Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Half of Americans can’t read

205 replies

Balalabab · Yesterday 16:32

So the title is slightly clickbaity I feel.

But this is what is being said in a podcast I am listening to called ‘Sold a story’.

Ironic if the title is wrong considering the name of the podcast 😂

Anyway.. story goes that in Covid a bunch of adults all over the US realised their children couldn’t actually read.

What they had been taught to do was learn a bunch of words by sight, and then as reading became more complex they would look at the first few letters and guess from the context.

One of the example given was instead of ‘Poland was invaded by Germany.’ Someone who used this method read ‘Poland was invited by Germany.’

This reminded me of a story my in-law told me (he is mid 60s) of how he couldn’t actually read. And it was only when he went to his grammar school interview and asked to read a text did they recognised he couldn’t actually read. He knew he couldn’t read. That made absolutely no sense to me until I heard this podcast about people who are effectively half reading. Going through the motions and faking it. But who actually cannot read.

My mind is blown. And I am gripped by this rabbit hole.

In America; this ‘whole word’ method of reading has been a political war for the past 60 years. Politicised to be a left vs right issue and has now been called by some ‘The reading wars’. I have asked tried to ask on Reddit about this 3 times and every time it has been deleted. I don’t know if that’s denial of the issue, embarrassment, or just Reddit being Reddit.

Anyway this has really captured me. Has America fixed this? Do we have this problem in UK as we were using this teaching method many years ago too? How many British people can’t actually read? Whats going to happen to the Gen Z’s who can’t read!

And finally a down the rabbit hole fact for you - that image of Bush sitting in a classroom when 9/11 happened. The most famous image of Bush seen by nearly everyone in the developed world. He was in that school because he was trying to ban ‘whole word’ learning and push phonics first learning. This has really has been an invisible elephant in the room.

OP posts:
Fattypantss · Yesterday 17:31

Another2Cats · Yesterday 17:27

You're talking about a grammar secondary school. The pp claimed that it was common in junior school.

Ah I missed the junior school bit. The only people I knew who had started Latin in primary were private school children (mid 1980s).

Yetanotherone12 · Yesterday 17:31

Octavia64 · Yesterday 17:11

Deaf people do not learn to read using phonics.

it is possible to learn to read English without phonics.

in the uk phonics is used because fewer children fail to learn to read that way. Those children who can’t manage phonics (often children with grommets or glue ear or hearing issues) use other methods such as whole word recipgnition.

i don’t believe half of Americans cannot read

My nephew is at a US university. A good one at that.

in his second year they had a compulsory class in the metric system. In university.

yes. Metres, centimetres, millilitres, milligrams, centigrade etc.

it is just something that is not everyday knowledge over there. They were gobsmacked when dn “just knew” the answers. They learned inches, feet, yards, ounces, gallons, farhrenheit at school.

so nothing about their education system surprises me.

restinginpjs · Yesterday 17:30

@AirborneElephant I’m in my mid 60s and went to a school in north London. Absolutely no Latin taught there in my time.

wrongsock · Yesterday 17:29

i'm an 80s kid and was a competent at reading very early. i essentially recognise the shape of words and can read incredibly quickly. i think this is how most people with a natural talent for it learn. my daughter is the same. she could read chapter books fluently but had to attend intervention groups to pass the year 1 phonics test. barmy!

i think phonics is probably good for people who don't have this natural talent for shape/pattern recognition. or something.

TheBrunswick · Yesterday 17:28

My dgs could read quite well aged 3, i didn't believe dd when she told me, thought he was memorising the stories.
Aged 4 he took his bedtime story book off me and said he would read it to me, he did in Welsh! It wasn't written in Welsh.
He's a teen now and not keen on reading which is sad.

I think reading just clicks for some people, it did for me, I can't remember ever not being able to read.
I used to read every advertising board as we went past on the bus.
Dh did latin, I wish I had it's the stem of so many words.

Another2Cats · Yesterday 17:27

Fattypantss · Yesterday 16:55

I did Latin at my grammar in the early 90s and my 12 year old does Latin at her grammar school now.

You're talking about a grammar secondary school. The pp claimed that it was common in junior school.

MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack · Yesterday 17:26

Balalabab · Yesterday 17:12

I have seen you post a lot! You can definitely read I agree 😂

This average reading age of 10. This is what I am musing about. Are these people who can’t really read properly.

How many of these people know they can’t read?
How many of these people think they can read?
How many people are we actually talking about!

It’s really just blown my mind

I've done a lot of voluntary work with vulnerable people. Sadly, there are a lot of people in the UK who are functionally illiterate.

Feenie · Yesterday 17:25

Actually, Bamp is short for Bampi/Bampa - a word in Wales for Grandad. Can you really not read it?

swimsong · Yesterday 17:24

seahorsessky · Yesterday 16:44

It's possible to sound a word out using phonics and not know what it means.
Gleb.
Bamp.
You can read them...
Equally, some children did learn to read "whole word" and could read whole novels at 5.
So it's not about the method, and there's many different phonics schemes. All aspects of reading are important.

