Focus on Advocacy:
They're Baaaaaaaaaaack . . . The Rebuttals (Round Three)

by Michael P. Ford, Chair WSRA Advocacy Committee

For some reason, I've been reminded of movie images lately . . . Robert DeNiro as the ex-con in Cape Fear , Glenn Close as the spurned lover in Fatal Attraction , Bruce the shark in Jaws and its many sequels. Like pesky mosquitos that fly away only to return again and again, some individuals have continued to question WSRA's intentions and methods in providing materials to reading educators to assist them in their local battles to advocate for best practices in reading programs. The good news is that means WSRA seems to be drawing attention -- and a bit of blood -- in its campaign. One person even described it as "a roadshow throughout Wisconsin -- complete with Power Point visuals -- trying to convince Wisconsin's educators and parents to resist the current trend toward DI adoption." I would correct the description, but it does us more good to let others think this is true.

WARNING: Before you read any further, I must warn you that my real motives have been finally uncovered by a few of these concerned individuals. As one wrote, "whole language professors (I guess he means me) consider parents and teachers (I guess he means you) unable to think for themselves" and "by the clever use of a variety of rhetorical devices" (I guess he means articles like this) keep "supporters" (you again) " in the dark." In that way, we can accomplish our real goal which is to call "parents and teachers (like you) to continue supporting whole language professors (like me)." Another one explained that what I'm really interested in is "sort of like brainwashing . . . to lead the troops and keep them in line." Now why would I do this? So I can get "plenty of thanks and adoration because that makes (me) feel much better." I also know that if we keep saying enough against certain methods, it will keep you from getting training and trying methods for yourself and finding out how wonderfully they work. Why would we do that? Because "it would be kind of tough for (me) and (my) colleagues to handle if that would happen." So there you have it. Those of you who have known and worked with me for the past fourteen years now know my real motives, so proceed with caution. Oh by the way . . . stare at the swinging pendulum . . . you are getting sleepy . . . your eyelids are getting droopy . . . when you wake up you will believe everything I say . . . (And these folks wonder why we don't take their comments serious enough to dignify a response?)

So if you're ready to be brainwashed, let me remind you of our First Major Advocacy Strategy: Pick Your Battles Wisely . The following criteria might be helpful as you make your decisions:

Criteria #1 -- Does the individual seem more interested in the arguing or the arguments? If it is the former, walk away from the battle. Harste said in his commentary "A Model of Difference" in The Council Chronicle : "Surely there is a difference between having an argument and making an argument." We know that some of these folks are more interested in the act of arguing than in the issues being argued. When a half-page article in the WSRA Update supporting the SAGE program draws a six-page critical analysis from some professor in North Carolina, you know that you are dealing with someone who is more interested in arguing than with someone who truly cares about the state of reading instruction in Wisconsin. One visit to his home-page and a quick scan of his narrowly-focused scholarship on Direct Instruction alerts us that this is not an individual interested in dialogue.

But what about the state of reading instruction in North Carolina? Remember Pat Cunningham -- another North Carolina researcher whose work he marginalized -- had to develop the four-block approach to help NC teachers imagine what multi-level, multi-method instruction might look like. For the record a quick glance at the 1998 NAEP reading scores reveals North Carolina ranked 18th which places them in a category "at or around the national average." Wisconsin schools, however, ranked 6th -- one of the few states to place in the category "above the national average." Furthermore, when Stanford Professor Linda Darling-Hammond recently published "Teacher Quality and Student Achievement: A Review of State Policy Evidence" in the Education Policy Analysis Archives, she cited two "high standard" states in discussing quality teachers and quality teacher education programs. One was Minnesota and the other was Wisconsin. Maybe these outside critics should stay home and tend to the needs in their own state before they wander to ours to offer advice? Maybe when local folks rely on outside individuals they might have enough sense to draw on the expertise of someone from a state that can actually rival the quality of instruction offered by Wisconsin teachers and teacher educators?

Criteria #2 -- Is the intent of the individual to tie you and wear you down? If yes, walk away from the battle. As we said before, this is one of their favorite tactics. They tie you up time, energy and resource-wise wearing you down to where concession seems easier than advocacy. After receiving more than twenty e-mails and separate packages of copied and downloaded articles from obscure, non-refereed forums from an individual (who actually demanded that I go back through each and answer all the questions), I can see why some districts concede right away. It allows them to shut down these efforts and return to spending their time, energy and resources in more productive ways like supporting children, families and teachers. Actually your credibility can be enhanced by walking away. It's interesting to me that the longer I choose not to respond to some individuals, the harder they work to get me to respond.

Criteria #3 -- Is it part of your professional duties to respond to the individual? If not, walk away from the battle. Another strategy I would recommend to WSRA members is to choose not to respond unless it is part of your professional responsibilities. If you have to respond, it is sometimes better to acknowledge differences and agree to disagree especially when you are dealing with a shoemaker who sees the whole world as leather. Usually with these folks, it isn't a case of seeing is believing -- if you show them, they will believe like some Missourian who takes the state motto a little too seriously. This is a case of believing is seeing. These individuals will only see what they believe which isn't likely to be your side of the issue.

Criteria #4 -- Does the individual deserve a private response? If not, walk away from the battle. I would caution members from responding privately to these folks. One contacted WSRA member saw her e-mail response placed on a Direct Instruction listserv and found herself on the receiving end of a series hostile e-mails. If you are going to respond, look for a public forum away from the individual where more open-minded stakeholders can benefit from your analysis (like the WSRA Update!)

This leads to the Second Major Advocacy Strategy: Save Your Time and Energy for those families and other stake holders who have genuine questions about local reading programs. Remember annual Gallup polls show that two-thirds of all families grade their local schools as an A or B. Mobilize that group and you will always have a majority of stakeholders with whom to work. One individual was critical of my efforts to talk only to the 80% who can be convinced to become believers, not the 20% who are already committed to another faith. Any good preacher, however, would do the same. (Religious metaphors used intentionally.)

For me, the only value in receiving and reading these responses is to gain insights these individuals willingly provide about how their side argues their points. As any good constructivist, I believe teaching is about getting inside the heads of the others to see what is going on and then building my response on that. Luckily, like inexperienced high school debaters, these individuals continually reveal what's in their heads. This is helpful and leads to the Third Major Advocacy Strategy: Be Able to Anticipate What the Opposing Side Is Going to Say and then prepare your response accordingly. In the second part of this article, we will examine a few of the assumptions that surface in their responses and discuss how WSRA members who need to respond can. It is impossible to address every issue they raise -- my favorite was the claim of IRA's "44-year obsession with eliminating phonics instruction" (coincidentally, exactly the same number of years I have been alive) -- but we'll keep trying.

Let me end part one of this article by sharing my favorite anecdote since becoming Advocacy Chair. One extremely frustrated critic announced there would be a contact to my dean to express concern about my limited knowledge base in reading. I hope it happens. I wonder what WSRA Past-President Carmen Coballes-Vega, who happens to be my Dean, would have to say about that? I know one thing she might say from her years of service with the YWCA: "If you are not making some people angry, you probably aren't doing your job right." While the battles may continue, just remember it was Nick Nolte who was still standing at the end of Cape Fear , Michael Douglas at the end of Fatal Attraction and Richard Dreyfuss at the end of Jaws (at least the first one.) In the mean time perhaps, you might want to move the pet rabbit indoors.