Looking for Lost Keys:
Shouldn't Books be a Part of this Reading Thing?

by Michael P. Ford, Chair WSRA Advocacy Committee
September 2000

On this page:

• Mike Ford's Address
• Outline of Overheads
• Resources

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.

I came across a joke that serves as an appropriate metaphor for concerns about the current rhetoric in the field of reading. It goes like this.while out walking one night, a man came across another searching frantically for something under a nearby streetlight. The first man asked the second what he was doing. The second man replied, "I am looking for my car keys." The first man inquired further, "Oh, did you lose them here?" The second man quickly responded, "No I didn't lose them here, but I decided to look here because the light is so much better."

In the field of reading, controlling the light is controlling the conversation. As we saw again with the recent report released by the National Reading Panel, as soon as a publicly privileged voice identifies a key in addressing the perceived crisis in reading, the spotlight shifts to that topic virtually placing all other problems and solutions in the dark. For example, if critics focus the spotlight on methodology, we don't examine more complex issues related to children, teachers and classrooms. If critics keep the spotlight on phonemic awareness and phonics, we don't look at concerns with instruction focused on vocabulary, comprehension, and/or response which might lead to thoughtful, critical literacy beyond the primary grades. If critics succeed in shifting the spotlight, much of the reading community and most of the public only look for "keys" -- problems and solutions -- within the shadows of that light. Other critical issues falling outside the current focus area are virtually ignored.

One such overlooked issue in our current political, public conversations about reading is the issue of access. Access to print involves two key components: materials for reading and time to read. Students improve their reading performances when they have greater access to things they can read and when they increase the time they spend reading. The issue of access, however, has often been left out of our current discussions. WSRA's Books for Success bill was a proactive effort to shift the spotlight to shine on this critical issue. It was designed to insure greater access for students by securing additional resources to improve classroom libraries. It's hard to believe that one would have to argue that perhaps books should be a part of efforts to improve reading performance, but that is the case. (Sense the sentiments of the song Where Have All the Good Books Gone? included on the Website.) While falling a bit short of our goal to secure passage of Books for Success during the last legislative session, WSRA continues to be committed to keeping the light shining on this issue.

Access also surfaces another critical question -- what is the quality of the materials to which students should have access? The current political, public conversation has overprivileged a single study to argue for a specific set of materials commercially marketed by a single corporate interest. The study clutched by critics as they argue for more traditional skills-based reading instruction is the study done by Barbara Foorman and her colleagues. The results chanted by critics argue for a return to the questionable practice of using decodeable texts. (To remind yourself of why we find this practice questionable, see the lyrics of the song Decodeable on the Website.) And as we have previously discussed, the company most apt to benefit from that recommendation is McGraw-Hill who markets the Open Court reading series.

The third set of materials compiled by the Advocacy Committee is designed to do four key things for educators as they argue for access and as they argue against questionable mandated materials:

1) remind your publics that the state of reading especially in the state of Wisconsin is good,

2) present the public with research and expert opinion supporting the importance of access,

3) take on the Foorman study by critically examining its questions, design, analysis, conclusions and implications and

4) surface concerns about the use of decodeable texts.

Remember that when potential solutions to our problems in the field of reading are not a part of the public, political conversation, it is time to go into the light, grab hold of it and turn the attention away from distracting rhetoric and toward real problems and solutions. That is usually how we will usually find the keys that seem to be missing.

TOP

Outline of Overheads

• Overhead #1:

  Often results from the National Assessment of Educational Progress are used by critics to indict current reading practices, instructional efforts and impact. This quote from the actual 1998 NAEP report reminds the public of a more positive message NAEP sees in the overall results.

• Overhead #2:

  Critics who use NAEP results to indict the state of reading instruction and achievement in Wisconsin often do not disaggregate Wisconsin data from data from other states. This overhead summarizes the positive overall Wisconsin results on the 1998 NAEP.

• Overheads #3 & 4:

  Even the recent National Reading Panel recommendations suggest that scientific evidence does not exist to support the practice of engaging in real reading. These overheads present a summary of research cited by Stephen Krashen in his book identifying 11 studies which provide such evidence.

• Overhead #5:

  This is a summary quote from Stephen Krashen's review of the "real reading" research which offers a contrary view to the evidence offered by the National Reading Panel. [Note: The National Reading Panel is primarily indicting SSR programs where accountability systems were such that there were no guarantees that children were actually engaged in reading during that time. Distinguish your local program from that description. Krashen also suggests that the National Reading Panel reached it results from including a number of studies where real reading was more of a label for a treatment, but did not actually happen.]

• Overheads #6 & 7:

  These overheads contain a number of quotes from Jeff McQuillan's book to argue that it is access to and engagement in real reading that impacts on achievement.

