This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Education This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Hi: We need to decide the appropriate level for this article within the education category tree. At one time the top level education category was overgrown with hundreds of articles, which made finding things quite difficult. Efforts were made to develop subcategories and move most articles to meaningful subcategories. Over the last several weeks I've been monitoring articles which appear in the general education category (usually a few every day) and sorting them into one or more subcategories. I believe that this article should be moved out of the top level education category. I think keeping it in the Education category would require some rationale comparing Three R's with other topics in the top two levels. By the way, why the apostrophe in R's? Nesbit 16:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to move this article out of the education category to a more specific one. Any objections? Nesbit 01:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The use of ' in the article's title indicates a deficiency in the 2nd "R." Normally, the apostrophe is used to indicate either possession or abbreviation. Nesbit 15:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the THIRD "R" should be "Reckoning". I was told this by a "seasoned" professor at a Midwest Education College. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.76.134.94 (talk) 14:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought that the 3r were rote, reading and Reckoning Bihco (talk) 19:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to Mortimer J. Adler, in his book, "How to Read a Book" (1940), the third "r" is "reckoning". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.84.56.233 (talk) 22:12, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reading, wRiting and aRithmetic are the 3 Rs according to 20th Century educators in the UK. [1] – Dyolf87 (talk) 17:30, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...

• "I believe" flouts WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, etc.
• re Adler, I can only see a snippet here, but he does write "I meant ..." there. Apparently, he didn't mean that as an assertion re the meaning taken more generally.
• re (a)rithmetic, counting google responses seems to favor that.

There is WP:DUE; that says, "all significant viewpoints [...] in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

basic skills is currently linking to Direct Instruction. This does not seem right to me. I am going to change the link back to Basic skills Dbiel ^(Talk) 00:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a weasel words tag. Is there any section specifically that you think might have weasel words? --Xer0 05:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The longest section in this article slams the three Rs as "dated and obsolete." What about some discussion of the importance of mastering basic skills as a necessary groundwork to higher-level skills? How do students who can't read, write, and do arithmetic learn higher math or develop the critical reading skills necessary for evaluating history textbooks? Am I in error in believing that the expression "3 Rs" refers to the necessity of teaching basic literacy and numeracy as a groundwork, rather than to the exclusion of everything else? I really don't get it, and I'm a social democratic musician and college professor, so it's not like I believe in a narrow, reactionary approach to education. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe in a narrow, reactionary approach to education, and yet (or for that reason) I find myself in full agreement with Mr Kekek. 94.3.176.230 (talk) 16:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why there is a link to Five Capitals, other than it is another example of "<number> <noun>". I propose that it is removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomgurn (talk • contribs) 14:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The three Rs were originally "reading, reckoning, and rhetoric" - thus three words that actually do begin with R. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]