WSRA Home
About WSRA 
Board of Directors
Calendars 
Committees
Convention 
Exec Committee
General Assembly
Local Councils
Membership 
Minutes 
Resources 
Task Force
WSRA Online!

 

 
Site Map Contact Us WSRA Hotline

A Teacher-Led Insurgency for Voice and Choice in Reading Programs:
A Direct Response from the
Wisconsin State Reading Association
to the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute's
Direct Instruction and the Teaching of Early Reading

by Michael P. Ford, Chair WSRA Advocacy Committee
Summer 2001

On this page:

Click here to download printable Overheads - (Acrobat PDF file)
You will need to use Adobe Acrobat Reader to view and print this pdf file. Click here to download a free Adobe Acrobat Reader from Adobe Systems. 

 

One should become increasingly suspicious of any educational research study first encountered as an Associated Press release in a local newspaper. I remember a few summers ago reading on the front page of The Oshkosh Northwestern about a definitive study in the Houston area done by a researcher few of us had ever heard of before. The study by Barbara Foorman had allegedly proved the superiority of phonics over whole language. Despite the fact that the study had never been reviewed by the reading research community or published in a reputable research forum, her work quickly began to impact public opinion, politics, policies, pedagogy and profits. Before most educators could even secure a copy of the study, they found themselves defending their practices in light of it. Once educators secured the study, critical analysis came quite easily. Many from Denny Taylor (1998) to Gerald Coles (2000) dismissed the work. In spite of this subsequent critical analysis and indictment, the study's impact only grew. This caused the Wisconsin State Reading Association to see the need to develop materials local reading educators could use in critically analyzing Foorman's study and defending what were often more successful efforts to provide children best practices in reading instruction (Ford, 2001).

Now we find ourselves facing yet another example of a research study designed to influence public opinion, politics, policies, pedagogy and profits. Again the study was first published outside of reputable research forums bypassing traditional reviews of its quality by the reading research community. In The Oshkosh Northwestern , it was an innocuous four-paragraph article titled "Study: Phonics-based Curriculum Would Save." It was downloaded, edited and published without any critical comment from an Associated Press wire release. With very few words in a relatively small space, the article indicted existing reading programs in P-12 schools and teacher preparation programs in the state university system; proposed a phonics-based solution and promised a $25 million reduction in school expenditures. While the article received a little more attention in some larger state forums like the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (Borshuk, 2001a), what was basically a privately-funded press release was quickly disseminated by the popular press with very little critical examination of the study's methods, conclusions, authors or funders.

The article led us and others to a position paper "Direct Instruction and the Teaching of Early literacy: A Teacher-Led Insurgency" written not by teachers but three University of Wisconsin System professors (Richard Western, Mark Shug and Sara Tarver, 2001) and disseminated not by teachers but by a group called the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute that the popular press identified as a conservative think tank. The paper was easily downloaded from their website. Within hours of its publication, one conservative talk radio host was touting its importance as another sign of how reading policy and pedagogy should be defined. Within a week of its release, co-author Mark Shug was on Wisconsin Public Radio with Tom Clark further promoting the importance of the report in defining future reading policies and pedagogy. At a minimum, the public was once again lead to question the careful, deliberate decisions of professionals in local schools regarding reading programs. In the worse cases, the information was downloaded, clipped, highlighted, copied and/or disseminated to local educators to challenge existing practices in early reading programs. In all cases, confidence in local public schools and university teacher education programs was unfairly further eroded. Time, energy and resources that could be used to support children were diverted to address these challenges.

