Sinking Boats and Bad Haircuts: A Critical Look at the Relationship between Pedagogy, Policy, Politics and Profits
by Michael P. Ford, Chair WSRA Advocacy Committee
Summer 2003
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.
Let me begin with this "true" story. (It has to be. I found it on the internet!)
Last summer, down on Lake Isabella, located in the high desert, an hour east of Bakersfield, California, some folks, new to boating, were having a problem. No matter how hard they tried, they couldn't get their brand new 22ft. Bayliner to perform. It wouldn 't get on a plane at all, and it was very sluggish in almost every maneuver, no matter how much power was applied. After about an hour of trying to make it go, they putted to a nearby marina, thinking someone there could tell them what was wrong. A thorough topside check revealed everything in perfect working condition. The engine ran fine, the outdrive went up and down, the prop was the correct size and pitch. So, one of the marina guys jumped in the water to check underneath. He came up choking on water, he was laughing so hard. NOW REMEMBER... THlS IS TRUE... Under the boat, still strapped securely in place, was the trailer.
Did you ever have that feeling? Have you felt as if you were driving a beautiful new boat that it was being dragged down by a cumbersome old trailer? Recently has that feeling been recurring? In some ways the infrastructure created by federal policies like No Child Left Behind is that old trailer. In a country in which elementary-aged readers rank among the best in the world and in a state in which elementary-aged readers rank among the best in the country, one has to wonder why we have now hitched our beautiful cruising boat to this old rusty trailer? Let me suggest that the reason has less to do with a voyage to discover what is best for teachers and children and more to do with the way the boundaries of policy, politics and profits have blurred and now flow together.
This is the fifth set of materials WSRA has prepared for local educators to use in their battles advocating for the best practices in reading programs. It should be a bit disconcerting that local reading educators might have to take on federal policy and national research reports in order to argue effectively for practices other than those suggested by policymakers. Most know, however, that the pedagogy suggested by No Child Left Behind and the National Reading Panel needs to be met with resistance. In this set of advocacy materials, WSRA builds on what it has done and examines four critical points. First, there is a close relationship between the current federal policymakers and one of the leading educational publishers that leads some to conclude that federal policy may have more to do with the relationship between politics and profits than the relationship between teaching and learning. Secondly, federal reading policy is grounded in the flawed report of the National Reading Panel - a report whose motives, philosophy, methods and conclusions have been questioned by many in the field. Third, federal reading policy misdirects its investment by ignoring that the most powerful way to impact performance and achievement is to invest in good teachers. Finally, this policy feeds into a number of well-orchestrated attempts to erode confidence in and support of public schools.
The first problem is that profits influence politics and politics influence policy. One of the few articles to emerge in the popular press to scrutinize the relationship between the Bush administration and the largest educational publisher McGraw-Hill is "Reading between the Lines" in The Nation by Stephen Metcalf. He documents the close personal relationship between three generations of the Bush and McGraw families. He details the past connections of current federal policymakers with the McGraw-Hill company. He paints a picture of federal policy development that mirrors what happened when W was governor of Texas - reading policy shaped by those with connections to McGraw-Hill that in the end privileges the products of McGraw-Hill. This is also the focus of a recent Phi Delta Kappan article "The Five Hundred Pound Gorilla" by contrary voice Alfie Kohn. This should not be news to most WSRA members. During the summer of 1999, the Wisconsin state legislature tried to link the SAGE program to Direct Instruction using Texas reading policy as a model for changes in Wisconsin. WSRA documented the confusion between policy, politics and profits in the development of Texas reading policy. We concluded it might not be the best model for changes in Wisconsin.
A second problem with the federal policy is the way it has been grounded in the report of the National Reading Panel. Again this report has been the focus of significant attention within the reading community. The public, however, has often only encountered it as sound-bites and glossy materials created and spun by those with vested interests. Two often argued general outcomes from the report - emphasize phonics and deemphasize real reading - seem in conflict with the practices being proposed and implemented in many successful balanced reading programs throughout Wisconsin. Again WSRA created a set of advocacy materials to help examine the flaws in the research privileged by the NRP. WSRA demonstrated the potentiai problems when reading programs become imbalanced by over-focusing on phonemic awareness and phonics. In another set of materials, WSRA also took on the report's misinterpreted conclusion about recreational reading to argue that much evidence exists to support what should be obvious - real reading belongs in reading programs.
In this set of materials, criticisms of the National Reading Panel are presented from multiple voices. Neurologist Stephen Strauss explains how the methods used by the report fall far short of the standards other sciences would use in synthesizing research in the field. This is especially true in the field of medicine - the model often touted as the gold standard. Reading researcher James Cunningham similarly points out that the report's view of science is out of step with most other scientific fields. By over-relying on experimental research to the exclusion of all other research, Cunningham concludes that the report fails to capture the complexities of teaching and learning reading. Both call into question the report's claim of being based on scientific research and its role in providing direction and support for federal policy. More frighteningly O.L. Davis warns that federal policy may not only be based on faulty science, but efforts are underway to eliminate contrary viewpoints from federal archives of scientific research.
