Category Archives: View

View 766 Friday, March 15, 2013

The Ides of March

Birthday of the late Stefan T. Possony

Yesterday I wrote a lot about reading and the modern education system. If you haven’t read that you should go back and read it, else what comes next won’t make much sense.

Also yesterday I mentioned that as we came back from our medical appointments, the car died. I had AAAS tow it to the local Shell Station where I trust the mechanics, and we came home. Today it is as good as new. I had the fuel pump replaced and the annual servicing done, and my old Explorer runs like new again. It’s an ancient car now – 1998 – but as my mechanic said, they don’t build them like that any more. It’s built like a tank, gets awful gas mileage but it’s reliable and should be good for years to come; and I don’t drive much so gas mileage isn’t a big factor. Keeping it serviced isn’t cheap, but a lot cheaper than getting a new car would be. As to the medical situation, most of it is over. Roberta and I and Sable all need more exercise, and we’ll just have to see to it that we get it. But all’s more or less well, and tonight I got the printer working that makes labels for my wife’s reading instruction program disk, so that problem is solved too.

[I got my Explorer after I wiped out my Bronco II in Death Valley driving home from a COMDEX.  Those who have been reading this page for decades know all about that, but for those who don’t, the Death Valley Adventure – I had to walk out – is told here. http://www.jerrypournelle.com/chaosreports/deathvalley.html and here http://www.jerrypournelle.com/pictures/death.html ]

Some of today was bizarre, and sometimes I feel as if I have slipped over into an absurd alternate universe. In one supposedly professional writers conference I was “given a time out” – her words – by the moderator for posting a comment to the answer to a question I had asked, and no, I don’t intend to explain any further except that I thought I was in a professional association, not a nursery school to be treated like a delinquent child. As I said, theater of the absurd. But I am slowly catching up with my life again.

Dr. Pournelle,

When our daughter was in kindergarten, she read Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone. Yes, she understood it with the help of her Parental Dictionaries and a bit of phonetic guidance with things like wingardia leviosa. My sainted mother-in-law took the place of an English nanny.

At the end the school year, her masters-level allegedly educated kindergarten teacher reported to us that, perhaps, with hard work, she might be "ready to read" by the end of first grade.

Thankfully, the "teacher" was gone by next Fall. I shudder to think she’s still teaching somewhere.

Charles Krug

The notion of “reading readiness” is one of the worst blights of the modern colleges of education. It is easy enough to show that English middle and upper class children routinely learned to read in nursery school, and unless you believe that the ruling classes have better protoplasm than you and I, then you must conclude that the secret was that the Nannies who taught the kids to read were able to do it because they believed it could be done. But teachers in the US learn in their first year of education school that you can’t teach the kids to read until they are ‘ready’ so it is not the teacher’s fault if the kids remain illiterate after a year or two or three of reading instruction. It is a ghastly theory, and one reason that Head Start does not in fact give much of a Head Start: if Head Start taught the kids to read in pre-school you would sure as anything be able to see improvements over the kids who hadn’t been to Head Start. But it will not happen.

The only way you can be sure your kids can read is if you teach them yourself. The best way to do that is through a systematic approach.

phonics and reading Jerry,

Roberta or one of your advisors may have some idea about our little "problem".

We have read to our son since before he was old enough to sit up, and he pretty much "taught himself" in the sense that we did not do anything more than read to him daily before bedtime and insist that he sit down with us during book time. We did get some of those phonics based series but read him a variety of books. At 22 months old, he excitedly took me around his daycare room to everywhere people’s names were printed, and he read out loud every name on every photo board, the printed class roster, etc. I thought that was interesting since he had also started reading out loud road signs while driving around, so we started giving him a chance to read the books himself instead of us always reading to him. He could get through most hop on pop type books on his own at around age 25 months and read through 2 complete learn to read book systems in just a few months. For almost a year, he would constantly point at any word he hadn’t seen yet and ask "what’s that?" Fast forward another 3 years, and he remembers just about every individual word he reads/hears with almost no repetition. He reads just as well upside down 10 ft away from the book as he does with the book right in front of him, something I discovered while reading to our 3 yr old daughter when he started reading ahead of us while sitting on the bed across the room.