The process used to accelerate the widespread influence of reports such as this on public perceptions and impact politics and profits is really quite simple. Begin with a conservative philanthropic group (say for example the Milwaukee-based Bradley Foundation). Use its ample financial resources (say for example -- according to the Institute for Wisconsin's Future -- an annual $800,000 donation ) to create and/or support a conservative think tank with a scientific sounding name (say for example the Thiensville-based Wisconsin Policy Research Institute) for the purpose of hiring or contracting authors (say for example Professors Western, Shug and Tarver) to produce or sign a research study (say for example "Direct Instruction and the Teaching of Early Literacy") which can be quickly reduced to a press release easily disseminated to the popular press (say for example The Oshkosh Northwestern ) who without critical comment, analysis or investigation include the information in their local editions. The end goal of deliberately influencing public opinion for the sake of advancing one's financial or political interests is quickly achieved. Most recently, this process was used to promote WPRI's latest release -- a report pushing merit pay for teachers based on test score increases (Borsuk, 2001b.)

The process is so well-defined that our organization considered it a useful structure for our advocacy efforts. In fact if you want to organize an authentic teacher-led insurgency, begin with an existing professional organization representing thousands of teachers state-wide (say for example the Wisconsin State Reading Association.) Use its ample human resources (say for example its Legislative, Research and Advocacy Committees) to collectively create and disseminate information (say for example through its website, journal, newsletter, other publications and speaking forums) for the purpose of providing local educators with materials (say for example the set of overheads accompanying this article) which include the critical comment, analysis and investigation absent in popular press reports of these privately-financed, self-serving documents. Busy local educators asked to mount challenges to existing reading programs can access information and materials to support their efforts as quickly as their critics can from the sources they use. (And don't forget to let Tom Clark's producers on Wisconsin Public Radio know that you would like to present an opposing viewpoint which in our case they granted less than one week after Mr. Shug's appearance.)

Recently, I wrote about WSRA's advocacy efforts in an article "What to Do about Jabbering Parrots: Lessons Learned while Advocating for Best Practices" to be published by Language Arts (Ford, 2001.) Unlike the documents produced by the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute, Language Arts is a refereed publication. All submissions are reviewed by members of the language arts community before they are subsequently reviewed by editors and accepted for publication. In reading about the Wisconsin State Reading Association's advocacy efforts, one reviewer remarked: "This manuscript is a MUST READ for all Language Arts subscribers -- and the whole field...It offers extremely helpful advice/tips at just the right moment when more teachers are finally beginning to see that they simply can't remain silent in the face of the campaign against them and public education."

Another reviewer concluded: "Knowing the level of frustration, helplessness and voicelessness most teachers feel about these issues, I am certain they will want an article that they can draw upon for strength and support a year or three from now, a piece they can copy for all their colleagues, something that speaks to them whether they are in Wisconsin or Winnipeg, Auckland or Sheffield."

As these educators noted if there really is a teacher-led insurgency, it is focused on issues of choice and voice. That is the position of WSRA. WSRA is not opposed to Direct Instruction. (Why else would WSRA provide teachers from one of the DI schools mentioned in the report with a forum to share their ideas at a recent WSRA Convention?) WSRA is opposed to policies mandating or privileging a specific methodology that infringe on the local control of school districts and the academic freedom of teacher preparation programs. WSRA is opposed to attempts to marginalize the voices of the professionals preparing reading educators and the voices of educators directly serving staffs and children in reading programs everyday. WSRA is opposed to the dissemination of self-serving information without critical comment, analysis and investigation of contrary information. That defines our current advocacy efforts which were recently recognized with an International Reading Association Advocacy Award.

And how is it working? Obviously well enough to irritate groups like the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute. In their report, WPRI actually specifically highlighted our efforts. While acknowledging that in our publications and on our website "one finds not opposition per se to Direct Instruction (or the teaching of phonemic awareness or phonics)," the report goes on to criticize our efforts to provide members with overheads for use at informational meetings at which Direct Instruction might be discussed. Even though WPRI disseminates materials designed to influence policy and politics, they criticized our attempts to provide explicit coaching (a bit ironic that DI advocates would criticize explicit coaching) for "how to launch attacks by suggesting...that the research base for Direct Instruction is outdated [which it is] and that the long-term effects of Direct Instruction may include inducement to criminal behavior [David Wiekart's High/Scope research, not ours]." The authors actually wrote: "Teachers and principals from MPS and elsewhere spoke bitterly about the Wisconsin State Reading Association claiming its officers misrepresent Direct Instruction on their web site materials, their publications, and in presentations they make to school groups in order to dissuade them from introducing Direct Instruction programs." I am reminded of the quote of my friend and past-president of WSRA Carmen Coballes-Vega: "If we are not making someone angry, we are probably not doing our job right."

