|
| |
| The
Reading Wars Continue |
 August 9, 2004
- The biggest hurdle facing education and our
nation stems from the extremity of viewpoints dominating public opinion
coupled with people who won’t hear or learn from what each have to say. Name
calling, skeptic disregard for new developments and fear of losing
credibility, all hinder cooperation between policy makers; blurring the
issues needing attention and hampering progress toward what’s best for the
children and society at large.
In light of this, I shouldn’t be surprised to find that we are still having
what are commonly referred to as "reading wars”. Scientific research that
debunked the viability of whole language based reading methodology is
apparently not enough for the education establishment to get rid of a dead
weight that has been pulling down the reading scores for the past two
decades. Instead of admitting failure and doing what’s right, the professors
continue to teach methods courses which are based on these substandard
methods for learning to read, under the guise of "balanced reading”.
So, why is this happening? According to Reid Lyon, at the higher education
level, where teachers are trained, the educational community is "latching on
to their beliefs, their assumptions, their egos and their careers rather
than looking very clearly at what works, what doesn’t, making sure people
know what works, measuring it and getting the kids up to snuff.” [1] If a
teacher genuinely wants to find out what the experts believe to be best for
the students, much of what is written in the educational journals continues
to support whole language couched in a "balanced approach” to literacy. This
is, even though much of the evidence for the whole language component of
reading instruction is unsubstantiated.
"In reading, anyone who publishes in any form is customarily referred to as
a "researcher" in conference programs. Reading conferences most often
attended by teachers are primarily marketing conventions for publishers,
trainers, and others with products and services to promote.” [2] The task
that faces the Department of Education is convincing teachers and the
administrators of school districts that much of the propaganda that passes
for research based theory is really not based on scientific evidence. There
is now a site called the What Works Clearinghouse
http://www.w-w-c.org/ which was created
to do just this; debunk non scientific educational research and help
educators determine which education methods are based on valid studies. The
No Child Left Behind Act upped the ante by requiring schools, which receive
federal money for needy students, use scientifically proven programs.[3]
It seems to me that through this requirement, NCLB is trying to promote
"best practice” in our nations’ schools by forcing the education
establishment to adopt instructional methods based on reliable research.
Furthermore, by testing students each year in reading, so that poor
instructional methods don’t leave "at risk” students substantially behind
their peers, NCLB wants to ensure that schools are adopting "best practice”
in a time table which can benefit those students who are caught in this
transition. Testing can help to ensure viable instruction is occurring in
the classroom.
Scientifically based research shows that beginning readers need to be able
to make a connection between individual sounds, or phonemes, and each
corresponding letter of the alphabet. For some students, this is a difficult
task because usually the individual sounds are clustered together in words.
When a child learns phonics, he/she is taught the relationship between sound
structure and print structure.
Because some Kindergarten and First Grade students already have an idea of
the sound/letter correspondence, they can learn to read under any approach.
The problem occurs when researchers believe progress is made because of, not
despite the teaching method. "At risk” kids need instructional approaches
that are based on what we know about the phonetic code. Good reading results
from a combination of phonemic awareness, phonics knowledge, fluency, good
vocabulary, and comprehension strategies. [4]
How does "whole language” fail at risk students? According to Louisa Moats,
"Shared reading" becomes the context in which children must figure out the
connections between letters and sounds. There is no specific instruction in
how to read the words sound by sound. Phonics is seen as a last resort, to
be used as needed with individual students based on their particular reading
or writing errors. Teachers should provide "mini-lessons" on the word
pattern or sound-symbol correspondence the children didn’t grasp. The goal
in "whole language” is to read a specific text, not to learn skills that may
generalize to all texts. Too much phonics diverts attention from thinking
about the content of the text. Phonics should be taught covertly, not
overtly. [5] Absurd as it seems, phonics is seen as too boring in and of
itself to keep kids’ interest.
Is it any wonder, then, that 95% of the kids who don’t read up to par have
never been taught appropriately? Teachers need coaching in how to best
assess each child’s progress in phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency,
vocabulary, and comprehension. Furthermore, teachers must have the training
to modify and adjust for each child encountering difficulty. Finally, they
need methods for teaching phonics. Only then can students go beyond not only
learning to read, but reading to learn.
Because the dominant form of reading instruction doesn’t work well, it is
necessary to implement pull out programs such as "Reading Recovery” to bring
children at the bottom percentiles up to speed. This expensive intervention
is in reality more whole-language. The persistence of Reading Recovery is
unjustified. It necessitates pulling students away from other classroom
activities which puts them behind. And just like in the teacher’s classroom,
its success is a function of what the child already brings to the table. [6]
From what I’ve seen, because the RR teachers can give so much individual
attention, they are more successful than the classroom teacher who must
dedicate his/her attention to a classroom full of students.
Unsuccessful RR students show declines in reading self-concept, "more
negative perceptions of their reading and spelling ability, and problems
with academic self-concept a year later. They also had more classroom
behavior problems.” Scientific studies by Tunmer consistently show "direct,
systematic instruction in sound-symbol decoding is more effective than the
incidental instruction used by RR.” [7]
Teachers of balanced literacy take cues in classroom instruction from the
leaders of RR in the United States, Irene Fountas and Gay Su Pinnell.
"Guided reading" which has taken the place of other small group instruction
is an extension of Reading Recovery. Other borrowed ideas include "running
records, predictable texts, incidental phonics instruction, teaching
children to guess at words from context and initial letter, the importance
of cueing systems, and decoding by analogy.” [8] Fountas and Pinnell believe
"there should be no predetermined sequence for decoding instruction;
decoding should be taught as students compose their own sentences and
stories.” [9]
Those who speak loudest against NCLB seem to have the most to lose. Authors,
researchers, professors all make money on their knowledge. They are invested
in their reputations and expertise. Teachers want to do the right thing.
Attaching the federal funds to "best practice” based on authentic scientific
research and testing the students on what they are to have learned would
seem only logical. There is no federal desire to tell the individual school
districts what that is, only what it is not. There can be no more excuses for
leaving the children behind.
[1, 4] Dr. G. Reid Lyon - Converging Evidence -
Reading Research - What It Takes To Read
[2, 5 ,6 ,7 ,8 ,9] Louisa Moats Whole Language Lives On: The Illusion of
"Balanced Reading” Instruction
http://www.edexcellence.net/foundation/publication/publication.cfm?id=45
Reading Rockets Launching Young Readers
http://www.readingrockets.org/
[3] ‘What Works’ Research Site Unveiled
http://www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=42Whatworks.h23
|
|