My "problem" as you’ve probably guessed, is that new or longer words stump him a lot of the time because we did not insist on him learning and using phonics to begin with. He was doing so well pretty much all by himself and we didn’t want to ruin his enthusiasm by making it hard work. We have been working with him on "sounding the words out" whenever he encounters a new word, but he is resistant because if he can get us to say it once, that’s all it takes for him to remember it.

So, any ideas on how to progress? Should we force him to learn and actually use phonics, or sit back and let him figure it out? He isn’t even 5 yet and we’re a bit stumped on how much to press him on this, because kids don’t usually read on their own as early as he did and we don’t want to mess with success.

Our daughter wanted to "play dumb" while reading with us so we had a heck of a time getting her to even try to read, but we enrolled her into a preschool a couple days a week (we pronounced it "daycare" at first) and working with a teacher and other kids has really gotten her interested. She just turned 3 and has shown no interest in simply memorizing words so she is learning phonics out of necessity. In a few years, I wonder which of them will be reading better and with more comprehension.

I asked my wife about this. I have seen it before. It’s the lack of systematic training – one technique in Roberta’s reading program is “uncover – discover” – that produces the proper result. Smart kids like to guess and are often rewarded for guessing correctly. That encourages bad reading habits. They must learn to attack the words, and NOT GUESS. Guessing will be right often enough that it’s rewarding but deceiving; systematic attack with uncover-discover works every time, and trains good habits. Bright kids eventually unlearn the bad habits, but it’s better that they never form bad habits in the first place. For more see

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/OldReading.html

The longer you allow bad habits, the harder it is to lose them.

Much is Thereby Explained

Jerry

I read your view on Whole Word reading instruction with great interest, as it suddenly exploded in my head in a blinding light the reason for our present financial situation: the Whole Number method. All these folks were taught to *guess at the number and that was good enough.

Mike Flynn

I wish that were a joke. Ah well.

Two interesting links from long time friend and reader Ed:

Beautiful Time-Lapse Videos Show Comet Flying Near Crescent Moon:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/03/pan-starrs-time-lapse/

Set it to full screen. It’s not long

Ed

New nuke could POWER WORLD UNTIL 2083 .

Jerry

“The Waste Annihilating Molten Salt Reactor (WAMSR) is based on designs first dreamt up in the 1950s for reactors that used liquid rather than solid fuels. Two graduate students at MIT have now upgraded those designs so that the reactors can be fueled by nuclear waste, and also designed a safety system that will automatically shut the reactor down without power or human intervention.”

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/03/14/nuclear_reactor_salt/

“Most conventional nuclear reactors – in the US at least – are light-water reactors, but this design has a number of disadvantages. The reactors only use about 3 per cent of the potential energy stored in the uranium pellets that power them, and the resultant waste still contains enough energy to be radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years. The average US plant produces 20 tons of such waste a year.” <snip>

“The design is much more fuel-efficient than light-water reactors – using 98 per cent of the potential energy in uranium pellets – and a WAMSR unit would produce just three kilos of waste a year that would be radioactive for only hundreds of years rather than hundreds of thousands.” <snip>

“As a safety feature, WAMSR’s liquid-fuel pipes are connected to a drain plug of salt that has been frozen solid. If humans aren’t around and the power to the plant fails, the plug melts and the nuclear fuel drains into a holding tanks, cools, and solidifies over the space of a few days.”

Sounds good. We’ll have to see how it plays out.

Ed

I would love for it to be true, but I haven’t seen enough about this to have a right to an opinion.

I’ll try to do a full mail bag shortly. It’s late and this absurd day is over. But I was digging about in old View columns, and found an interesting illusion that may be worth your time:

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/archives2/archives2view/view385.html#Illusion

There is a lot of really good stuff back in those old archives of this place.  If you have nothing else to do some time you might find it interesting to go spelunking through them

View 766 Thursday, March 14, 2013

HABEMUS PAPEM

It is Thursday and I seem to be falling further behind. My apologies. We have more medical appointments this afternoon. Nothing terribly serious.