One has to remember why WSRA began these advocacy efforts. Sensing an insurgency toward DI that was anything but teacher-led -- state representatives who wanted to link DI to the SAGE program, conservative school board members who were circumventing their own curriculum policies and processes to advocate DI materials, administrative teams imposing DI programs on classroom teachers -- WSRA decided to support educators with whom groups like the WPRI never bothered to talk (Anonymous, 1999). In one district, the movement toward DI was described as follows: ".to essentially force the use of Direct Instruction program with no other legitmate choice, is no real support. Teachers have signed on the dotted line, yes, but few I know did so willingly. Those who have spoken to me have gone as far as to use the term blackmail because they felt they could not deny their students the opportunity of being in a smaller class, even if they as teachers had to use an approach they never would have chosen."

The endorsement of our efforts, however, are emerging from teacher-led insurgencies from across the country. Recently, I received an e-mail from Christine McKeon from the Ohio Council of IRA: "I'm the new legislative chair (hence advocacy) of the Ohio Council of the IRA. I'm very new at this and striving to educate our council and teachers across Ohio in effective ways to combat if you will the controlling educational decisions that seem to bombard us, frustrate us and makes us feel helpless. Today I was randomly hitting links to various states to see what others were doing and boy, oh boy, yours was the ABSOLUTE BEST! Congratulations on such a powerful advocacy web resource." At the IRA Convention in New Orleans, Ken Goodman in a classic presentation entitled: "Closed Court, Success for Few, Dystrophia and other Monstrosities" incorporated materials from our website. He shared the recently released document from the WPRI and then said: "But the teachers of Wisconsin are not taking this sitting down. The Wisconsin State Reading Association is responding in an aggressive style I only wish that IRA would use."

This time we present 44 blackline masters that can be used to prepare a presentation to critically question or respond to the content of the report "Direct Instruction and the Teaching of Early Reading" when it surfaces in local policy debates about reading programs. The critical response can be focused in any or all of the following areas: the nature of the report, the qualifications of the authors, the motives of the WPRI, the research methods used in the report, the content of the report and the conclusions reached in the report. The content and conclusions of the report are easily dismissed on the basis of the standards its sets for itself. Arguing that impressive reading scores are not the issue in the state of Wisconsin, WPRI suggests instead that the state can do it even better and cheaper with Direct Instruction. To prove one can do it better, one needs to show that those schools that used DI improved, those schools improved more than other comparable schools, DI was the only way to get improvement and there was no contrary evidence. The report fails in all four areas. To prove one can do it cheaper, one needs to show that those schools that used DI saved costs, those schools saved more costs than other comparable schools, DI was the only way to save costs and there was no contrary evidence. The report again fails in all four areas. The use of this report as a basis for local or state policy decisions should never go unchallenged.

Like the Foorman study, however, the lack of merit in the report does not mean it won't surface in local and state policy debates. The bottomline is that the control of pedagogy is a control of profits. Local control and academic freedom are safeguards from letting the control of pedagogy be driven solely by market values. If one can centralize the control of pedagogy by thwarting local control of the curriculum process and/or bypassing the academic research community, then educators' voices will be ignored and educators' choices will continue to slip away. In a state like ours, the only way to enfringe on local control and academic freedom on the scale recommended in this report is to change state policies. The way to change policies is to influence politics and often the way to influence politics is to influence public opinion. These materials are designed to make sure your voice is heard as educators, families, stakeholders and policy-makers in your communities make decisions about reading programs for you and the children who happen to be your daily responsibility.

