

'Reading Rainbow' Reaches Its Final Chapter - presidentender
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112312561

======
dmpayton
_Grant says that PBS, CPB and the Department of Education put significant
funding toward programming that would teach kids how to read — but that's not
what Reading Rainbow was trying to do._

 _"Reading Rainbow taught kids why to read," Grant says. "You know, the love
of reading — [the show] encouraged kids to pick up a book and to read."_

Seems to me that if more kids had a love of reading, they'd pick up the rest
themselves, and the government wouldn't have to focus so much on cramming
basic phonics down their throats.

I attribute RR as one of the reasons I had such a high reading level as a
child. It made me want to read, so I did. And the more I read, the better I
became at it.

~~~
jswinghammer
It's also a troubling reminder of how when government gets involved in
educational programs things can change and potentially for the worse. I have
no idea if "Reading Rainbow" is better than things like "Word World" or "Super
Why!" (outed myself as a parent no doubt) but it seems as though people could
have decided that for themselves.

I don't really care for the new shoes that teach kids how to read though I
think that "Curious George" is fantastic. For those who aren't aware it's a
trial and error approach to learning where George learns things by
experimenting and no one gets yelled at for being wrong.

I think in the end that every time period has hits and misses in terms of
shows that actually reach children. Maybe something will come along to replace
"Reading Rainbow" when it becomes obvious that a show like that is needed
again.

~~~
emmett
Reading Rainbow was _created_ via government intervention...I'm not sure
that's a good example of how government should stay out of education. It seems
like government can do a very good job of education sometimes!

~~~
marcusbooster
Just because it was created for PBS I don't think it's fair to say it was
created via government intervention. They get roughly a third of their funding
from the state, a third from the private sector and a third through public
pledges. It's not like the government has any direct impact on the show.

------
sjs382
Can we please try for less inflammatory titles? Protocol on here seems to be
to copy the title from the source.

~~~
jobeirne
Please, please, please don't let Hacker News approach the tone of reddit's
front page.

------
tjr
What utter sadness! I too was inspired to read in mass quantities as a child
thanks in large part to this show.

Focus on teaching the mechanics of reading? Not unlike how mathematics is
"taught" to kids, draining all of the beauty out of it, only to be replaced
with misdirected memorization? No thanks. As dmpayton mentioned, imparting the
desire to read is important... the mechanics will be learned with much more
joy when there's a purpose in it.

And sure, we can have educational programs about the mechanics; some viewers
may need that. But please don't trade one for the other.

------
tokenadult
Why did you change the headline?

~~~
presidentender
That's a valid question. I changed it because my point in submitting it was to
draw attention to this part of the article:

 _The change started with the Department of Education under the Bush
administration, he explains, which wanted to see a much heavier focus on the
basic tools of reading, like phonics and spelling._

~~~
roundsquare
So I guess the question is... is this due to a reduction in kids' ability to
read or is it that we've just realized now that we're focusing on the wrong
thing?

HN is a pretty specialized group so the fact that RR inspired a lot of people
here isn't great data.

~~~
tokenadult
_HN is a pretty specialized group so the fact that RR inspired a lot of people
here isn't great data._

Very good point.

<http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html>

------
jcdreads
Great. Now I'll have that song stuck in my head just like I did for _years_ as
a kid.

------
pmorici
Theme song. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6j8EiWIVZs>

------
justindz
I read voraciously as a child because I respected and modeled my parents and
_they_ read voraciously. As single-income, lower middle class Americans we
couldn't afford a lot of popular luxuries but they would never turn down
buying a book--the only exception being cases where a used or library
alternative to a new book were readily available.

So, from my point of view, one thing missing from the equation is a focus on
increasing adult literacy. Parents who sit around watching TV all day tend to
have kids who sit around watching TV all day. Parents who read and write tend
to have kids who read and write. And the associated creative and mental
talents are sorely lacking in modern middle management in a way that I'd
really appreciate seeing corrected over time. And there's room for both
liberals and conservatives here: regardless of the argument as to whether
government should promote such behavior or it should be entirely a private
initiative, everyone can agree that maybe it's a good idea either way.

Sorry if that came off a bit snarky. Sore subject for me.

------
yesimahuman
I think the Harry Potters and Twilights show that kids DO love to read, they
just have to have a reason why. When I grew up, no one directed me to any of
my favorite reads like 1984 and Catcher in the Rye. Honestly, the whole
reading for a grade thing is so stale I can't believe it still exists.

College is much the same way. I just had a class where we read the novel
"Pattern Recognition." In this lovely novel they get all excited about some
artistic video someone posted to the internet, as if it was worth spending
millions of dollars to find out who posted it. Thus, I can understand how kids
might feel like some of the shit they have to read is just that: shit.

------
dill_day
Sad. It was always a treat when the teacher would put one of these on in
elementary school.

------
amanfredi
The article hinted at the decision being motivated by data, but was not
specific.

It seems likely that as televisions have become more common, younger children
and those from poorer families are watching, and have different educational
needs.

------
teeja
Until it's squashed out of them, children are born learning machines. They'll
quickly gravitate to whatever input stuffs them fastest.

If that's not authors any more, then it's up to the authors. Not to the TV.

------
mynameishere
I can't imagine that quantifying the success or failure of a program like this
is even possible. All you can quantify (and quite easily) is its popularity,
and so that's probably why it's being dropped.

