Part Two of Round Three: Challenging Their Assumptions

by Michael P. Ford, Chair WSRA Advocacy Committee

Assumption #1 There is a major crisis. The best solutions seem a little silly when there isn't a problem. These individuals need to create the perception of a crisis. Sometimes the hyperbole is quite amazing as one discussed "the hundred of thousands of children" and "the thousands teachers ill-trained" who deserved apologies from whole language professors --I guess he means like me. Another talks about fixing the "wreckage of American's mainstream teachers" on hundreds of children who need the use of his after school reading clinic services. Amazingly in all of these critical responses, only one piece of data was used to really support claims of a problem. Not surprisingly it was the often quoted 40% figure of students not reading at the basic level on the NAEP exams.

How should you respond? If you feel the need to respond generally to comments about declining achievement, eroding performance and increase in illiteracy, grab three resources: Berliner and Biddle's Manufactured Crisis , McQuillan's The Literacy Crisis and Bracey's The Truth about America's Schools . More importantly, however, distance yourself from characterizations of general problems and aggregated data. As Berliner and Biddle point out in The Manufactured Crisis , aggregated data are often used to indict everyone. When data are disaggregated (separate Wisconsin's scores from the rest of the US, separate your district from the rest of the state, etc.) the problems alluded to by critics fade significantly.

Most importantly, clearly know what your local problem is. Grab data you have that documents the reading performance of your students especially sources which are privileged by these individuals (ie, standardized measures). Prepare trend information so you can talk about your program over time. What is frustrating is even that might not be enough. Some local battles are occurring in districts where 95% of the students score above the standard on state assessments. Then the argument becomes that good test performances are being achieved only because of expensive intervention programs, high retention rates and/or high referrals rates. These are used as signs to indict the quality of classroom instruction and provide the rationale for change even if students are eventually performing well. ("If the classroom teacher used our materials, then we wouldn't need all these special programs.") Make sure you collect data in those categories and be able to discuss them in comparative terms. Once you agree on what the real local problem is, then shift the question to a more important issue: "How many different ways can we support the children in our district who need our help the most?"

And what about that "40% total failure rate among our fourth graders" as one individual cited to support his position? Actually in 1998, the figure was 38% in fourth grade, 26% in eighth grade and 23% in twelth grade -- all down from the previous round of assessment in 1994. In Wisconsin, it was 28% for fourth graders. Now if that amount seems high, remember that is a selected sample of fourth graders within the state. Statewide assessment results taken by all third- grade students challenge that figure reducing it to 12%. Results in your own district might indicate even fewer concerns. Secondly, even the NAEP report narrative suggests caution in using these figures as sole criteria for policy decisions: "The reader is cautioned against using NAEP results to make simple causual inferences related to the effectiveness of public and nonpublic schools (p.13)." The fact is that these criteria are set using a statistical procedure which, as any one who has participated in the process knows, despite being used to set a performance standard, has a norming element to it. In other words, there will always be some children who do not meet the performance standard except in Lake Wobegon. We can't all be above average and we probably all can't be above the standard. Imagine what would happen to the standard in subsequent years if all students scored above it? Third, what does it really mean if a child doesn't meet the basic standard? Critics use the figure to suggest that these children can't read at all -- notice the description as a "total failure rate". Not true...the "below basic" standard category doesn't indicate lack of any ability, it just reflects ability "below basic." It certainly indicates concerns but to say "total failure" is overstating it. Finally, overall what does the 1998 NAEP Report say about the condition of reading in this country? "The main story tells how well the American students in grades 4, 8 and 12 are able to read (p.2)."

Assuption #2 The problem is whole language (still). It is amazing to me to see these individuals work so hard to keep the whole language vs phonics debate alive. One individual was still demanding that we prove "the efficacy of whole language" through "large-scale, longitudinal experimental research that pits whole language against explicit instruction on decoding and comprehension." He also demanded that whole language professors -- I guess he meant me again -- should "look squarely at the major premiss (his spelling, not mine) that learning to read is as easy and natural as learning to speak." (If that is how one spells premise, maybe it isn't?) He argued, "I believe our nation's families have the right to expect that the research used to select or justify educational curricula ought to be as broad in scope and as rigorous as the research done on hair spray." (I guess that is why we see the rush to check out Consumer Reports before any family buys hair spray.) Then he cites Barbara Foorman's Open Court Houston study as the prototype example. The Foorman Study? A study which was disseminated publically before it results had been objectively reviewed and presented or published in a refereed forum. It was neither large-scale (primarily one district) or longitudinal (only one year) or experimental (ill-defined treatments privileging one group over another) Honoring Foorman's results is a little like believing what Avon says about Revlon in Hair Spray Research Quarterly without acknowledging that perhaps Avon had just a little vested interest in the results.