TOP

Outline of Overheads

  • Overhead #1:
The WPRI report doesn't even attempt to manufacture a crisis to provide a rationale for the wide-scale change it is advocating. In fact the report acknowledges that the state of reading in the state of Wisconsin is good. The first two quotes are taken directly from the report. To reinforce that observation, we have added the recent results of an additional survey of student achievement which placed Wisconsin students among the best in the nation. It is important to always start each presentation related to reading practices in the state of Wisconsin with good news such as this. (Educators may want to disaggregate local test data from these state profiles especially if local data tell an even more positive story about reading achievement.)
  • Overheads #2:
This overhead outlines three critical questions not asked by the popular press to use in challenging this report.
  • Overhead #3:
Educators need to point out that the report is neither published in a reputable scientific forum nor peer-reviewed. In fact the authors even acknowledge in the last two quotes its limitations as a research study.
  • Overhead #4 - #6:
There are five key parts to the report. These overheads critically look at each part presenting a list of significant problems with each component of the report which can be surfaced in challenging its conclusions.
  • Overhead #7 - #12:
These overheads critically look at the authors contracted by the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute to write this report.
  • Overhead #8 - #10:
Fortunately for us, author Mark Shug has stated views of learning and teaching quite contrary to Direct Instruction in his own social studies methods textbook. Overhead 8 borrows direct quotes from Shug's text on teaching social studies which arguably could also be used to describe exemplary reading practices. Overheads 9 and 10 borrow liberally from the chapter in Shug's textbook that discusses reading in the content area. Shug's endorsements of reading practices other than Direct Instruction provide reading educators with many more suitable recommendations for exemplary reading practices.
  • Overhead #11 and #12:
Author Sara Tarver is easily identified as one of the leading proponents of Direct Instruction in the state. These overheads make it quite clear to unsuspecting audiences that Tarver is hardly in the best position to complete an independent, objective review of DI programs in this state.
  • Overhead #13:
This overhead generally indicts the authors of this report as neither classroom teachers nor early literacy experts but merely contracted producers of a report that furthers the agenda of the people whom contracted them.
  • Overhead #14:
The Wisconsin Policy Research Institute's agenda and supporters are identified to assist educators in pointing out who is really behind the report and why.
  • Overhead #15 - #16:
These overheads present critical information about conservative think tanks like the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute and the techniques they use. Many others have been studying such groups' tactics and their impact not only in education but in other fields as well.
  • Overhead #17:
Educators need to convince stakeholders that groups like the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute do not have the best interests of children as their number one priority.
  • Overhead #18 - #19:
These overheads can be used in addition to others previously available on the WSRA website to challenge the recycling of research from Project: Follow Through as rational for wide-scale change in reading programs.
  • Overhead #20 - #22:
What is most interesting in this report is the acknowledgment that the research cited in Project: Follow Through was done by people personally invested in the program. This sort of obvious conflict of interest is marginalized by the authors because of what they call four independent reviews of the research that confirm what those original biased researchers concluded. Educators can easily dismiss these independent reviews. In a shocking misuse of self-citation, Tarver actually uses her own work twice as examples of independent review. These overheads (20-21) help to point out neither study is an appropriate independent review. The two remaining citations are discussed on Overhead 22.
  • Overhead #23:
This overhead can be use in addition to others previously available on the WSRA website to critically challenge Englemann's updating of Project: Follow Through in his newer restatement of that research in Research on Direct Instruction .
  • Overhead #24 - #25:
The authors use the school visits as a way of presenting a favorable picture of the implementation of DI in six schools. What the authors fail to do is use any credible qualitative research techniques in gathering their objective data on these schools. Overhead 24 outlines the flaws in the research. Overhead 25 suggests an alternative perspective on what really happen.
