Focus on Advocacy:
Direct Instruction Round Two... the Rebuttals

by Michael P. Ford, Chair WSRA Advocacy Committee

Since the fall issue of the WSRA Update , we have witnessed the addition of Douglas Carnine, author of the SRA Reading Mastery , to presidential hopeful George W. Bush's educational advisory committee. We have seen the US Office of Education select Ed Kameenui and Debra Simmons, Carnine's colleagues at the University of Oregon Center for the Improvement of Teaching, as voices for reading reform in the primary grades for its Improving American Schools conferences held across the country. We have seen the publication Teaching Reading is Rocket Science , a document endorsing a highly prescriptive skills-based traditional model for reading education courses, embraced both by a teacher's union (AFT) and a higher education organization (AACTE). We have watched the inclusion of a $320,000 research project on direct instruction surface in the long overdue state budget.

As the advocacy materials on our website are downloaded by educators from Arizona to New York and as teachers from the Headwaters Reading Council to South Kettle Moraine Reading Council use the materials to advocate for best practices in their local schools, it appears that our initial concerns about Direct Instruction mandates are not quietly disappearing. This article was written to increase your awareness of tactics used by our critics to continue their arguments for Direct Instruction mandates. In it, I will also critically review some additional resources that have been surfacing in local debates about mandating this type of reading instruction.

Tactic #1: Name calling

The easiest and, therefore, least intellectual tactic to invoke in refuting arguments is to divert attention away from the argument by directly attacking the person offering the argument. At times this tactic seems appropriate, especially when one is pointing out that the person has a self-invested interest in promoting the argument such as financial gain. For example every time someone offers the research of Marilyn Adams in support of Open Court reading materials, someone else should point out that Dr. Adams is a senior author of those materials and financially benefits from the sales of materials her research supports. Every time someone cites research by Carnine, Englemann, and/or Berieter to support Direct Instruction programs, someone else should point out that those people financially benefit from adoptions of those programs. Recently following a presentation of arguments I made favoring a balanced reading program, I was subjected to this tactic by a critic. My scholarship was called nonsense, my points labeled allusions, and my credentials challenged by placing the title Dr. in quotation marks as if it was questionable that I really have a Ph.D. At least no one accused me of being self-invested in promoting balanced reading.

• Counter Tactic: Ignore it.

  The best response to this tactic is to ignore it. Remember this advice: "Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig likes it." Most audiences will see name-calling for what it is and you can easily point out that the critic really never offered evidence to refute your initial arguments.

Tactic #2: Over Reliance on an Outside Expert

Relying on an outside expert can be an effective strategy, but when done quite publicly, it signals that the critic over relying on the outside expert probably does not have the personal knowledge base to make the argument. This can work to one's advantage if our knowledge base is comprehensive and up-to-date. In my case, one critic unable to address my arguments sent my work to a Canadian-based conservative educational website for review. The report written by this person in response to my presentation was grounded entirely in information obtained from this website. The critic's lack of knowledge was quite apparent in over relying on this one source. It was also apparent in the critic's comment wondering whether the reading researcher cited "was either Jeanne Chall or Gene Shall." At least the critic knew it wasn't Gene Shalit!

• Counter Tactic: Use Expertise as an Issue.

  The best response to this tactic is to use the issue of expertise to appeal to more open-minded publics. In the case of addressing families, ask what other aspect of their child's life they would trust to a non-expert. Would they do that if their child had a medical problem? Would they do that if their child had a legal problem? Would they do that if their child had spiritual problems? So why would they do that with their child's education? In addition, never let the credibility of information from a website go unchallenged. Very few sites are reviewed and approved by the reading research community. Make sure your audiences know that anyone can post anything on a website. Finally (sorry Canadian friends), never let a Canadian-based expert criticize your local reading program. Point out that Canada has a different governance structure for their schools, did not score as high as the U.S. on international tests of reading comprehension, and is suffering a public backlash from their recent return to the basics movement.

Tactic #3: Define What You Are For and Against

Critics will often define your position for others, usually in a way that leaves you in a less than positive light. For example one critic argued, "How could you be against giving parents choices?"

• Counter Tactic: Continue to Restate Your Position.

  WSRA is decidedly not against choice. WSRA is against mandating a single reading program removing the choices teachers have in working with students everyday. WSRA is especially against such mandates when they are imposed through an uninformed decision-making process or by circumventing existing curricular processes, procedures, and policies. But when someone says WSRA is against choice, many outsiders might not see that as very reasonable. In this case, however, what the critic was proposing was providing an alternative classroom in which the teacher would be asked to use a single Direct Instruction reading program denying choice which already exists for teachers in a reading program committed to multiple methodologies in a balanced approach. Sometimes critics define your actions in such an extreme way, one would hope any other person could see the absurdity in the comment. Recently one critic accused WSRA of "ruining children." Let's hope others would see the absurdity in 3000 reading educators going through what they go through on a daily basis for at least 180 days a year just for the end goal of ruining kids!

Tactic #4: Marginalizing Your Evidence

In a field in which consensus is difficult, one can often find support for more than one position. In fact, one of the biggest differences we have with critics is often in the questions to which we are seeking answers. Anyone with teaching experience knows that the best question for our field isn't, "What is the one right way to do this?" but is better phrased, "How many different ways can I do this?" When conflicting research exists, the best reading researchers will try to reconcile those differences in theories and practices. Others, however, will choose a much easier route -- marginalize and ignore the conflicting research. They do this in many ways. First, size always seems to be an issue -- that study was too small or we have more studies than you do. Secondly, sources seem to matter. One critic minimized research quoted from books, because anyone can write a book. Books are just opinions even though books from reputable publishers go through a review process and are often grounded in the author's and other's research. Third, authors matter. One critic dismissed studies I cited because he didn't know the authors of the work.

• Counter Tactic: Point out minimizing is not disputing and don't let them have it both ways.

  In each of these cases, the studies themselves are not refuted. They are minimized. The best tactic is to point that out to the more open-minded publics with whom you are working. Don't be afraid to use your critic's tactics in minimizing the evidence they are presenting. This is especially easy to do in the case of Direct Instruction since much of the work cited is old, appears in their own vanity journals and publications, and results from circular citation. But a better tactic is to examine critically the actual studies. Look for critiques of the work by others to help frame your arguments.

Tactic #5: Tie You Up and Wear You Down

A lot of our critics have a lot of time on their hands. We do not. This may be one of the most disconcerting elements of these battles -- the time and energy diverted from what could have been more productive efforts on behalf of children. I now have nineteen insulting e-mail messages one critic has sent me demanding response.

• Counter Tactic: Pick your battles well.

  I have learned sometimes the best response is not to respond. Pick your battles wisely. There is a saying, "To a shoemaker, the whole world is leather." We need to admit that there are some folks we will not convince that our position is the best. We need to agree to disagree with these folks and move on to those who might listen to us. But we can't just sit quietly. Winston Churchill once said, "When the eagles are silent, the parrots will jabber." If only the parrots are speaking, only their voices will be heard.