Let's face it, most whole language proponents would honestly admit that they only wished whole language instruction was as widespread as the critics suggest it was. The evidence would suggest otherwise. Even following California's alleged embrace of more holistic reading instruction, 1994 NAEP results profiling California teachers' practices hardly supported the idea of full implementation. Yet individuals were certainly quick to blame implementation -- not the lack of it -- as the cause of all problems. Why weren't those same holistic practices evidence of efficacy in Maine's number one ranking on the NAEP that same year? Why wasn't the efficacy of contrary practices blamed for Louisiana's lowly thirty-ninth ranking on the NAEP that same year? It was very interesting to see that after California's pendulum swing back to skills, there was no change in California's 1998 NAEP results and they actually ranked lower in the overall standings than they did last time. So why isn't the efficacy of their current practices questioned? Because this isn't really about the efficacy of practices. In fact, 1998 NAEP results suggested positive correlations between student-reported indicators of holistic practices (number of pages read daily at school and at home, extended writing in response to reading, talking about reading with friends and family, reading self-selected books) and students' reading performances.

So how do you respond? First, don't play the research game with these folks. We know there is only one body of research they acknowledge and it's spelled NICHD. (Look for my forthcoming song set to the tune of People -- "Research...Teachers need our Research...It's the only true research in the world...") Coles' Misreading Reading will help you take it on if you need to. Also visit the WSRA website to see the critical analysis of conclusions based on this work by James Gee and David Pearson in the materials on phonemic awareness . As I stated previously, marginalizing your research is one of their tactics.

First the critics prilivege a compatible voice on what constitutes exemplary research (e.g. Julian and Stanley). Then they narrow the type of research which can be done and offered as evidence "large-scale, longitudinal experimental research," they narrow the permissible questions "whole language against explicit instruction" and narrow the measurable outcomes "decoding and comprehension." Any research you would cite which doesn't meet those criteria is quickly dismissed as "for the most part, nonexperimental research and quasi-experimental research with many weaknesses." Actually you can avoid the research game because the bottom line is that you don't have to prove the efficacy of whole language programs. You don't even have to prove the efficacy of balanced reading programs. You only have to prove the efficacy of your local reading program. That's all your local families are really interested in.

Secondly, distance your program from whole language especially as it is described by these folks: "Teachers give them picture books and expect them to memorize every word in the book" or "Children will acquire or construct or induce knowledge of decoding and meaning through immersion, story reading and embedded phonic methods." Neither A Guide to Curriculum Planning in Reading by Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction which is based on an interactive model of reading, Wisconsin's Model Academic Standards for English Language Arts which were recently given an A rating by conservative critic Chester Finn's group or the survey data from the recent Wisconsin legislative audit of reading programs would suggest that whole language is the pervasive way of doing reading instruction in Wisconsin.Your own local standards, curricular documents and commercial materials probably provide further evidence of your efforts to create a "balanced" reading program.

Third, use the word "balance" a lot. It is really irritating to these folks. You can see it when critics connect the term "balance" with "whole language " like it's some kind of secret code to keep the whole language movement alive. It was funny to see critics now trying to claim (or even one-up) this word for their own programs. As one individual claimed: "Direct Instruction is NOT all phonics. Moreover, it does not BALANCE phonics and comprehension. It totally integrates them." (Has this person even looked at Bonnie Grossen's guidelines for early reading instruction in "Thirty Years of Research?") Another individual reminds us that Reading Mastery has extension activities "used in Direct Instruction a decade BEFORE anyone ever used the phrase whole language" and in Reading Mastery levels 4-6 you even find "literacy activities and literatures that are at an astonishingly high level of sophistication." He then goes on to suggest that "there is NOTHING new in whole language methods" implying that Reading Mastery has been doing these things forever? Geez, just one question...why would they have implemented these practices in this program if there was no research supporting their efficacy?

