Talk:Reading education in the United States

2006 talk

The whole language approach is not the same as the "look-say" approach, though it does incorporate the use of sight words. The whole language approach emphasizes learning to read in context. The look-say, or whole word approach, has fallen out of favor, but there is still debate on the validity of whole language versus phonics. See the article titled "whole language".

The part on speed reading is contradictory to the article Speed reading.

If the work of the National Reading Panel has any bearing on "favor," then the Whole Language approach is definitely out of favor, instead of being the latest best thing. While its die-hard proponents, such as Kenneth Goodman, insist that their approach has been misunderstood, the term is almost anathema for teachers interviewing for public school jobs. In general, this article suffers from lack of references to support tricky claims, such as, "Its application to learning a primarily phonetic language like English has questionable value and has been associated with artificially inducing dyslexia." Jerekson 05:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I started work on Developmental Stages of Reading recently but am now wondering whether it might fit in better on this page. If not, I propose a link. Beckyam 21:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Needs Major Revision

This page duplicates information found on other pages, such as the phonics and whole language pages. Furthermore, it is not NPOV, in my opinion. Some editors clearly favor phonics and others whole language; this is problematic. Furthermore, the page never addresses instruction in other areas, such as reading comprehension and vocabulary. There have been many studies in both areas and these should be added. I propose that the page be almost completely rewritten, save some incorporation of key ideas.

I would like feedback on this proposal before I make these changes. Kearnsdm 09:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Inaccurate/untrue factual information

I removed this statement, "The Orton-Gillingham corporation market products products and training derived from the work of Samuel Orton and Anna Gillingham." This is simply a false statement -- there is no such thing as "the Orton-Gillingham corporation". The phrase Orton-Gillingham is used generically to refer to a type of method, and there are various companies and associations which incorporate O-G in their name -- example: "Institute for Multi-Sensory Education for Orton-Gillingham", "Academy of Orton-Gillingham" -- but these are separate, unaffiliated organizations. It's hard to "source" a negative (i.e., to prove that there is no such thing) - but a quick internet search will document simply that there is no Orton-Gillingham "corporation" to be found. Armarshall 14:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Very POV

Alf,

Your basic argument is illogical: if you are not an authority on a subject, then you are essentially incapable of telling what needs fixing and what does not. The fact that you can identify thematic irrelevancies does not change that; it only means that you have exposed some zealot incapable of seeing that justice should be done to the proposed subject if her arguments are to be intelligible.

Other commentators:

It is both comical and worrisome to see so many people commenting about various problems in reading instruction, and particularly problems to which the irregularities of English spelling give rise, when the commentators themselves write improperly punctuated or unpunctuated sentences riddled with errors in spelling. Humble yourselves! You should not take your interest in a matter as a reason for putting in your two cents about it--having an opinion is not the same as having a comprehensive grasp of the fundamental questions, nor is it the same as having the ability to unfold the matter, in its general outlines and specific turns, with a just and proportioned treatment at each turn.

Remember, a little learning is a dangerous thing, and each illiterate who arrogantly supposes himself to be capable of reducing the mess to order simply increases the chaos, and creates more disorder for someone truly knowledgeable to correct. In general, incompetents with a smattering of learning will not together produce an authoritative account, since none can call upon knowledge of such scope as would reveal all structural deficiencies, all thematic inadequacies, and all local errors. Together they are like the group of blind men and the elephant--only in this case, the blind men are attempting to perform reconstructive surgery on the elephant. Poor elephant!

And don't bother to attack me with tu quoque arguments--I simply changed the illogical order of one author's reference to the basic skills necessary for reading (surely knowledge of the language must precede the ability to recognize symbolic representations of words in that language--otherwise one would have no reason even to imagine that they were such representations), and changed "each...are" to "each...is." I take it that anyone capable of writing "each...are" should not be writing with such confidence about basic skills.

By the way, "very point of view" is not English; it sounds like "long time, no see" to me--that is, an English expression patterned on non-English syntax.