I can't decode gleb or bamp.
What do they mean?

Feenie · Yesterday 17:24

He wouldn’t have been seen dead without a shirt and tie — unlike some of the slovenly scruffs on parade at the teachers’ union conferences every Easter.

Why is Gove posting on Mumsnet? 🤔

Yetanotherone12 · Yesterday 17:23

MargotLovesTom · Yesterday 16:58

I'm in my mid 50s and don't know one person who did Latin at their bog standard state school.

In my school we first learned to read using ITA, and then had to forget that and learn the standard way (definitely wasn't phonics in the 1970s!).

Edited

I am mid-50’s and did Latin at a bog standard primary.

Latin was a compulsory subject for some uni courses ie medicine and was only phased out during the 60’s. I remember some schools still advised Latin for anyone thinking of med school until much later as it was deemed much easier when learning anatomy etc. and many uni’s still preferred it.

I could read before I started school and don’t remember how I learned. I remember almost recognising the word and my head matching it up to the sounds of spoken language.

Fattypantss · Yesterday 17:23

Lovemycat2023 · Yesterday 17:19

When people talk about being able to read is it really a binary thing? we have reading ages and doesn’t that mean some people read better than others? This is a genuine question as I have no kids or experience in this field. So for example some newspapers are written for lower reading ages (shorter words, fewer syllables).

Yes, the sun newspaper is written for a reading age of about 8.

I used to be a writer many years ago and we would have the same story and have to write it for different publications. The sun/star would be very simple vocabulary and a simplified version of the story, and you’d upscale the language for different publications, make the sentences and paragraphs longer.

Another2Cats · Yesterday 17:19

AirborneElephant · Yesterday 16:52

There was no national curriculum back in my day, that only came in in 1988. Latin was very common in state and private primaries.

Again, you don't mention which country you're talking about.

"Latin was very common in state and private primaries."

Speaking personally, I started junior school in 1972 and started secondary school in 1976.

I do not recollect any state junior schools back then offering Latin - and only one of the secondary schools did.

I was part of the first cohort in the county where I lived that was a comprehensive intake into secondary schools (ie the 11+ exam had finished the year before).

For context, I attended the junior school that had regularly got the highest number of pupils going to grammar school while the 11+ still existed. So this was exactly the sort of junior school, if any, that you might expect to teach Latin. But there was no Latin at all. Lots of PE and games though **.

To be fair, there was one of the three ex-grammar schools that did still teach Latin after then. Although, looking at the figures, only 18 out of approx 140 pupils sat Latin GCSE this year.

The other two grammar schools dropped Latin when they became comprehensives.

My experience was very different indeed compared to yours.

.

** I'm not in any way endorsing the attitudes of this columnist, but my experience of junior school in the 1970s was very similar.

About ten years later, I had the same headteacher as this guy (although, as girls, we only got to play rounders and netball rather than football and cricket):-

Mr Chips is making a comeback

For four years, from age seven to 11, the most important man in my life, after my father, was Eric Sutton.

I certainly saw more of him than my dad, who was often away on business. Mr Sutton — never Eric, heaven forfend — was there five, sometimes six, days a week.

He was the headmaster of my primary school, an important influence in my formative years. Mr Sutton had the air of a Regimental Sergeant Major and ran the school with military efficiency — not surprising, really, given that he’d served as an NCO in the Army Education Corps during World War II.

He had a piercing parade-ground bark, which could halt small boys in their tracks up to 100 yards away. That said, his bark was worse than his bite.

Mr Sutton was a disciplinarian with a fearsome cane on the wall of his study. I can’t remember him ever wielding it in anger. Maybe I’ve simply forgotten. But the prospect was deterrent enough.

If he did have to administer corporal punishment, it would have been in the spirit of the old adage: This is going to hurt me more than it is going to hurt you, boy.

[...]

Mr Sutton was a great believer in the virtues of sport. Our Dickensian school building didn’t have a playing field, so he’d march us crocodile-style to the local ‘rec’, rain or shine. In winter, we played football, in summer cricket.

After school and on Saturdays, he’d take teams to compete in tournaments. And he expected us to win. Eric Sutton would never settle for second best.

All this team sport was in addition to several sessions of vigorous PE every week and trips to the local open-air swimming pool.

He may have lain great importance on our physical development, but he gave equal — if not more — weight to nurturing our intellectual capacity.

These days, ‘passion’ is a much abused cliche. Every inept reality TV contestant professes their ‘passion’ for everything from fairy cakes to break-dancing. But Mr Sutton really was passionate about education in general and literacy in particular.

It was his ambition to get as many of his pupils as possible into grammar school, which he saw as the gateway to a better future. He succeeded spectacularly, his school regularly topping the table of 11-plus passes.

Some younger readers may think this sounds like a posh prep school for the privileged children of the well-off. Nothing could be further from the truth.

West Town Juniors and Mixed Infants, Williamson Avenue, Peterborough, was what we would now call a ‘bog standard’ state school.