I am in a tearing hurry. I thought I had posted a reference to this essay by my friend Sarah Hoyt, but apparently I did not. A reader has reminded me:

What Sarah Hoyt wrote about what a school system attempted to do with her children is chilling. I am very grateful I was taught with phonics and encouraged when I demonstrated a smartass precociousness!

My sister was taught with Whole Language. She had a much harder time reading than I did, and she is an extremely well-educated and extremely smart lady. In many, many ways she has been way more successful in her career than I have been.

I asked her about her experience with Whole Language. This is her reply:

"I found myself limited most of my life until I decided to teach myself phonics. This has greatly increased both my reading skills and my desire to read!"

Regards, Charles Adams, Bellevue, NE

<http://accordingtohoyt.com/2013/03/11/malice-or-incompetence/>

"Malice or Incompetence?

Recently I came across a news article estimating that 80% of NYC graduates cannot read and write and are functionally illiterate. I’d bet those numbers are not far off across the country, and it wasn’t a surprise…

….Right here, let me tell you that if your kid is in school, chances are he or she is being taught to "guess" words, aka, "whole word." If you ask him if they use whole word, they’ll act shocked and say oh, no, they use phonics "in combination" with other methods. They told me all of this too, at the time. However, the entire lesson plan is geared towards guessing words, sometimes working from the meaning. (I.e. Terribly and Therapy are the same word at a glance because they begin and end with the same letters, so you’re supposed to "guess" one of them, and then work out which it is by the meaning of the rest of the sentence. [This was referred to, ten years ago, as the "whole language" method.])

Do I need to tell you that in a language that is largely phonetic – yes, I know all the exceptions, but it’s easier to work to the right word from a mispronounced version than it is to do it from "meaning" or "guess" – this is NOT only the way NOT to teach reading but is, ultimately the way to teach kids not to read. By turning words into ideograms, which they were never meant to be, you make reading too difficult for all but the most dedicated strivers.

I’m surprised the literacy rate is 20% I’m surprised it’s not 5%, and I wonder how many of those kids read well enough to read for pleasure…."

I intended to post a reference to this yesterday. Her essay is worth your attention. There are also comments, far too many for most to go through. One of them is mine, which I am reprinting below.

I must be off again.

For those concerned about reading: I recommend that every parent be certain their children can read before being sent to any school public or private. By read I mean be able to read essentially any English word, and I recommend you test by showing them nonsense words like deamy and cromagnanimous. Those won’t be “easy” but any five year old who can read can say them. Once children can read then their speaking vocabulary is their reading vocabulary, and they can read the rest of the words but won’t necessarily know what they mean. And they will get some wrong. I mispronounced covetousness until after I had my PhD because I never heard anyone else say it. But I knew what it meant from very early on because when I was about ten I heard about Dr. Faustus and looked him up in the encyclopedia. But that’s another story. The important point is that if kids can’t read phonetic nonsense words it is time to panic.

English middle and upper class children traditionally learned to read at age 4 in nursery, taught by nannies, and a nanny who couldn’t teach the kids to read wouldn’t keep that job very long. English protoplasm isn’t any better than American.

For those who haven’t the foggiest about how to do this, start with HOP ON POP and some of the other Seuss books which are quite phonetic, but to be sure you’d be better off with a systematic program. My wife developed a system when she was teacher of last resort in the LA county juvenile justice system, and we computerized it in early Windows days. It runs on any Windows system (alas the Mac version was for power chip Macs and won’t work on modern Macs).

You can find the program here:
http://www.jerrypournelle.com/OldReading.html

It is hokey, and not at all cool. It just works. It’s an insurance policy. Most kids if given reasonable instruction (not told to guess but told NOT to guess) will learn to read; but Mrs. Pournelle’s program is 70 lessons, about half an hour each, and when done (you have to get through each lesson to go on to the next) it is DONE. After that its just do some reading. Lots of reading. I am about to put the California 6th Grade Reader of 1914 on Kindle — about 2 weeks now — and that’s age appropriate up to about 12 or 14, all old public domain stories and poems. Kids often like poems. By the shores of Gitchee Gummi by the shining big sea waters… and so forth.