--Wordwright —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wordwright (talk • contribs) 19:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Much of this article is POV; I'd think that a section header of "Why English spelling is so bad" is something of a tip-off. I've removed most of the inappropriate bolding that was present, and changed some of the constructions such as "a shocking percentage" to NPOV versions; that aside there's still a lot that needs to be fixed that, due to my lack of authority on the subject, I'm not qualified to fix. In fact, I might as well mention that much of the article seems to be a polemic for English spelling reform rather than an article about Reading education. - Alf the Frisbee Kid

I agree wholeheartedly - the content of this article is far from encyclopedic and needs a significant re-write.

There are several existing articles specifically about spelling reform (see Category:English spelling reform). The spelling reform content in this article should be summarized and links provided to appropriate existing articles. Content from this article that does not appear in the other articles could be added.

Incidentally, I'm working on several other articles related to reading, including reading skill acquisition, methodology, influential researchers and educators, etc. If anyone is interested in working with me across multiple articles on the topic of reading, please let me know on my Talk page.

Best,

Rosmoran 16:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The entire Diane McGuinness section should be taken out, until she demonstrates that she has some real knowledge of how Chinese reading is actually taught and what it entails. Anyone who has learned to read Chinese can immediately discredit these numbers-based theories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.47.33 (talk) 17:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Factual dispute regarding the historical use of phonics in American education

Hi,

This section states the following:

Phonics has been the traditional method for many years going back to the start of the public education system in America.

This is partially true, but definitely misleading. Whole word methods go back at least to the mid 1800's, and earlier in Europe, specifically in France and Germany.

I will make the needed revisions in the next couple of days, but I wanted to flag the problem immediately.

Rosmoran 17:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sami

Whole word is a systemn of learning to read used by many who are not able toi access phonics as a system of learning. Although phonics is prefered by those who are able to use their Auditory Learning style, this is not the case for all. There are those who are Visual-Spatial Learners who think differently , they think in pictures and soi need to use a whole word approach. there arw also those who have Auditory Processing Disorder, who have a listening disability, and therefore require a visuial alternative to phonics. look at the work of Dr. Linda Silverman (USA) and and Dr. Lesley Sword Australia, and others a good artilce that sumerises these issues can be found on the APDUK web site by Cate Turner (including citations) "Visual Spatial Children: Learning Disabled, Learning Disadvantaged,or Learning Differently" http://apd.apduk.org/cate_turner.htm or http://apd.apduk.org/catesintro.htm

there is also a copy of "Whole Word" from Dr. Silvermans book Upsidedown Brilliance at http://www.apduk.org/learningstyles/vslwholeword.htm

The factual dispute is created by those who are phonics only zealots who have no understanding of the needs of others, and are not prepared to learn about all inclusive teaching practices, we have them in the UK, and thye like ti discuss teaching systems but fail to see how this affects those who have problems with their prescribe methods. And they even go out of their way to deny the existance of medicla conditions such as APD because to accpet that APD exists would discredit their preffered teaching methods, and their income from the programs that they promote.

best wishes

dolfrog 00:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

As i have mentioned before WIKI is not just about the USA so this Dispute is an irrelevance so i have removed the dispute So this is merely a locla dispute to the USA, which from my experience of the specialis tUSA reading forums is split about this specific topic, which is never resolved because each side i too polarised by their financial interests in providing reading progrqams for schools rather than helping children to read.

dolfrog 00:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Dolfrog,

I don't understand what your rant is about this time. In my post dated July 31, I said that it is incorrect to describe "phonics" as the traditional method of instruction in the US, going back to the beginning of American public education. My point is merely that whole-word types of instruction have a long history in the US. How does this statement make the article US-centric?

Where is your issue with what I'm saying?

Which section of this article do you have an issue with?

I have to say, I get tired of seeing you rant repeatedly about the same vague "issues" without making specific, productive recommendations for how to improve the articles.

Rosmoran 05:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Reverted edit regarding reading comprehension

Hi,

Someone made a good faith edit to the following text in the section "Cognitive elements of reading" section:

This text:

Children who readily understand spoken language and who are able to fluently and easily recognize printed words do not have difficulty with reading comprehension. However, students must be proficient in both competencies to read well; difficulty in either domain undermines the overall reading process.

was changed to this text:

Children who readily understand spoken language and who are able to fluently and easily recognize printed words are less likely to have difficulty with reading comprehension. However, students must be proficient in both competencies to read well; difficulty in either domain undermines the overall reading process.

