On Reading

Rating:
Summary: A sensible explanation of the complexities of reading
Review: In this short book Dr. Goodman makes the complexities of the reading process accessible to most any reader. It is understandable why Dr. Goodman's theory of reading has become so central to the world of reading today. So much of what he offers in this book just makes good sense.

Rating:
Summary: No Balony
Review: The "school" System has a vested interest in the micro-management of learning (to read) and thus grossly mis-applies whatever reasonable thing that comes its way, including the work of Ken Goodman. All bureaucracies have this tendency of micro-management, a stark example of which is the monstrous abuse of Jesus' teachings by the early Catholic Church, for which many people have rejected Jesus' message and humane example, in favor of yet another bureaucratic system of "accounability", namely, metaphysical humanism/secularism.(I don't mean to be controversial; I wish only the very best for people of whatever metaphysical pursuasion). Ken Goodman shows the stable center-position of the nature of reading. But then, because of its pursuasive power, the "school" system uses it to gain tighter control of childrens' learning to read and adults' efforts to help them read. Micro-managing the learning of reading is only as potentially handicapping for the learner as the complexity and the number of the aspects of reading which are being micro-managed. Thus, micro-management of learning phonics (which is only minor one aspect of reading) naturally has less potential for being a handicap for children in learning to read than is the case when a number of aspects of reading are being micro-managed---especially if those aspects are of a high intellectual order. Ken Goodman's argument for whole (holistic) language should be read primary with an interest in what is true of reading, and only secondarily with an interest in the question of reading instruction. To do otherwise only produces absurdities on both sides of the insitutionalized-reading- instruction 'wars': those claiming to favor Goodman's work and who claim to be proponents of whole language, but who miss the real point that Goodman makes and who then grossly mis-apply his work; and those who, largely because of this mis-application and its clearly more horrible consequences, blaim Goodman for that mess and call his argument balony. Many people call themselves Christians too, but, as one bumper-sticker says, "Jesus loves you, but everybody else thinks you're an ______" I hope I don't come across to some people as ranting at them. I only want to make the matter as plain as possible and in a quiet, friendly manner. Unfortunately, to make some crucial points clear sometimes requires giving examples that happen to be emotionally charged for many people. I hope this review encourages everyone to read this book (and every book) by Kenneth Goodman, and that it helps them truly understand the real issue that he addresses. I also recommend the comparable works of Frank Smith, especially his Understanding Reading and The Book of Learning and Forgetting. I appreciate your consideration.

Rating:
Summary: More baloney from Mr.Goodman
Review: This book is yet another vain effort to valorize the failed fad, whole language, by providing an alleged model of language and reading based on alleged research. The only problem is, serious research conducted by disinterested researchers shows that whole language basically does not teach many children to read. It is especially malignant when it is used on our most vulnerable children--disadvantaged children--for whom direct and explict phonics instruction is almost a necessity. The self-pitying style of whole language writers (complaining that researchers and politicians are against them) is too ironic to imagine. Who weaps for children made illiterate by whole language? Certainly not its advocates and purveyors.