  • Overhead #26 - #27:
In an amazingly bad decision, the authors choose to aggregate information gained from school visits to paint a portrait of the typical DI classroom and in doing so never describe any children actually reading books or writing. They never discuss any teacher actually teaching vocabulary or comprehension strategies. They never describe a teacher involved in assessment. They never discuss what the children not in the small group are doing. One of the best ways to convince stakeholders of the problem with this program would be to take the scenario out of the report, ask stakeholders to read it and discuss what is missing in these classrooms. Then ask stakeholders to compare that with what they would see in local classrooms using other programs.
  • Overhead #28:
The authors once again want to convince the public that Direct Instruction (the program) is the same as direct instruction (teaching directly). This overhead along with others previously available on the WSRA website helps to clarify the difference for audiences who might need to see it.
  • Overhead #29:
This is a critical overhead which shows how WPRI President Jim Miller's foreword (or some might say "spin") about the report confirms research done by SAGE researchers John Zahorik and Alex Molinar misleads the public. Zahorik and Molinar were so irritated by the misuse of their results by the Milwaukee Journal , WPRI and conservative talk radio hosts they issued a separate position paper detailing why this deliberate misleading of the public is wrong.
  • Overhead #30 - #32:
The crux of the argument made by WPRI is that DI will provide reading instruction that is better and cheaper. If an educator is asked to keep their response to the report short, use these talking points. The report fails to show that DI will increase reading achievement and the report fails to show that DI will reduce costs. In the first case, the authors fail to provide a direct link between DI and reading achievement gains even in the six schools that were profiled. Two schools don't report achievement data, three schools had inconsistent or decreasing results, and one school had flat results. Furthermore, the authors fail to show any comparative advantage of DI over any other program. One visit to the Department of Public Instruction's website provides any educator with enough information to suggest that DI is not the only way to get good reading scores. In fact, DI might not even be the best way to get better achievement scores. The second claim is even weaker. The report never shows a pattern of reduction for any school or district in retention, referral or remedial rates that would even come close to leading to the $25 million deduction in school expenditures. The report also fails to discuss the potential start-up costs for DI in districts now not using the program. If we figure that 400 districts are not using DI and would need materials for 500 students and 20-25 teachers, the costs could be over $77 million. Even if only 200 districts would begin the program, costs would well exceed the estimated savings. These figures come from websites independently judging the cost of school reform projects previously posted on the WSRA website. If needed, Overheads 31and 32 might be best used as a "talking points" flyer to disseminate a summary of the basic problems with the report.
  • Overhead #33 - #34:
These can be used to summarize WSRA's perspective on the report.
  • Overhead #35 - #38:
There are a number of experts representing a variety of perspectives who have been very critical of this renewed attention to DI. These voices are represented by experts as varied as Alfie Kohn (#35) and ED Hirsch (#37). These overheads present a variety of those voices.
  • Overhead #39:
It is important to remind ourselves that questions about pedagogy are not just about politics but also about profits. Bracey is quite overt in his detailing of the cozy relationship between the McGraws and the Bushes.
  • Overhead #40 - #42:
Previously we documented how political connections have led to public policy decisions which translated into profits in overheads which are available from the WSRA website. These extend the connections and show how pervasive corporate power can be -- endorsement of reading materials in editorials in newspapers involved in financial deals with the publishers of those materials, promotion of pedagogy in higher education institutions heavily invested financially in the materials they are promoting, cash "awards" to policy makers who were involved with major purchases of materials now being privileged by public policies.
  • Overhead #43 - #44:
Finally we remind educators why groups like WPRI produce a endless stream of reports trying to erode public confidence in public schools.