I changed it back to the original text because that is what the cited reference says. It's fine with me for this to be changed, but the change will require a different reference to be cited for that sentence.

Best,

Rosmoran 22:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

US / UK / other English-speaking countries.

Are there any references to difficulties experienced by beginner readers in other than US English-speaking countries? Or it is all like 'we r dumb cant read'Linefeed (talk) 14:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The epithet-heaviness of "in-other-than-US-English-speaking countries" would be fine for German, but is certainly barbaric English; quite illogical, too, since by definition the only country in the world in which people speak American English is America.

What if Americans had had a colonial empire which born-Americans had settled, taking their American English with them? Well, as with the English settlers in America, so with those American settlers in a hypothetical elsewhere: after a generation of life in new environs, facing local problems, and under novel pressures, and perhaps dealing with indigenous peoples speaking their own languages, the settlers and their children would speak an English colored with various strains and turns and extensions indicative of their apartness from the motherland--radio, television, and computers, and all other agents for linguistic conservatism or homogenization notwithstanding.

These hypothetical settlers would have no reason to call their speech anything other than "English," much less to add the qualifier "New American," since such a qualification would make sense only from the point of view of outsiders. After all, we in America say that we speak English--as opposed to Spanish or Chinese or Russian; we do not distinguish our variety from those spoken in Great Britain by implicitly adopting a historical stance, as we do in calling a certain section of the country "New England"; instead, implicitly committed to taking our own version of the language as a norm, we refer to "British English" so far as we perceive speakers in the British Isles to depart from our norms; so far as they do not, we simply recognize them to be speaking English, too.

But one might argue that those innocent of all literary culture, who, though native speakers, prove themselves utterly bereft of Sprachgefühl (as the quite unintentional Germanism of which I complain makes manifest), don't really speak English; what comes from their mouths and flows from their pens and crackles under their fingers onto the screen isn't English, but its putrescence, a linguistic offshoot from those in whose minds Mencken's English is quite moribund, an offshoot which, some hapless day, will coalesce into a vulgar tongue to whose speakers my words here will be utterly opaque.

In general, I can't understand why you worry about "references" to difficulties in other countries, rather than about simple difficulties, or why you think it necessary to bring up the matter at all: since the difficulties in other countries are difficulties for people in those countries, no one in any other country has a moral obligation to worry about them.

Your zealotry is therefore implicitly paternalistic. Under the belief that an article written mostly by Americans is morally suspect because the authors fail to discuss problems in other countries, problems which they do not face and about which they know nothing, you screw yourself up to such a pitch of self-righteously generous anxiety to see these other countries "included" that you forget one supreme point: teachers and researchers in Belize, Trinidad, India, or wherever are perfectly capable of determining, by themselves and for themselves, whether American research serves them quite well, or whether, in fact, their situation is so utterly peculiar that what from their point of view is foreign research, though in English, fails to address their situation. In the first case, they will see no need whatever to assert any national particularity, for from their point of view they are not "excluded"; in the second case, theirs and theirs alone is the initiative to take the comprehensive view on problems in their own country and publicize them to specialists and laypersons of their own country, the only audience who will truly care.

In the first case, your worry is perfectly otiose and obnoxious; in the second case--well, if teachers and researchers in these other countries need reminders from outsiders that publishing surveys of their own social problems and possible remedies for their own society is better than relying, silently and uncritically and so slavishly, upon surveys which peoples of an entirely different society make to remedy, in their own circumstances, their own peculiar problems, then perhaps they face difficulties far more serious than uncertainty about the best methods for teaching their own children how to read.

The moral? If you truly understood the problem, you would have taken steps to invite researchers and teachers from countries whose social problems of education are missing from the article to write a section. Certainly if a team of scholars were editing a volume of articles, or an encyclopedia, about reading instruction, one scholar would have taken that step. But since this is Wikipedia, and any nitwit can write about anything whatever, any lack of points of view bespeaks lack of interest, or lack of need, on the part of those persons whose points of view they are.