Relying on someone in a school, public or private, to teach your children to read is a bad mistake. At worst test them yourself: at the end of first grade they ought to be able to read Longfellow, and some will like him. Or Stevenson’s Child’s Garden of Verses. If they can’t read The Pleasant Land of Counterpane at the end of first grade, PANIC.

Enough. Sarah, we’ve discussed this stuff before, but apparently it’s getting worse out there now. There’s no excuse for kids getting a bad education, but they won’t get it from most of the public schools which exist to pay union rates to teachers with tenure. Some teachers will break their hearts trying to do more, but many give up early on. Don’t chance it.

For God’s sake be sure your kids can read.

On the one hand, I remember my parents telling stories of how my first-grade teacher asked us all to bring a book from home to read in class, and I brought "Tom Swift and his Ultrasonic Cycloplane", and she told them not to let me bring in books because I was obviously just making up the words instead of actually *reading*.

On the other hand…okay, so let’s say that you’ve got enough pronunciation skill and "sound of doubt" ability to pronounce "illiterate". How do you know what the word *means*? Is there a way to know what the word means without having someone tell you, at some point, that that specific combination of letters is a word that means "unable to read"?

You can’t play sports without learning to catch a ball. But pronunciation is no more the whole of reading than catching a ball is the whole of playing sports.

— M

I include this letter not to make fun of the writer but because it illustrates a point often made by reading teachers.

The theory of “whole word” reading comes from a study by professors of education, who observed the eye motions of accomplished readers and those of slow readers.  They found that the fast readers did not stop at each word and “sound it out”, while the slow readers did.  They drew the conclusion that phonics was a drag.

What they did not do was give both groups text rich in words they had never seen before. Had they done so they would have seen that the fast readers did in fact stop at unfamiliar words and mentally “sound them out".”  If it turned out to be a word they had heard and used they did this quite rapidly and went on with reading; if it were a word they had never heard before they did pause.  Some would try to infer it from context. Some would simply go on reading without understanding. That depended on the instructions they had bee given – read as fast as possible vs. understand as well as you can – and in part because of previous instruction and habits.  But proper studies show that fast readers do learn “whole words” after a while, as you and I do, but they have the ability to pause and ‘sound out’ words when they have to.  And of course those taught to guess get some right and some not right and appear to be reading fast but there are understanding problems.

Of course reading with understanding requires efforts to expand vocabulary – which is why “reading at grade level” with censored works of limited vocabulary is so dreary. 

About 2,000 words are sufficient to read and speak the English language, but if you want to enjoy literature you need the ability to read and understand more..  At some point reading ability is in fact dependent on IQ. At lower levels this isn’t really true. All kids from “dull normal” up can learn to read and write the basic 1500 to 2000 words required for reasonable communication. Some dull normals will never go beyond that. Some will, and in fact expanding their vocabulary may be good for them and expand mental horizons.  All this seems like basic common sense, and it is, but there is very little common sense, or even uncommon sense, among the conclusions of professors of education, many of whom have never actually taught a single student to read in their lives.  I don’t say this as a canard.  When my wife was working on her reading system we met such professors. They were convinced they understood the situation and didn’t need to waste their time teaching normal children to read. They could leave that to their students.  They were working on something more important.

English is over 90% phonetic.  Some words, like though the rough cough plough me through, have to be memorized; but most of the words commonly used are thoroughly phonetic.  Good reading programs understand this and deal with it. Whole word instruction simply assumes that all the words have to learned as if they were Chinese ideographs, because some must be. And I better stop before I get upset and ramble on for hours, which I can.

