WILL IT TAKE LITIGATION?
by Donna Garner
June 4, 1998


As a classroom teacher myself, I hate to admit that it may take litigation
to force the education bureaucracy to rid itself of damaging educational
practices.

The problem in Texas is that the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills
(TEKS) for English / Language Arts / Reading embraces both whole language
and phonics because the reading researchers did not have the courage to
take a firm stand and demand that the Texas Education Agency and SBOE
follow the empirical National Institutes of Health reading research.

What the NIH reading research says is that there is a hierarchical order
that teachers should follow in teaching children to read. Teachers should
teach: phonemic awareness (which requires that children listen to lots of
rich literature so that they can identify and manipulate the smallest
sounds of the English language) and decoding skills (phonics) which are
presented through direct, systematic instruction.

The decoding skills should be practiced by having the children read texts
which contain words that are closely aligned with their newly acquired
decoding skills. Each time the children have the opportunity to apply their
knowledge of the
newly acquired decoding skills, they become faster and more fluent
readers. Once they become fluent readers, then they need to be surrounded
with a literature-rich environment so that they will be motivated to read
huge quantities of great literature. As time goes by and the children
become automatic readers, more of their brainpower is freed up to
focus on comprehension; and the end result is that children learn to read
and understand increasingly more difficult texts.

Unfortunately, the reading researchers were afraid their research (and
possibly their research funding and/or their chances to make substantial
money as private consultants for textbook companies) would get lost if they
boldly proclaimed the results of their research because their results
totally invalidated whole language. The NIH research showed that good
readers read almost every single word which completely defames the basic
tenet of the whole-language approach. The researchers were afraid that
their research would be vilified by the whole-language supporters, and they
did not want to get caught in the trap of "The Great Debate." Besides,
the NIH research indicated that in today's schools where we have huge
percentages of students who come from language-impoverished homes, even
teachers who have taught traditional phonics must emphasize phonemic
awareness.

Where the researchers went wrong, I believe, is that they decided to solve
the problem by using the term "balanced approach." Perhaps they thought
this term would strike a compromise between the two factions and would
bring peace to the reading wars, hoping that in the lull people would be
open to the NIH findings.

How has the education bureacracy responded to the use of the term "balanced
approach"? They are saying that teachers do need to learn how to teach
some phonics (a step in the right direction), but teachers also need to
combine phonics and whole language so that there is a "balanced approach to
reading," which is supposed to meet the individual needs of every child.

In actuality, I believe the public schools of our country have been
teaching the "balanced approach" to reading for many years. That is why our
students cannot read. Most teachers have been combining a smattering of
phonics with their whole-language lessons. The children have been totally
confused because whole language means you teach children to read
from the whole to the part; phonics means you teach children to read from
the part to the whole. (The whole-language approach also encourages
teachers to evaluate children's writing holistically where little attention
is paid to detail or accuracy, and this has given children the idea that
correctness is not important.) How could children keep from being confused
when the two approaches have been mixed or "balanced"? The two approaches
are an antithesis of each other and cannot be taught simultaneously to
children without causing confusion.

Our Texas Alternative Document (TAD) offers a sensible approach for
teachers, and the TAD is built upon the solid NIH research -- what it
"actually" says!

The Pre-K section emphasizes listening/speaking skills because a high
percentage of Pre-K students are in the Title I program and come from
language-impoverished homes. These children need to develop an "ear" for
the English language and its sounds and sentence patterns.

Kindergarten stresses phonemic awareness and the use of informal reading
assessments to locate children who have deficits in phonemic awareness.
Helpful intervention strategies and charts are listed to assist teachers.

Grade 1 gives the content requirements for the teaching of direct,
systematic instruction of phonics.

Grades 2-3 emphasize higher-order phonics skills, spelling, and grammar.


Grades 4-6 emphasize comprehension/reading skills, quality literature,
grammar/spelling/vocabulary, and composition.

Grades 7-8 have a heavy emphasis on mastering basic grammar/composition
skills.

Grades 9-12 lead students into more complicated grammar/composition/
spelling/vocabulary skills with a heavy emphasis on American/British/world
literature. The TAD helps high school students combine basic skills with
more sophisticated skills so that the students can become proficient at
research/library skills and literary analysis.

This is a quick overview of the main emphases in the Texas Alternative
Document (TAD). It can be easily downloaded to disk and then viewed by
going to our web site of http://www.htcomp.net/tad.

Dr. Reid Lyon's NIH research, my grammar packets, and my English I Reading
List can be found on the Internet at http://www.readbygrade3.com/ for easy
downloading and viewing. All of these materials are "free" for the taking.

Is it going to take the threat of litigation to force the education
bureaucracy to do the "right thing" in order to help children learn to read
and write? Surely we educators are not that hardheaded, are we?

Donna Garner
Lead Writer, TAD
236 Cross Country Drive
Hewitt, TX 76643
(254) 666-2798
http://www.htcomp.net/tad
dggarner@...





----------
> From: Sebastian Wren <swren@...>
> To: readbygrade3@egroups.com
> Subject: [readbygrade3] A group query
> Date: Thursday, September 24, 1998 8:47 AM
>
> I'm conducting some research with early elementary ed teachers (mostly K
> and 1), and I'd like to gather some information about their knowledge and
> opinions about early reading instruction. The best way to gather this
data
> somewhat objectively is to have the teachers fill out a survey. I'd like
> to use a survey that is already available, but the only surveys along
these
> lines that I've ever seen are not worth much. I've seen surveys that
place
> teachers along the continuum from "phonics" to "whole language," but I
> haven't seen any GOOD surveys that place teachers along the continuum
from
> "knowledgeable, confident reading teacher" to "uninformed, nervous
reading
> teacher."
>
> I emphasize the word "GOOD" because a confounding problem is that all
> reading teachers thinks they know how to teach reading; just asking them
> how they would rate themselves as reading teachers probably won't be very
> informative -- If I were a reading teacher, I'd say I was a damn fine
> teacher (and I'd especially say this if I thought this survey might not
be
> 100% confidential). I recently heard of a teacher working in one of our
> districts who was a "letter a week" teacher, and I'm sure she's convinced
> that is the BEST way to teach children to read. I need a survey that
goes
> beyond what teachers think of their own ability to teach reading
(although
> that is certainly good information), I need a survey that really
evaluates
> what a teacher knows about teaching reading and how much they actually
> apply that knowledge in the classroom. Is their teaching informed by
> research, or is it influenced by fads? Do they regularly assess their
> children and use the information gathered from the assessment to
customize
> the way they teach each child? Are they more comfortable with a scripted
> curriculum or would they rather trust their own judgement about what
needs
> to be taught each day?
>
> If anybody knows of a survey that already exists that addresses these
> questions, you'd be doing me a favor if you brought it to my attention.
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________
> Sebastian Wren
> Reading Specialist -- PITL
> Southwest Educational Development Laboratory
> 211 East 7th Street
> Austin, TX 78701
> 512-476-6861 Ext. 294
> FAX 512-476-2286
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
> Subscribe, unsubscribe, opt for a daily digest, or start a new e-group
> at http://www.eGroups.com -- Free Web-based e-mail groups.

______________________________________________________________________

Subscribe, unsubscribe, opt for a daily digest, or start a new e-group
at http://www.eGroups.com -- Free Web-based e-mail groups.