TOP

Resources

    Anonymous. (1999, October). Curriculum decision removed from teachers. WSRA Update, 14 , 3-4.

    Borsuk, A. (2001a, March 23). Study backs rigid reading program. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel .

    Borsuk, A. (2001b, June 6). Group pushes for merit pay for teachers. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 2b.

    Coles, G. (2000). Misreading reading: The bad science that hurts children. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

    Foorman, B., Francis, D., Fletcher, J. & Schatsschneider, C. (1996). The role of instruction in learning to read: Preventing reading failure in at-risk children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90 , 37-55.

    Ford, M.P. (in press). Looking for lost keys: Shouldn't books be a part of this reading thing? The Wisconsin State Reading Association Journal.

    Ford, M.P. (2001). What to do about jabbering parrots: Lessons learned while advocating for best practices. Language Arts, 77 , 51-58.

    Taylor, D. (1998). Beginning to read and the spin doctors of science: The political campaign to change America's mind about how children learn to read. Urbana, IL: NCTE.

    Western, R., Shug, M. & Tarver, S. (2001). Direct Instruction and the teaching of early literacy: A teacher-led insurgency. Theinsville, WI: Wisconsin Policy Research Institute.

Other resources to review in building your case for choice and voice:

DI Publications (Always know what the other side is saying; never rely on someone else's summary or spin) :

    "Direct Instruction and the Teaching of Early Reading: Wisconsin's Teacher-Led Insurgency" by Richard Western, Mark Shug and Sara Tarver (Wisconsin Policy Research Institute Report, March 2001)

    "Myths and Truths about Direct Instruction" by Sara Tarver in Effective School Practices (Winter 1998)

    "Meta-Analysis of Studies of Mathematics Curricula Designed Around Big Ideas" by Tom Fischer and Sara Tarver in Effective School Practices (1997)

    "Focusing on Direct Instruction" by Sara Tarver in Current Practices Alert (1999)

    "Meta-analysis of the Effects of Direct Instruction in Special Education" by T.A. White in Education and Treatment of Children (1988)

    "Mega-Analysis of Meta-Analysis: What Works in Special Education" by Forness, Kavale, Blum and Lloyd in Teaching Exceptional Children (1997)

    Research on Direct Instruction: Twenty Years beyond DISTAR by Gary Adams and Sig Engelmann (Educational Achievement Systems, 1996)

    "Learning the Drill" by Alan Borsuk in Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (March 2, 2001)

    "Study Backs Rigid Reading Program" by Alan Borshuk in Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (March 23, 2001)

Insights into Conservative Think Tanks, Media Techniques and the Attacks on Public Schools (Always know how the other side operates; never let others assume this is credible research for policy decisions) :

    "The Puppetmasters: The Money Behind the Media" by Tom Breuer in The Scene (May 2001)

    Trust Us, We're Experts: How Industry Manipulates Science and Gambles with Your Future by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauberer (Tarcher/Putnam, 2001)

    "Manufacturing Problems and Selling Solutions: How to Succeed in the Education Business Without Really Educating" by Daniel Tanner in Phi Delta Kappan (November 2000)

    "KAPPAN Special Report -- Friends, Foes and Noncombatants: Notes on Public Education's Pressure Groups" by George Kaplan in Phi Delta Kappan (November 2000)

    "Ka-ching! Businesses Cashing In On Learning" by Mark Walsh in Education Week (November 24, 1999)

Contrary Voices (Always surface the voices they ignore; never let their voice be the only voice heard) :

    "Teaching Social Studies in the elementary School: Issues and Practices by Mark C. Shug and R. Beery (Waveland Press, 1987).

    "Effective Teaching in Reduced Size Classes: Interpreting the 1999-2000 SAGE Evaluation Qualitative Findings" by John Zahorik and Alex Molnar (Center for Education Research, Analysis and Innovation, 2001)

    "Commentary: Letters -- Children as Machines to be Programmed" by Alfie Kohn in Education Week (April 7, 2001)

    "Everything You Wanted to Know About Phonics (But Were Afraid to Ask)" by Stephen Stahl, Ann Duffy-Hester and Katherine Dougherty Stahl in Reading Research Quarterly (July/August/September 1998)

    "The Latest Dismal NAEP Scores: Can We Narrow the 4th Grade Reading Gap?" by ED Hirsch in Education Week (May 2, 2001)

    "A Review: Approaches to Reading Instruction" by the Wisconsin Legislative Audit Bureau (Department of Public Instruction -- June 1998)

Other WSRA Materials (Always look at previously published information in preparing your response) :

    "Focus on Advocacy: Addressing Direct Instruction Mandates" by Michael Ford in WSRA Update (August 1999) and in Wisconsin State Reading Association Journal (Winter 1999)

Additional information, ideas and insights might be gained by visiting these websites:

 
This page last updated January 27 2007

Copyright©1989-2007 Wisconsin State Reading Association