The important point is that if kids can’t read – if they have to rely on guessing – they will never be good readers.  Yes you may have to be told what illiterate means if you never saw the word before. On the other hand if you know literate and you know something of the rules of English words – say by 7th grade – you will probably see the word, sound it out, and understand what it means.  Now true  that’s a guess and can lead to mistakes. I could tell stories of some of the mistakes I made because words sound alike. Also knowing how to read the word bitch can get you in trouble in some social situations. I could tell you stories. But if you cannot read a word – which is to say pronounce it – you must show it to someone to learn both how to pronounce it and to define it. That slows learning something awful.  With modern computer equipment perhaps this requirement will change, but I would not bet my child’s future on that.  Teach them to read. It will take a couple of hundred hours – fewer if you use a systematic program like my wife’s – and it’s a cheap insurance policy.  Illiterates in the US are not likely to succeed.  There are exceptions but illiteracy is a serous handicap.

We got back from our medical appointments and the car drove nicely to the local grocery store where it promptly died.  It is 95 out there and that may have something to do with it. I don’t know. AAA towed us to our local friendly mechanic and he got us home.  A trying day all around.  I’ll see what I can do later tonight or tomorrow.

View 766 Monday, March 11, 2013

We’ve been a bit under the weather this weekend and have a doctors appointment this afternoon. My apologies to subscribers.  I’ll get something up tonight.

View 765 Saturday, March 09, 2013

I have a lot of mail but no time, and my day has been devoured by locusts, but I thought this mail might be amusing:

The government builds a chicken plant 

Dear Dr. Pournelle,

A useful cautionary tale which, I think illustrates both our inability to "help" other countries and the weakness of our own when it comes to building ANY private enterprise.

http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2013/03/09/the_biggest_blunder_america_ever_made_100603.html

"

In my act of the play, the U.S. spent some $2.2 million dollars to build a huge facility in the boondocks. Ignoring the stark reality that Iraqis had raised and sold chickens locally for some 2,000 years, the U.S. decided to finance the construction of a central processing facility, have the Iraqis running the plant purchase local chickens, pluck them and slice them up with complex machinery brought in from Chicago, package the breasts and wings in plastic wrap, and then truck it all to local grocery stores. Perhaps it was the desert heat, but this made sense at the time, and the plan was supported by the Army, the State Department, and the White House.

Elegant in conception, at least to us, it failed to account for a few simple things, like a lack of regular electricity, or logistics systems to bring the chickens to and from the plant, or working capital, or… um… grocery stores. As a result, the gleaming $2.2 million plant processed no chickens. To use a few of the catchwords of that moment, it transformed nothing, empowered no one, stabilized and economically uplifted not a single Iraqi. It just sat there empty, dark, and unused in the middle of the desert. Like the chickens, we were plucked.

In keeping with the madness of the times, however, the simple fact that the plant failed to meet any of its real-world goals did not mean the project wasn’t a success. In fact, the factory was a hit with the U.S. media. After all, for every propaganda-driven visit to the plant, my group stocked the place with hastily purchased chickens, geared up the machinery, and put on a dog-and-pony, er, chicken-and-rooster, show.

In the dark humor of that moment, we christened the place the Potemkin Chicken Factory. In between media and VIP visits, it sat in the dark, only to rise with the rooster’s cry each morning some camera crew came out for a visit. Our factory was thus considered a great success. Robert Ford, then at the Baghdad Embassy and now America’s rugged shadow ambassador to Syria <http://realclearworld.com/topic/around_the_world/syria/?utm_source=rcw&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=rcwautolink> , said his visit was the best day out he enjoyed in Iraq. General Ray Odierno, then commanding all U.S. forces in Iraq, sent bloggers and camp followers to view the victory project. Some of the propaganda, which proclaimed that "teaching Iraqis methods to flourish on their own gives them the ability to provide their own stability without needing to rely on Americans," is still online (including this charming image of American-Iraqi mentorship, a particular favorite of mine)."

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Hardly surprising of course; but we have all seen that chicken plant on the 6 o’clock news, more than once. This is called bringing democracy to the middle east. A policy of incompetent empire in action.

A follow up question.

A great part of the reason for the fiasco chronicled below in Iraq and also in the book "Little America " ( http://www.amazon.com/Little-America-War-Within-Afghanistan/dp/0307957144) is because we assumed that we could rebuild those countries as we did Germany and Japan after WWII.

Those events should be in your living memory. So question: Why did we succeed back then and so abjectly fail now? What’s the difference? Iraq and Afghanistan were every bit as prostrate as Germany and Japan were.

