Public Action Required

Whole Language High Jinks, How to Tell When Scientifically-based Reading Instruction Isn’t, Louisa Moats, (2007) The Thomas Fordham Institute.

“Science builds consensus among people in a way that few other disciplines can, if only because the nature of its proofs makes dissent so difficult. The path to consensus via science is rarely straight; it can take years to achieve and the battles can be bloody. But eventually, the accumulation of evidence is hard, even impossible, to ignore.” But ignore it is what is happening everyday in our school systems to the detriment of our kids, especially the “Gap children” who are most harmed by the unscientific methods favored by the “education experts” who aren’t.

“For more than three decades, advocates of “whole-language” instruction have argued—to the delight of many teachers and public school administrators—that learning to read is a “natural” process for children. Create reading centers in classrooms; put good, fun books in children’s hands and allow them to explore; then encourage them to “read,” even if they can’t make heads or tails of the words on the page. Eventually, they’ll get it. So say the believers [brainwashed by ed school training].”

“But students aren’t “getting it.” By almost any measure, U.S. reading scores have been too low for too long. Consider the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Since 1992, its results for reading by fourth and eighth graders have been almost uniformly bleak. Among fourth graders, just 31 percent of students in 2005 rated proficient or better. That’s just two points higher than in 1992. The exact same scores were recorded by eighth graders over the same time span.”

“For at least a decade and a half, in other words, despite standards-based reform, despite No Child Left Behind (NCLB), America has failed to significantly improve the percentage of its children who can read at levels that will enable them to compete in higher education and in the global economy.”

“This comes as no surprise to scientists who have spent decades studying how children learn to read. They’ve established that most students will learn to read adequately (though not necessarily well) regardless of the instructional methods they’re subjected to in school. But they’ve also found that fully 40 percent of children are less fortunate. For them, explicit instruction (including phonics) is necessary if they are to ever become capable readers.”

In 1967, Jeanne S. Chall published Learning to Read: The Great Debate which laid out the arguments against Whole Language. This, instead of settling the debate stimulated an intense dispute that consumed much of the 1980s and 1990s. This caused the formation of the National Reading Panel, charged with deciding once and for all which approach works. Its findings were not favorable for Whole Language adherents. The panel identified 5 elements children needed to master to become good readers: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. These came to be known as “scientifically-based reading research” (SBRR) programs. NCLB in 2001 required that schools receiving federal dollars had to use SBRR materials.

You might think that would finally solve the problem. Wrong!! What happened is an indictment of the ethical integrity of our education fiefdom as a whole. If SBRR is the requirement, then Presto, just rename the old Whole Language programs as SBRR and go on as before, continuing to harm children and their futures. Thus, since 2001 Whole Language is even more prevalent than before the NCLB requirement. That is, pseudo-SBRR programs have received federal money to expand their impact. It seems that the only thing you need to do is advertise you are meeting the requirements to get by. It reminds me of the three monkeys, see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil.

You might ask how supposedly “expert educators” could be fooled? Because they want to be is it in a nutshell. They have been trained [incorrectly] in their ed schools and subsequent professional development to believe in the romantic ideas [reading is a natural process; that is, teachers don’t need to do any work to help kids learn] pushed by the Progressives who control the ed schools so ubiquitously. They also would need to learn new things with real substance to be able to use the SBRR systems. One of the contradictions within education is that while they will tell you we must all be lifelong learners they don’t lead by example. That is, they just study the same failed processes over and over throughout their careers never allowing new and more valid knowledge to gain a foothold.

What must the public do to facilitate the use of reading curricula that work? First, we need to realize that it is a “forever project.” That is, the educators have shown over and over through the decades that the key to being able to prevent change is to; delay, delay, delay, finally agree to change, tell everyone the problem is solved, rename all of the old stuff labeling it as “new and improved” and go on with no tangible change into the future. You might say this is a cynical attitude but it isn’t. It is very much fact-based on what has happened over and over.

The analogy is one where you are fighting a tough and strong opponent who is out to harm your children. You are motivated and finally get the opponent down on the ground with your foot on his neck. But you must realize that the only way to protect your children is to keep your foot on his neck forever because if you don’t the harm will start up again the minute you turn your back. Saying to ourselves that it shouldn’t be our job is delusional. The ed power groups have too much power. It can only be overcome if the majority of the public works together to stop the harm being done decade after decade to our kids. If the “system” could fix it, it would have already been done. The results show that we must be involved, like it or not.

Arm yourselves with the knowledge and then let elected representatives, the educators in your schools and other members of the public know that you require much better treatment for our children.