Finally, you might better have asked the speculative question of whether these other countries simply don't have problems familiar in the States and in Great Britain; I do not assert that they are free of such problems; I say simply that your cynical question is quite ungenerous, for you have universalized the obvious contempt you feel for Americans. Americans are indeed contemptible in many ways, precisely because of their exceptionalism; if you had kept American exceptionalism in mind, you might not have been driven to express yourself using a quite American form of drivel.

--Wordwright

The section on Chinese

The section on Chinese has quite obviously been summarised by a non-speaker of Chinese from a book written by an amateur on the Chinese script. To say the least it is extremely confusing. To be more accurate, one would have to say it is garbled and almost completely unintelligible to someone who understands Chinese writing, let alone someone who knows nothing about it.

123.121.193.121 (talk) 09:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The section on Chinese is total nonsense. It confuses (written) Chinese with Mandarin, totally ignoring other Chinese languages. It also confuses words with syllables (the Chinese writing system differentiates homonyms). m.e. (talk) 05:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Languages other than English

This article only covers education in reading English. It should be either renamed or rewritten. m.e. (talk) 05:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

There does seem to be some discussion about Chinese, and about comparing English reading instruction with that of other alphabetic languages, but I agree that it would be good to either rename this article or greatly expand the non-English-language sections. --WhiteDragon (talk) 20:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

English is (or is not) an alphabetic language

I would have to disagree with the statement in the article that English is not strictly an alphabetic language. English is by definition an alphabetic language, since it only uses the 26 (or 52 if you count uppercase) letters of the English alphabet. There are no ideograms or logograms. --WhiteDragon (talk) 20:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I think they mean English is not a phonetic language. Atleast, that is the word I have always used. Yaris678 (talk) 13:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Move this talk page back to the main article

Reading education In the USA → Reading education in the USA — This talk page (with a capitalized In) has become separated from the main article.

• The upper-case-In has no main article and a full talk page.
• The lower-case-in has the main article with a talk page redirecting to the upper-case-In talk page.

The simple-minded way of rejoining the articles doesn't seem to work and I don't know what to do. YBG (talk) 07:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. —harej (talk) 11:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Wiki reading project

There is a great need for a WIKI Reading project. There is a complete lack of continuity betweeen all the WIKI reading articles, and many are opinion based, there is also a need for a reading by country category to explin reading langauge by langauge, country by country. Bascially the whole range of Wiki reading articles are a mess

dolfrog (talk) 12:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Fringe theory

Nowhere before have I come across the origins of the English language as coming from 9 sources, which this article stated. The mainstream acknowledged origins is that English has Germanic (Dutch) origins. Can another knowledgable editor review the edits and verify the accuracy please. Qaziphone (talk) 05:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Have a look English langauge , Indo-European languages , Germanic languages , Proto-Germanic , Germanic peoples . It is all about the history of language, and how events in history shape the langauge we use today. The english langauge is more about those who invaded England from the time of the Romman Empire until the present day, so you will have to read the hsitory of both the langauge and the peoples who developed it over a couple of millenium. There is a need to understand the history of the langauge you are trying to read, and especially when trying to teach others to read.

dolfrog (talk) 11:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we agree that English has evolved over time due to words being added, etc. But the acknowledged origins of the language are Indo-European, yes?

I see you've added an "unreliable source" tag to some of the references. Which reference do you think is unreliable and why? Qaziphone (talk) 17:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I am asking for verification of

1. ^ A history of the English language By Richard M. Hogg, David Denison (Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp. 3
2. ^ A history of English By Barbara A. Fennell (Wiley-Blackwell, 2001 ISBN 0631200738, 9780631200734) pp 2

nietherof which are avialalbe on the internet, are there any peer reviewed research papers from say pubmed or another realiable source to support these references. The reason I ask is that thaeyu would appear to have a limited understanding of the origins of the english langauge as deascibed in the "Alphabetic principle and English orthography" section. Just asking for consistancy within the article as a whole, which is a complete mess as per the various clean up requests at the top of the article. the article needs a lingusitics expert to sort it out. You could ask for help at one of the wiki projects at Wikipedia:WikiProject Linguistics dolfrog (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Dolfrog, it is a mess really, but it probably needs some restructing more than anything else. Qaziphone (talk) 23:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