~~~
presidentender
That's too bad. If the show succeeds, kids will read, and it will lose
popularity.

~~~
roundsquare
I don't think thats true. If a show inspires you to love reading, then (as a
kid) you'll associate reading with that show and keep enjoying it.

Plus, a show like Reading Rainbow isn't really going to long term viewers, its
going for the current generation of little kids.

That being said, if kids love reading before seeing Reading Rainbow, then it
will lose popularity, but thats okay because its goal is being fulfilled
anyway.

------
jsz0
It's a shame they didn't have the budget to continue the show and produce more
directly educational programming. The sad part is I think they're spot on with
the assumptions about childhood literacy. I am not at all convinced it's
simply an issue of access to education. There are bigger social issues at
play. Access to education is only as good as your motivation to learn and
that's what we're missing. Even at <10 years old so kids are already
developing a horrible sense of self-entitlement and a backwards culture
worship of ignorance.

~~~
ScottBev
Going through school I attended two high schools growing up: one was the one
of the best public high schools in the nation, the other was one of the worst.
The biggest differences between the two schools were not the teachers,
facilities or funding. It was hands down the parents and students motivation
and commitment to learning. Schools and teachers can only motivate their
students so much. The parents and the students themselves must be the ones
that drive the commitment and motivation to learn, regardless of the age of
the child. When attending the "bad" school teachers devoted significant and
resources to the minority of students that were motivated to learn because
they were allowed to do so.

Now being a parent with Every Child Held Behind (ECHB), teachers can't afford
to spend time with the motivated students to push them even higher. They must
dedicate all their time to the kids and parents that have no commitment. My
daughter has been in two elementary schools and both have treated her
similarly; she can pass the test without help so she's a low priority student.
I can't imagine where I would be without extra time spent by my teachers to
push me further.

Both of my sister-in-laws are elementary teachers and both have considered
leaving the field because of the constraints of ECHB. They can't teach the
kids that want to learn, because they need to spend any time they have with
"Johnny". When his parents actually bother to show up to a teacher conference,
they accuse the teacher of not educating their kid. Ignore the fact that
Johnny randomly shows up, is disruptive, is high on sugar and god only knows
what else, and exhausted -- that’s not their fault. Johnny can't be moved to a
special school or class, because that would hold him behind the rest of the
class.

Does Johnny deserve to have access to education and assistance to address his
issues - definitely. Does the rest of Johnny's class deserve to be held behind
because of Johnny's issues, no they don't. Please can eliminate the failed
policies of Every Child Held Behind.

PS - Any failings in my English are my own fault, not the teachers that I had
as a kid.

------
run4yourlives
I loved RR as a kid.

However, that being said, can we keep in mind as we reap our scorn on the
powers that be that this is a _tv show_ that talks about _books_.

There is a much easier way to foster a love of reading in a child. Here's only
one of many starts: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlottes_Web>

------
reedlaw
For those of you looking for a possible explanation as to why our education
system is such a failure, I suggest Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt's book, _The
Deliberate Dumbing Down of America_
<http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/MomsPDFs/DDDoA.sml.pdf>

~~~
fuzzmeister
I believe you have been modded down for two reasons:

\- The PDF you linked to is massive

\- The book, and the sites its homepage links to, seem very conspiracy-
oriented

~~~
reedlaw
Sorry, should have mentioned it is a ~7MB book. As far as conspiracy goes, can
anyone offer up a mainstream explanation as to why public education is such a
massive failure? If there is such an explanation, surely it would have led to
reform by now. On the contrary, as public education spending continues to
increase, literacy continues to decrease.

~~~
pmichaud
I want to echo the other reply -- I've discovered in my life that whenever
there is something wrong with a system, it's never a cabal deliberately
undermining it. It's always some perverse incentive for a group to act badly.
Look for the underlying perverse incentives.

------
TheElder
Demographic changes do have consequences.

------
electronslave
In other news, 'Gravity's Rainbow' is no more; Pynchon no longer assumed
erudite.

(I grew up with Reading Rainbow and look what it got me: bouts of graphomania,
a lifelong addiction to reading and a sinking feeling when I'm exposed to
contemporary long-form writing.)

