to justify following his program. The second book is devoted exclusively to the ongoing debate about phonics, and makes for fascinating reading--especially if you get steamed by incompetence, and are fascinated by conflict.

Some thirty years after the first book was written, Rudolph Flesch observes that things haven't improved in reading class. Kids still get through school functionally illiterate, and the perpetrators of this crime still claim that we need THEM to solve the problem.

Too bad it's out of print! Well worth reading.

In this excellent book Rudolph Flesch systematically destroys all the empty excuses offered by educators trying to hang on to Whole Word, most famously, "Your Child Isn't Ready," "We Do Teach Phonics," "No One Method Is Best," and seven others, ALL STILL USED TODAY.

Throughout his life, Flesch took on our education establishment and, in the short term, lost. Sure, his book Why Johnny Can't Read was a bestseller in 1956; and this second one on the same theme was a big bestseller in 1981. But Flesch was trying to save the country from what he viewed as a plague; and in that he did not succeed. He died depressed, thinking that the promoters of Whole Word had won. Indeed, this [...] actually reached its peak around 1995, almost a decade after Flesch died.

Read either of these books and you will be asking: How could Flesch's clear, concise and devastating analysis, presented in two bestsellers, be vanquished by the flimsy fallacy known as Whole Word??? Ah, that is a great question you ask there. Dare we mention that some publishers made mega-millions selling Dick and Jane nonsense? Or that some educators seem to have built stellar careers on the backs of functional illiterates? Can we speak of conspiracy? Let me just note one of the past century's most peculiar facts: as "progressive" educators worked tirelessly to discredit Flesch, our media and academics stood silently aside.

The saga continues. Today's educators use the phrase "Balanced Literacy," which seems to mean: as much Whole Word as they can get away with.

"Why Johnny STILL Can't Read" by Rudolf Flesch

This book is the sequel to Flesch's earlier book, "Why Johnny Can't Read"; but this book is a continuation and it is many things to many people. I used it as an aid for educating myself as a homeschooling parent.

More than this, Flesch's book is a brief history of the English language, explaining how English was taught in the past several hundred years, show why children learned English so easily in the past. At the time of the American Revolution, Americans were a very literate society. Many people read and wrote with fluency. Flesch tells what happened. The historical aspects of the English language is very exciting.

More than this, Flesch's work is an indictment of the relationship between large publishing companies and the public school system.

Other books of interest are those written by John Holt, and John Taylor Gatto

This book IS better than the original. It not only discusses the systemic failure of our teachers and schools to teach reading rationally, but also exposes the devious methods that incompetent teachers and districts use to dupe parents into believing that their children's school failure is the fault of the child. Any parent who hasn't read this book, along with his children, is just a sheep going to the slaughter.

Rudolph Flesch was the original whistle blower for the continuing problem of disproven reading techniques used in America's classrooms in recent decades. This sequel to "Why Johnny Can't Read" lays out the various studies and more importantly the REACTION to the studies, in the continuing war between advocates of Whole Word and advocates of Phonics.

The persistence of the enemies of Phonics is nothing short of amazing, and equally amazing is the fact that most parents are blissfully unaware that their young children are not being taught real phonics in school.

For a good example of phonics for 4-6 year olds see "An Ant - Learn to Read" by Kallie Woods.
An Ant - Learn to Read, Book 1, Home School Version

Excellent book. This is a must read for any teacher, educator, parent, conscious student or anyone who is concerned about learning and literacy. It uncovers the roots of the reading problems today!

In `Why Johnny Still Can't Read: A New Look at the Scandal of Our Schools`,
Mr. Flesch attempts to discredit the `look-say` method (visual reading),
in favour of the `phonetics-first` method of reading and learning to read.

Regrettably, a poor effort is made to show proof of the superiority of
the `phonetics-first` (sound-spelling) method over the `look-say`
(visual reading) method, in reading and learning to read.
References are sparse with modest/lacking footnotes; even though
research data is available from the fields of education, medicine,
psychology and linguistics.

Let's have a look at some of the questions that readers would
not be able to have answered from the text -

(1) How do we learn about things in the world around us, when young?

(2) A demonstration/ basic model of memory and understanding.

(3) A demonstration/ basic model of the `phonetics-first` method.

(4) A demonstration/ basic model of the `look-say` method (visual reading).

(5) Why do visual readers generally read faster and have a better memories,
than vocalisers or subvocalisers?

(6) The `look-say` methodology practised in the classroom was not investigated
in detail, only the symptom diagnosed, i.e. poor reading and thus failure of
the `look-sayers` and victory for `phonetics-firsters`.

It is impossible to discern from the text whether teachers or parents understood
and applied the method correctly. A crucial point to consider.

Did teachers have enough freedom in applying their trade?

(7) Would a dyslexic child or adult benefit from teaching in both methods
at the same time?

(8) If meaning is not carried in the phonemes (the sound bits) of word(s),
but in the morphemes (root(s) of the word with prefixes and suffixes),
one cannot help to wonder how understanding is gained from
breaking a word up into individual sounds (phonetics)?

A congenitally or prelingual deaf person, without cochlear implants,
is able to learn how to read, without having access to pronunciations (Sacks 1990) .

(9) A case study was presented of a child whom learned to read from
extensive exposure to television and infomercial.

Would endless hours of television improve a child's ability to read and
understanding text? Would this not largely contribute to
the literacy problems we face in the Western world, today?

What is the effect of excessive exposure to television
on our ability to think critically?

Perhaps another author might be able to make a more convincing argument?

Please be sure to balance your reading with -

Sacks, Oliver. 1990. Seeing Voices. A Journey Into the World of the Death.
London: Picador.
Smith, Frank. 2004. Understanding Reading. A Psycholinguistic Analysis of Reading and Learning to Read. Sixth edition. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Wolf, Maryanne. 2007. Proust and the Squid. The Story and Science of the Reading Brain.
New York: Harper Collins.

or any other book that may help you understand the two opposing views better.

REFERENCES:

Sacks, Oliver. 1990. Seeing Voices. A Journey Into the World of the Death.
London: Picador.