A third major problem with federal policy is how it misdirects resources in its attempt to solve perceived problems. A number of states have begun to wonder, as the state of Wisconsin did, whether what is gained from the federal government compensates for what is lost in terms of state and local time, energy and resources. Not surprisingly, the current policy directs significant resources into testing and textbooks. While it requires attention to highly qualified teachers, professional development is often restricted to commercial providers who ascribe to the company line embedded in federal policy as defined by the flawed conclusions of the National Reading Panel. The International Reading Association reminds us of the importance of excellent reading teachers. Excellent reading teachers transcend methods and materials. Even test results and textbooks mean more in the hands of exemplary teachers. Reading experts Richard Allington and Irene Gaskin, known for their research on successful reading practices and programs, also remind us that the most important component in the reading program is the reading teacher. Allington suggests that the best investment is an investment in making teachers increasingly more expert in their daily roles. Gaskins adds that becoming expert means a career-long commitment to professional development.
Finally, these materials include frameworks to explain the larger context in which this seemingly intensified attack on public education takes place. One emerging influence on federal policy has been a relatively small number of advisory groups and relayed think tanks. They have been organized around a limited list of goals that include relieving the state ofthe burden of public funded schools considered "the last bastion of the welfare state." They coordinate "thought" about issues and look for the most centralized body of policy-makers to influence policy. They've discovered by influencing federal policy, they impact fifty states. If they influence the states, they impact local districts. If they influence local districts, they impact your classroom. Some have suggested that No Child Left Behind is masterful in its ability to micromanage local classrooms from within the Washington beltline. It's an amazing outcome from an administration that espouses a commitment to less government, the autonomy of states and local control. The influence of these groups is primarily driven by financial resources. When you can finance the campaigns of those who make the policies which can benefit you further, you can earn more money to finance the campaigns of those who make the policies which can benefit you further, so you can ...and so on and so on. The bottom line is the bottom line. Erode support for the public schools and you create the opportunities for many to improve their bottom lines.
Let me end this round of advocacy with another story sent to me through the internet:
A New York woman was at her hairdresser's on Park Avenue getting her hair styled prior to a trip to Rome with her boyfirend. Shementioned the trip to her hairdresser, who responded, "Rome? Why would anyone want to go there? It's crowded and dirty. Yo're crazy to go to Rome. So how are you getting there?"
"We're taking Continental," was the reply.. "We got a great rate."
"Continental?" exclaimed the hairdresser. "That's a terrible airline, their planes are old, their flight attendants are ugly, and they are always late. So where will you stay in Rome?"
"We'll be at this exclusive little placer over on Rome's left bank called Viste..."
"Don't go any further. I know that place. Everybody thinks it is going to be something special and exclusive, but's it's really a dump, the worst hotel in the city! The rooms are small, the service is surly and they're overpriced. So whatcha doing when you get there?"
"We're going to see the Vatican and we hope to see the Pope."
"That's rich," laughed the hairdresser. "You and a million other people trying to see him. He'll look the size of an ant. Boy, good luck on this lousy trip of yours. You're going to need it."
A month later the lady returned for a hairdo. The hairdresser asked her trip to Rome. "It was wonderful," explained the woman, "not only were we on time in one of Continental's new planes, but it was overbooked and they bumped us up to first class. The food and wind were wonderful, and I had a handsome 28-year-old steward who waited on me hand and foot. And the hotel- it was great! They'd just finished a $5 million remodeling job and now it is a jewel, the finest hotel in the city. They too were overbooked, so they apologized and gave us their owner's suite at no extra charge!"
"Well," muttered the hairdresser, "that's all well and good, but I know you didn't get to see the Pope."
"Actually, we were quite lucky, because as we toured the Vatican, a Swiss Guard tapped me on the shoulder and explained that the Pope likes to meet some of the visitors and if I'd be so kind as to step into his private room and wait, the Pope would greet me. Sure enough, five minutes later, the Pope walked through the door and shook my hand! I knelt down and he spoke a few words to me."
"Oh really? What 'd he say?"
He said, "Where'd you get that horrible hairdo?"
One of the lessons we are continually learning as members of WSRA is that we often have to listen to others with less experience and expertise, tell us how we should do the job we do every day better. That's fine, but we don't have sit back, be quiet and take it. We have the right to call a bad haircut, a bad haircut even if it is masked as federal policy or scientific reports. This set of materials is designed to help you to do that.