Why would these folks start describing their programs in such balanced terms? First balance is supported by the research. Check out the recommended components of reading programs by the National Research Council, the exemplary teaching practices in high achieving first grade classrooms research from the CELA national research center or the recent results of studies from high impact effective classrooms from the CIERA national research center. Secondly, to most of our stakeholders balance intuitively makes more sense.You can criticize, as one critic did, "IRA's vague notions of multiple methods and every child is different" but for any adult who has known more than one child, the idea that teachers should have a number of ways to address the differences in their classroom, makes perfect sense. When we agree on this then the conversation shifts to a more important question: "How do [we] provide differentiated instruction so that each child receives what he or she needs?"

And what about the Foorman Open Court Houston study? Don't let this one go by. As Tom Hanks said in Apollo 13 : "Houston, we have a problem." If you have to respond to the Foorman study grab any of these resources: Taylor's Spin Doctor , Coles' Misreading Reading , Krashen's Three Arguments or Ellis' chapter in In Defense of Good Teaching . Visit the CIERA Website to review Barbara Taylor's critical analysis of policy resulting from this study. Also head to the WSRA Website where you currently can see the corporate and political vested interests connected to this study. For the future, we are preparing materials you can download to use in preparing a critical response to this work. Don't be afraid to apply their research criteria to the research they cite. Don't let them have it both ways. The nice thing is usually when they set the standards for acceptable research in a way that marginalizes most of what you might cite, they often cite research like the Foorman Open Court Houston study which fails to met those criteria as well.

Assumption #3 We have the one right way to fix the problem. Actually in some cases, they do. When the owner of an afterschool reading clinic describes his successful program based on Direct Instruction, he proves the point that research has been supporting since the Bond and Dykstra first grade studies in the 60's. If a teacher is allowed to choose instructional techniques in which they are adequately prepared and of which they believe in most strongly, they usually make them work for the children who happen to be their responsibility. That is really what WSRA is supporting. WSRA is not against Direct Instruction. In fact this year's WSRA convention program featured the educators from Lodi describing the implementation of the DI program in their school. I would encourage anyone critical of WSRA's advocacy efforts to secure a proposal form for the 2001 WSRA Convention and apply for a similar forum to share their insights and ideas. Likewise, anyone critical of WSRA's advocacy efforts can share their insights and ideas by submitting articles for review to the WSRA Journal. What WSRA is against, however, is the mandating of instructional approaches in a way that marginalizes professionals' voices and circumvents existing policies and procedures.

But it is also important to point out what other benefits this clinic owner has which might be contributing to his success. He gets to select both the number and quality of students with whom he will work -- a luxury no classroom teacher has. He also has narrowed his work to exclusively focus on only those students whose families have adequate financial resources and an emotional commitment to their children's education -- another luxury few classroom teachers have. He also gets to select how he will document his success by choosing criteria (increasing reading rate and reducing reading errors) in which to measure and report student progress without any outside influences or external controls -- yet one more luxury few classroom teachers have. Finally he gets to share his results which have never been audited, analyzed or reviewed by any outside authority in a public forum and then gets to claim without challenge "We don't improve some of the kids -- we fix EVERY ONE, EVERY SEMESTER" as he charges you for his services -- need I say, one more luxury few classroom teachers have.

So how do you respond? Visit the WSRA Website and download materials that will help you discuss concerns about Direct Instruction and the overemphasis on phonemic awareness and phonics. In the near future, we also hope to present materials to examine the impact of print deprivation on reading performance, critically looking at the evidence being used to support specific materials such as decodeable texts and begin to argue that perhaps real "books should be a part of this reading thing." (The song is already on the web!) What has been most interesting in all these hostile comments about our Website is the focus on our intentions and our methods but not on the information being provided. The information has been virtually unchallenged. It is interesting that when someone creates a home page connected to every conservative educational site in the country, it's called informing the public. When inexperienced non-professionals indiscriminately download their stacks of information from these websites, they argue they are educating themselves. However when WSRA creates a website presenting contrary information, it's called brainwashing. When experienced, educated professionals download information from the WSRA website, they're accused of not wanting to think for themselves. Quite clearly, our efforts to put contrary information in an easily accessible form for you to use in your local battles is generating a lot of concern which means we are accomplishing our real goal.