Respectfully ,

Brian P .

To begin with, we began training specialists in military government as early as 1943. We had also defeated Germany and Japan. The German economic miracle helped a lot, as did the Japanese customs of obedience and respect for law. Mostly, though, we sent competent proconsuls. Lucius Clay and Douglas MacArthur had their faults, but they understood the mission, they had the power to fulfill it, and competent advisors. We had Bremer.

That is the short answer. It would take a while to go through the details.

[B adds:

and we did not have an organization of left over Nazi’s and Japanese Imperialists sent by other countries to cause as much trouble as possible once the Axis were defeated.

which was certainly a factor.  In Japan the emperor ordered cooperation.  In Germany everyone was ready to denounce the Nazi’s. But in both cases we had proconsuls who knew what they were doing. Roland adds

How quickly we forget.

The date of this essay may be of interest, as well:

<http://www.hegemonist.com/hegemony/2003/07/how_quickly_we_.html>

How quickly we forget.

One of the most puzzling things about our adventure in Iraq has been the seeming near-total ignorance of anyone in government – including Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who’s old enough to remember the events in question – of the methods we used to restore order in the last two countries which we occupied for any length of time.

I speak, of course, of Germany and Japan after their defeat in the Second World War.

Of the two, postwar Germany seems the closer analogy; a secular uni-party totalitarian state, a tyrant who met his self-inflicted end out of the public eye (to this day, there are those who claim that Hitler escaped to South America, or Antarctica, or what-have-you), a fearsome secret police apparatus, legions of petty bureaucrats who made their livelihood by serving the regime in one form or another, and a wrecked public infrastructure. The situation was complicated by legions of displaced persons (‘DPs’) comprised variously of unhoused civilians, freed POWs, and of course the survivors of the concentration camps.

Yet there were Civil Affairs units moving forward with the various armies as they advanced, setting up registration centers, issuing officially-recognized ID cards and scrip, and generally keeping order while the front lines advanced. And once Admiral Doenitz, Hitler’s successor, signed the instrument of surrender . . .

 

Roland Dobbins

The entire essay is worth your time.

Our Republic is founded on the principle that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. Competent Empires have a different formula based on local leadership. Incompetent empires have no principle other than force.]

Dr Pournelle

SpaceX is gonna build your DCX.

SpaceX’s Grasshopper flies again

Grasshopper, the reusable launch vehicle (RLV) technology demonstrator developed by SpaceX, made its fourth flight on Thursday, according to government records. The list of flights performed under experimental permits issued by the FAA’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation <http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/launch_license/permitted_launches/historical_launch/> now includes a flight on Thursday, March 7, by Grasshopper from SpaceX’s test site near McGregor, Texas. The entry offers no technical details about the flight other than it was a vertical takeoff and landing flight.

SpaceX developed Grasshopper to test technologies it plans to incorporate into a future reusable version of the Falcon 9. The vehicle is a Falcon 9 first stage with a single Merlin engine and fitted with landing legs. The vehicle last flew in December <http://www.newspacejournal.com/2012/12/24/grasshopper-hops-ever-higher/> , flying to an altitude of 40 meters and staying airborne for 29 seconds. SpaceX previously flew Grasshopper in September and November.

A SpaceX spokesperson did not respond to a request for information about the flight on Friday afternoon. In December, the company waited nearly a week after the successful test flight before releasing videos of the flight and other information.

–New Space Journal <http://www.newspacejournal.com/2013/03/08/spacexs-grasshopper-flies-again/>

Live long and prosper

h lynn keith

The specifications for SSX of which DCX was a scale model put savability up at the top of the requirements. Savable and reusable. Savable means multiple engines, with the capability to land safely with one engine out. (In practice that might mean two out, one shut down to balance the engine that went out.) I had a brief conversation with Musk on single stage to orbit vs. having a reusable first stage or perhaps a zero stage to gain altitude but not necessarily velocity. He, along with many in the modern rocket community, liked multiple recoverable stages. That adds operations complexity. Both concepts need some X projects.