This book by the same author as the first source mentions the other origins of the language on pg.13. The second source is available at Google books here and page 2 mentions the other origins of the language. While they both say that English (link to main article which says the same thing) has Germanic origins, both qualify this by explaining the other major influences on the language. I think you'll find the user just wanted to get rid of the term "British Isles" in the original version and deleted accurate and sourced material at the same time. Wiki-Ed (talk) 18:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the references. Also, please read WP:NPA. You're now the 4th British editor that has attacked me for no reason other than the edit concerned the British Isles. Youre saying that the previous content was more correct than what is regarded as established mainstream facts? I say that youre more concerned with preserving any text that has the term British Isles whether it is correct or not. But I dont care about using British Isles and Im not going to get hung up about it either way. If you want to work British Isles into the text in a way that you can reference properly and adds to the article, that would be good, please go ahead. Qaziphone (talk) 23:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Qaziphone I think what the wiki-ed was trying to say was that the editor who made the original edits to delete all of the information prior to your intervention was more concerened about the reference to the British Isle. You sem to have a thing about UK editors, I am one as well, if you can forget about the issue of the British Iles which is of no real importnace to me. Th issue I am concerned about is the history of the english langauge being correctly represented, as it is in the "Alphabetic principle and English orthography" section, as i mentioned before. So you can create new section in this article "The History of the English langauge" with similar content as in the "Alphabetic principle and English orthography" section. while at the same time deleting all other content defining to the history of the english language in the rest of the article. And the WIKI-ed confirmed that both the references you included confirmed these wider origins of the english language.

just a question waht do you mean by "what is regarded as established mainstream facts" my follow up question would be "mainstream facts, Where?"

dolfrog (talk) 01:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. I dont have a thing about UK editors, just particular editors that act in concert and start to attack other editors over stupid phrases like British Isles without bothering or being concerned with facts. But Im not going to be drawn by them any longer, theyre not worth it. Youve raised a good point and I believe that there is unnecessary duplication between the "Alphabetic principle and English orthography" section and the "History of English spelling" section. What about we just remove the duplicated part in the "History of" section? We can probably create a link to the "History of English" article too. What do you think? Qaziphone (talk) 02:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Point of view in history section

Further to the above discussion, the history section is pretty bad too. It's entirely written from a viewpoint that there's a problem.

To further complicate the matter, the early publishers hired many foreign typographers because originally there were very few British typographers. etc - source?

Dr. Johnson made a very serious linguistic error - source for this assertion?

Due to the changing pronunciation of words with time, what was bad in 1755 is even worse today - secondary source for this?

Time required to learn to read English compared to other alphabetic languages - section totally focuses on the views of a handful of spelling activists. Frank Laubach in particular was a missionary with Views on language; his system is one of many literacy initiatives. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Expert wanted?

Yes, WP:POV is part of the problem. More general, as I see it, is the lack of concern for appropriate placement and organization. Thus, unhelpful links such as U.S. are generously repeated, while links to relevant articles are sparse. Various matters are stuffed into various paragraphs and sections to which their relevance is tangential, and whole sections (history of the language, for example) are too long for their relevance to the article, poorly written, and more poorly linked to better articles on their topic. I mean, let's not be nasty towards illiterates, but let's also not rely upon their skills to produce clear, concise, cogent literature. Flags for some of these problems are plentiful, especially for arguments that are not only uncited but tendentious, but they haven't inspired anyone to tackle those problems. So, today I trimmed a bit of the tangled underbrush, and hope not to be alone in this. Jim.henderson (talk) 12:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Going a bit further, I don't see that the flag calling for a topical expert has attracted or will attract appropriate attention. My impression is that several people with experience in the field have inserted their diverse and well informed concerns and opinions willy-nilly, forming an amorphous, uninformative morass of text. The article needs less, rather than more of such material and no section needs expansion at least until the dead wood is hacked out. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

In US

Not sure why Reading education is forwarded to Reading education in the US, or why this article is named the latter. Most of it isn't nation-specific.--Strangesad (talk) 20:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC).