But there was nothing ‘bog standard’ about the ethos instilled by Eric Sutton, who could have held his own in any exclusive fee-paying establishment.

He was a dapper man who always wore a sports jacket, complete with leather patches on the elbows, and cavalry twill trousers. He wouldn’t have been seen dead without a shirt and tie — unlike some of the slovenly scruffs on parade at the teachers’ union conferences every Easter.

Lovemycat2023 · Yesterday 17:19

When people talk about being able to read is it really a binary thing? we have reading ages and doesn’t that mean some people read better than others? This is a genuine question as I have no kids or experience in this field. So for example some newspapers are written for lower reading ages (shorter words, fewer syllables).

DeafLeppard · Yesterday 17:18

Phonics is the best way to get the vast majority of children reading fluently. It grinds my gears when people say “well it didn’t work for my child” as a reason to abandon a successful method that has considerable evidence behind it. To my knowledge it’s one of the few uncontested concepts in education!

Septembersunrays · Yesterday 17:17

bababamama · Yesterday 17:14

I read whole words, i didn’t really understand until my younger dd was diagnosed with dyslexia, then her older sister (who like me reads whole words) they tell me I’m dyslexic too but I can read everything, including scientific literature, it’s just a different way of doing so

And isn't it criminal that we are damaging DC self esteem and locking them out of education because we can only do one reading method.

Underchairstair · Yesterday 17:17

I don't really understand your OP because you ask about all the Gen Zs who won't be able to read but they're not being taught by whole-word methods, they're being taught by phonics which is now so ingrained in UK curriculums it's hard to imagine doing it otherwise. For those saying it's a faff, it's just learning to sound out words but learning the sounds in a regimented order so none are missed out. Natural readers will figure many sounds out before being formally taught them and that's fine and to be expected. A few children will struggle with sounding words out (just as they would have done in the 80s when taught them in a slightly less structured way) and will end up practising with sight words, which is also fine.

Delphiniumandlupins · Yesterday 17:15

risingup · Yesterday 16:58

Yes i've seen this too it's all over Youtube if you look. It's generational though, not all ages are suffering so not half the population by any means, a sizable portion though.

It's a covid thing. Huge gaps in learning. It's definately a thing here too, i've been in contact with too many people who were "educated" during Covid to not recogise that this is happening. Including the 18 year old lad working on the childrens ride who couldn't work out 10 minus 3. Thats just todays example.

But an 18 year old was 12 when Covid started so he was already well behind in his learning if he couldn't subtract 3 from 10.

bababamama · Yesterday 17:14

I read whole words, i didn’t really understand until my younger dd was diagnosed with dyslexia, then her older sister (who like me reads whole words) they tell me I’m dyslexic too but I can read everything, including scientific literature, it’s just a different way of doing so

Septembersunrays · Yesterday 17:13

Apparenrly a shocking number of DC leave school unable to read

Alittlefrustrated · Yesterday 17:13

My DN was taught "whole word" in UK school in the 90's. Dsis swiftly put that right at home.

Septembersunrays · Yesterday 17:13

Octavia64 · Yesterday 17:11

Deaf people do not learn to read using phonics.

it is possible to learn to read English without phonics.

in the uk phonics is used because fewer children fail to learn to read that way. Those children who can’t manage phonics (often children with grommets or glue ear or hearing issues) use other methods such as whole word recipgnition.

i don’t believe half of Americans cannot read

Of course it is possible many of us did.

I was a very early reader look and say by my mother and It all fell into place when I was three.

If I had been forced to read by phonics I too would have been left behind.

Balalabab · Yesterday 17:12

MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack · Yesterday 17:01

I learnt to read with the "look and say" method, which I think is the same thing as the whole word approach. I can definitely read!!

I don't know how my dd learnt to read. She was self taught before starting school. I certainly didn't teach her phonics though who knows what she might have picked up elsewhere. I suspect that she learned via some version of "look and say" but she did later learn phonics at school.

I think the average reading age for adults in the UK is around 10.

I have seen you post a lot! You can definitely read I agree 😂

This average reading age of 10. This is what I am musing about. Are these people who can’t really read properly.

How many of these people know they can’t read?
How many of these people think they can read?
How many people are we actually talking about!

It’s really just blown my mind

OP posts:
Septembersunrays · Yesterday 17:11

seahorsessky · Yesterday 16:44

It's possible to sound a word out using phonics and not know what it means.
Gleb.
Bamp.
You can read them...
Equally, some children did learn to read "whole word" and could read whole novels at 5.
So it's not about the method, and there's many different phonics schemes. All aspects of reading are important.

This nonsense stuff really confused DD 2 and it also affected her spelling .phonics was a barrier not an aid to reading.

The dd who did learn via phonics was also an early reader and read meaty books early on but her school was adamant she wasn't understanding them ( home books ) and couldn't be that far ahead.

With both DC ive had to step in and stop the school from damaging their reading journey. This is what people don't understand.