Outline of Overheads
- Overhead #1-2:
The first six overheads are drawn from an article by Stephen Metcalf in The Nation - one of the few articles available in the popular press that scrutinizes the close relationship between the Bush Administration and the educational publishing industry. The first two overheads show a close relationship specifically between the Bush family and the McGraw family that has lead to a number of former McGraw-Hill employees securing positions within the Bush Administration.
- Overhead #3:
This overhead reminds us that what we see in the development of federal policy which privileges a certain publishing company mirrors what happen in Texas when Bush was governor.
- Overheads #4:
The connecting to the testing companies is made in this overhead and features the contrary voice of DPI Superintendent Burmaster who is quoted in the article.
- Overhead #5:
Using the contrary voices of Joann Yatkin (former Madison principal who wrote the minority report on the National reading panel) and Gerald Coles, the overhead explains how a PR firm with conflicting interests put a favorable spin on the NRP results.
- Overheads #6:
Overhead six presents the critical conclusions from Metcalf's article.
- Overheads #7-9:
The next three overheads are based on an article by Alfie Kohn in Phi Delta Kappan that states explicitly McGraw-Hill's influence in creating federal policy that privileges their products.
- Overhead #10-12:
Since current federal policy is grounded in the results of the National Reading Panel, advocates for best practices may need to offer critical views of this federal document. Stephen Strauss - a neurologist - takes on the research in the National Reading Panel. Specificaily, he too questions the motives of the PR firm behind the production of the widely disseminated summary ofthe NRP. He details how the summary fails to reflect the original report. In overhead 12, he is also very critical of the panel's use of meta-analysis especially the often quoted work of Barbara Foorman who was placed in charge of the meta-analysis of the research in her own area of study and then primarily focused on her studies. He reminds us that this is not a widely acceptable practice in the medical research used as a model for the panel's practices.
- Overheads #13-16:
Jim Cunningham (Pat's Cunningham significant other) offers another critical review of the National Reading Panel's work. Cunningham not only questions the panel's methods, but its philosophy and view of science itself. He points out how this "scientifically-based" research is completely out of step with other fields of science. He concludes that the over reliance on experimental research actually marginalizes the value of the report because it denies the complexity of reading development and instruction.
- Overheads #17:
In his scholarly commentary "New Policies and New Directions: Be Aware of the Footprints! Notice the Nightmares!" OL Davis explains how current federal policy actually operates to silence certain voices and points of view. By silencing, ignoring and marginalizing other viewpoints, federal policy frees itself from reconciling contrary research and evidence with its own agenda.
- Overheads #18:
Featuring a conclusion from Excellent Reading Teachers - a position statement of the International Reading Association - overhead 17 reminds us that the key to powerful is the teacher. It suggests that an investment in teachers may pay off better than an investment in materials, programs or testing.
- Overhead #19:
Richard Allington provides additional support for an investment in teachers reaching the stated conclusion after his research following exemplary teachers.
- Overhead #20:
Irene Gaskins, who directs the Benchmark School for severely learning disabled students, summarizes her key guidelines for assisting struggling readers. Again, it provides further evidence of the need to make an ongoing investment in teachers.
- Overheads #21-22:
Many people ask how does policy like this emerge? These overheads explain that policy today is heavily influenced by conservative think tanks that are advancing a specific agenda.
- Overhead #23-24:
The final overheads try to explain the hidden motivations behind anti-public school campaigns. Attempts to erode confidence are essentially attempts to erode support and the lack of support creates situations for some to profit. This might be ok if it wasn't those who profit who cause the erosion of confidence in the first place.
Resources
Remember the accompanying set of overheads is primarily prepared to assist you in advocating for best practices within your local reading programs. 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:
"What I've Learned about Effective Reading Instruction from a Decade of Studying Exemplary Classroom Teachers" by Richard Allington in Phi Delta Kappan (June 2002)
"The National Reading Panel Report [A Review] by James Cunningham in Reading Research Quarterly
"New Policies and New Directions: Be Aware ofthe Footprints! Notice the Nightmares!" by OL Davis in Journal of Curriculum and Supervision (Winter 2003)
"The Teacher makes the Difference: Insights from 42 Years of Teaching Struggling Readers" by Irene Gaskins (November 2002)
Excellent Reading Teachers: Position Statement of the International Reading Association (IRA, 2000)
"The Five Hundred Pound Gorilla" by Alfie Kohn in Phi Delta Kappan (October 2002)
Education, Inc: Turning Learning into a Business edited by Alfie Kohn and Patrick Shannon (Heinemann, 2003)
"Reading between the Lines" by Stephen Metcalf in The Nation (January 28, 2002)
"Challenging the NICHD Reading Research Agenda" by Steven Strauss in Phi Delta Kappan (February 2003)
Linguistics, Neurology and the Politics of Phonics: Silent E Speaks Out by Steven Strauss (Erlbaum,2003)
|