Sudbury promotion

Reads like a marketing effort from the sudbury Schools. Mind if I delete?

"Learning to read and write in Sudbury schools Sudbury model of democratic education schools assert that there are many ways to study and learn. They argue that learning is a process you do, not a process that is done to you; That is true for everyone. It's basic.[29] The experience of Sudbury model democratic schools shows that there are many ways to learn without the intervention of teaching, to say, without the intervention of a teacher being imperative. In the case of reading for instance in the Sudbury model democratic schools some children learn from being read to, memorizing the stories and then ultimately reading them. Others learn from cereal boxes, others from games instructions, others from street signs. Some teach themselves letter sounds, others syllables, others whole words. Sudbury model democratic schools adduce that in their schools no one child has ever been forced, pushed, urged, cajoled, or bribed into learning how to read or write -- no need to do that to the modern child, streetwise and nurtured on TV -- and they have had no dyslexia. None of their graduates are real or functional illiterates, and no one who meets their older students could ever guess the age at which they first learned to read or write.[30][31] In a similar form students learn all the subjects, techniques and skills in these schools."--Strangesad (talk) 03:34, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I moved this, since nobody objected.--Strangesad (talk) 20:19, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Ridiculously slanted coverage of spelling reform

Section 5.1:

>Attempts to make English spelling behave phonetically have given rise to various campaigns for spelling reform; none have been generally accepted. Opponents of simplified spellings point to the impossibility of phonetic spelling for a language with many diverse accents and dialects. Several distinguished scholars, however, have thoroughly disproven all reasonable objections to spelling reform, including this objection. See, for example, Dictionary of Simplified American Spelling.[42] Thomas Lounsbury presented a devastating rebuttal to all reasonable objections to spelling reform in 1909.[43] A shorter rebuttal of all the reasonable objections to spelling reform was made by Bob C Cleckler in 2005.[44]

This is clearly editorializing. Language like "thoroughly disproven all reasonable objections" and "devastating rebuttal" do not belong on an encyclopedia that purports to have a neutral point of view. I don't really know very much about the subject but it's clearly an area of controversy (at least going by the English-language spelling reform page), therefore this section should either be rewritten to fairly summarize the debate as it stands, or expunged entirely. 2A02:C7F:4649:5800:502C:F07:D199:11A6 (talk) 18:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

How to deal with the redirect from Reading education to Reading education in the United States?

The consensus is to create a stub for Reading education.

Cunard (talk) 00:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

How to deal with the redirect from Reading education to Reading education in the United States? The redirect from Reading education does not seem optimal, because it surprises readers who arrive here via a link to Reading education (WP:SURPRISE). Would it not be better either to turn Reading education into a stub article for the general topic, or else to move this article to Reading education and add {{Globalize}} to indicate that the article needs to be globalized? Biogeographist (talk) 17:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

• Create a stub for Reading education. Reading education in the United States is large enough to stand alone as an article on its own rather than make the new article very unbalanced. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
• Create a stub per Finnusertop. I'm not sure this needs to be an RfC, so if it's alright, I'm removing the tag. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:45, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Copyeditor passing by

A few sections seem too generic to be here in an article talking about the United States. With the exceptions of sections "History", "Practical application", and "Instructional methods", everything else could be moved over to Reading education. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Suggested merger

Please discuss at Talk:Learning to read § Suggested merger the proposed merger of Reading education in the United States with Learning to read, proposed by Jnhmunro. Biogeographist (talk) 15:01, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• I have added a "history" section with a view to merging Reading education in the United States with Learning to read. I Have attempted to use as much of the good material and references as possible from Reading education in the United States. I realize a great deal of work has gone into the Reading education in the United States article.

• I have also added a section called Reading achievement: National and international reports. Please let me know if you have any suggestions. I may continue to tweak this section.

John NH (talk) 00:40, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Preparation for merger of "Reading education in the United States" with "Learning to read"

I have added information to the History section in "Learning to read" from the Phonics page "Practices by country or region". I believe the Learning to read article can now stand on its own, so if there are no objections I will soon redirect "Reading education in the United States" to "Learning to read". John NH (talk) 14:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)