• Overheads #8-10:

  These overheads provide quotes from the position paper from the International Reading Association on Providing Books and Other Print Materials . This is another accessible position paper from the IRA which can be share with public audiences to stress the importance of access and engagement.

• Overhead #11:

  This overhead summarizes guidelines for quantifying issues of print access.

• Overheads #12 & 13:

  The next set of overheads are designed to assist educators in critically examining the push by some critics to embrace the use of one type of material (Open Court Reading series) based on the study by Barbara Foorman. The Foorman study was conducted in the Houston area and is sometimes referred to as the Houston Study. Since it also involved the use of Open Court materials, it is also sometimes known as the Open Court study. These overheads look critically at the research questions chosen by the Foorman study.

• Overheads #14-15, 17-18:

  These overheads critically examine three common false claims often made by critics using the Foorman study.

• Overheads #16 & 19:

  It is important to disaggregate Foorman's own data to show that generalizations made by averaging all data together produce skewed outcomes. When looking at all cases sometimes Open Court / Direct Phonics schools did better than Whole Language /Implicit Phonics Schools. Sometimes Whole Language/Implicit Phonics Schools did better than Open Court /Direct Phonics Schools. This allows for the conclusion that factors other than the method used complicated the results of the study -- such as teacher variations and student variations.

• Overhead #20:

  This overhead summarizes the results reported by the Foorman study. It is important to show audiences that even the Foorman study reported no differences in vocabulary, comprehension or spelling and reported that the implicit code students had better attitudes and behaviors.

• Overhead #21:

  This overhead summarizes criticisms of the Foorman study. It can be used as a frame for indicting critics' use of Foorman as exemplary scientific research.

• Overheads #22-25:

  These overheads present the criticism of the Foorman study done by Denny Taylor in her book.

• Overhead #26:

  This overhead provides a critical frame for indicting the underlying assumptions of the study as defined by researchers from CIERA (Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement).

• Overheads #27-29:

  These overheads present additional critical quotes from CIERA indicting the use of Foorman's results to influence policy.

• Overhead #30 & 31:

  One outcome from the Foorman study (and Direct Instruction lobbying) has been a call to use decodeable texts. These overheads are quotes from Allington and Taylor to suggest that the evidence does not exist to support the practice.

• Overhead #32-34:

  These overheads summarize 4 concerns to surface about the use of decodeable texts. Educators may want to contrast an example of decodeable text with more natural language texts to help public audiences understand the disadvantages of these materials when critics are presenting their advantages (practice for decoding).

TOP

Resources

Remember this set of overheads is primarily prepared to assist you in advocating for the importance of access to and engagement in real reading within your local reading program. To advocate effectively, you need to explore more deeply the issues, ideas and insights captured in these materials. You need to also adapt these materials to the local educational contexts in which you are working. Your issues and battles may be slightly different from others. The following resources were used in preparing these materials and may provide you with additional background in exploring these issues:

NAEP 1998 Reading Report Card for the Nation and the States by The National Center for Education Statistics (US Department of Education, 1999)

NAEP 1998 Reading Report Card State Report for Wisconsin by The National Center for Education Statistics (US Department of Education, 1999)

Three Arguments Against Whole Language and Why They Are Wrong by Stephen Krashen (Heinemann, 1999)

The Literacy Crisis: False Claims and Real Solutions by Jeff McQuillan (Heinemann, 1998)

Providing Books and Other Materials for Classroom and School Libraries: A Position Statement for the International Reading Association by the International Reading Association (1999)

Misreading Reading: The Bad Science that Hurts Children by Gerald Coles (Heinemann, 2000)

Beginning to Read and the Spin Doctors of Science: The Political Campaign to Change America's Mind about How Children Learn to Read by Denny Taylor (National Council of Teachers of English, 1998)

Discretion of Translation of Research to Policy by Taylor, Anderson, Au & Raphael (CIERA Report #3-006, 1999 -- WWW.CIERA.ORG )

Introduction of the Overselling of Phonics for Teachers in Wisconsin by Richard Allington in the WSRA Journal (1997-98)

And remember to check out the WSRA Website WWW.WSRA.ORG for related materials critically examining the overemphasis on phonemic awareness and phonics and the mandates for Direct Instruction -- both of which have become outcomes from the Foorman study.

Also don't forget to look at the actual Foorman study-- "The Role of Instruction in Learning to Read: Preventing Reading Failure in At-Risk Children" by Foorman, Francis, Fletcher, Schatschneider & Mehta in Journal of Educational Psychology (1996). Have the real study ready when critics start to use so-called research reports that put their own spin on the study.