Comments on: Learn to Swim by Drowning

By: Marie

Marie — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 04:58:20 +0000

Excellent article. I’m not surprised about Stephen Krashen’s notion that merely having libraries will increase literacy. Krashen has also been in favor the “no teaching” teaching method, a method that weirdly enough many ESL teachers believe in. Basically, it goes like this, instructing a student in actual language will not help a student actually learn. Put the student on a street corner so he or she can listen — get input. Eventually, they’ll learn the language. Hopefully, that student will learn how to ask, “Where’s the bathroom?” before peeing her pants.

Krashen might be right. Maybe students don’t learn by studying discrete parts of language. I know that students value that type of study, otherwise there wouldn’t be ESL classes. However, it doesn’t it seem that Krashen’s trying to pull one on language teachers when he basically doesn’t offer any true guidance on how to teach other than bleating, “Input, Input.” Why bother teaching? After all Krashen never taught ESL. He should know!

By: Greg Forster

Greg Forster — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 12:50:30 +0000

Most of your comment is devoted to arguing the merits of spending more on libraries, and on the relative merits of phonics and whole language. I just want to reiterate that those are both tangential to my post – my point was that the question of whether we should spend more on libraries isn’t really relevant to the question of whether we should continue Reading First, and if not, what we should do instead. Again, unless Krashen wants to stop teaching reading in schools, then we still need to figure out how we’re going to teach reading in schools. Talking about libraries as an alternative to Reading First is like talking about hospitals, police, roads, etc. as alternatives to Reading First – or talking about bigger swimming pools as an alternative to a controversial approach to swimming lessons. Even if it’s true that we need bigger pools, the question of how we should teach swimming remains.

And casting aspersions on Reid Lyon’s scientific credentials is really not a wise strategy. First, because his credentials are impressive, and second, because what matters is not who has the more impressive credentials, but whose argument is better supported by the available evidence.

By: Lori Jackson

Lori Jackson — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 11:40:00 +0000

I do not believe that Krashen is promoting any notion of throwing children into literary sandpits, although my parents both learned to swim in much the same way. Rather, he is pointing out that access to books is not equal to children of different socioeconomic backgrounds. Children in many communities are being asked to learn to ‘swim’, so to speak, in empty pools. Simply addressing this void in access will not in and of itself solve a problem, but it is a far more logical place to begin than a program that is too strongly phonics driven. This argument is not about whether or not phonics or whole language is the answer, but to what degree phonics alone can save a child drowning in an empty pool.

I find myself somewhat driven to point out that Krashen is a linguist, and as such, regardless of his philosophy, an expert in phonology. He should certainly be in a position to evaluate the role phonics play in the reading process, a far better position, dare I say, than Lyon or Spellings.

Sincerely,
Lori jackson

By: Scott

Scott — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 22:18:11 +0000

Better yet, let’s stock the refrigerator with food and the kids can learn to cook as well…it’s just that easy!