Already this year there are scholarly writings at every level serving as ammunition for citizens determined to get our kids reading properly in large numbers. First there was the report, "30 Years of NICHD (National Institutes of Child Health and Human Development) Research" on how children learn to read, available from the Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning at http://www.ksagroup.com/thecenter/.
Then in the May-June issue of Policy Review magazine (pp. 38-42), Bob Sweet, President of the National Right-To-Read Foundation, wrote "Don't Read, Don't Tell: Clinton's Phony War on Illiteracy," which included significant excerpts from the above report, creating clear descriptions (see below) for parents and school board people to evaluate what their local schools are doing. Now the latest bullet on behalf of literacy is a just-released position paper by the Orton Dyslexia Society, "Informed Instruction for Reading Success: Foundations for Teacher Preparation," including stronger language than heretofore on the teacher education dilemma and its relation to illiteracy.
The 40-plus-year-old Orton Dyslexia Society (ODS) (originally The Orton Society) was named for Dr. Samuel Torrey Orton, the first American physician to take an interest in children's reading problems. His work, with that of a half dozen talented teachers, forms the basis for the most powerful reading instruction strategies (Orton-Gillingham multisensory phonics) used in both regular and special education today. ODS' 25,000+ members are in the forefront of effective research (with NICHD) and the teaching of reading and language acquisition for all persons, especially those for whom the process does not come easy.
After citing solid research references in laying out the specifics for competent teacher education, the position paper's "Closing Remarks" hit the "system" right between the eyes with:
"However, one of the serious roadblocks in alleviating the current shortcomings is that the University faculty necessary to provide this training is not now in place: most of the educators providing teacher training themselves need to be re-educated in the areas reviewed here. Thus it will be necessary to confront the resistance to change that will no doubt occur and to structure the guidelines for course content sufficiently that "token" instruction on the topics outlined will not take place. Federal agencies could be petitioned to help provide funding for the retraining that will be necessary at the University level and to sponsor model training programs. The solutions to bringing about the changes called for in the educational establishment will require numerous widespread efforts and awareness campaigns. This is a daunting task, but two facts mandate that we take on the challenge. First, the huge number of children encountering reading failure, and the grievous toll for them, their families, and society, is unacceptable. Second, most of these reading problems are avoidable: with adequate teacher preparation our schools would be able to meet their obligation to teach children to read." (The paper is available from ODS at 8600 LaSalle Rd., Chester Bldg, Suite 382, Baltimore, MD 21286-2044.)
The significance is that our elementary and reading teachers are largely products of the universities that NICHD research says need to be re-educated! A NY Times editorial (1-25-97) cites NICHD findings that "fewer than ten percent of teachers actually know how to teach reading to children . . ."
Encouraging news is that a new requirement at Columbia Teachers College (NYC) is that MA candidates in reading or special-ed are required to take an Orton-Gillingham multi-sensory course. By contrast, Long Island's teacher-training institutions are part of the problem: You can get a Masters' in reading without getting even ONE phonics course!! What's more, they seem to intend to keep it that way: An April 6th NY Times advertisement for a L.I. faculty position in reading/literacy contains the following: "Applicants must have an absolute commitment to a sociopsycholinguistic model of literacy acquisition."!!!! (Emphasis added!) That's jargon for whole language, and ideological opposition to phonics! (Copy available.) Hopefully, the ODS paper will provide leverage for states to tighten up what's taught to teachers.
I suggest everyone write to education college presidents, provosts, and education deans, urging they stop sacrificing our children on the altar of educrat egos and catch up with the weight of research! Meanwhile, school boards can arrange for on-site Orton-Gillingham training workshops which would be the approximate equivalent of Columbia's basic course for one-third of what public education agencies are asking to train just one "Reading Recovery" (TM) teacher! Prevention of failure beats recovery for saving dollars and lives.
For your concerned readers, key points of NICHD findings (as summarized by Sweet) are: 1. TEACH PHONEMIC AWARENESS DIRECTLY IN KINDERGARTEN. Students should be taught that spoken words and syllables are made up of elementary speech sounds. These skills do not develop naturally, but must be taught directly and systematically.
2. TEACH EACH SOUND-SPELLING CORRESPONDENCE EXPLICITLY. Students should be explicitly taught the single sound(s) of each letter or letter combination. Each day, there should be 5 or 10 minutes of practicing the sounds of letters in isolation. The balance of the lesson should provide practice in recognizing letter/sound relationships in decodable text.
3. TEACH FREQUENT, HIGHLY REGULAR SOUND-SPELLING RELATIONSHIPS SYSTEMATICALLY. Teach the students the 70 most common sound- spelling (s-s) relationships. Systematic teaching means students should be taught sound-spellings before being asked to read them, and the order of instruction should progress from the easier to the more difficult s-s relationships.
4. TEACH STUDENTS DIRECTLY HOW TO SOUND OUT WORDS. After students have learned two or three s-s correspondences, begin teaching them how to blend s-s' into words. Show students how to move sequentially from left to right through spellings as they "sound out" or say the sound for each spelling. Practice blending words composed of only the s-s relationships the students have learned.
5. TEACH SOUND-SPELLING RELATIONSHIPS USING CONNECTED, DECODABLE TEXT. Students need extensive practice in applying the knowledge of (s-s) relationships as they are learning them. This integration of phonics and reading can occur only with the use of decodable text, meaning text that is composed of words that use the s-s correspondences students have been systematically taught.
6. TEACH READING COMPREHENSION USING INTERESTING STORIES READ BY THE TEACHER. Comprehension should be taught with teacher-read stories that include words most students have not yet learned to read, but which are part of their spoken vocabulary.
7. TEACH DECODING AND COMPREHENSION SKILLS SEPARATELY UNTIL READING IS FLUENT. Decoding and comprehension skills should be taught separately while students are learning to decode. Comprehension skills learned through teacher-read literature can be applied to students' own reading once they become fluent decoders.
Talk of a mix or "balance" of phonics and whole-language (WL) is illusory: Teaching precision in language leaves no room for "substituting your own word" or guessing from picture or context. You can't read science material, train schedules or parking tickets that way. As one colleague put it, "How can you mix a structured method with a philosophy that there is no method?" How about a balanced nutrition program of equal doses of vitamin C and arsenic?
Please keep up your good works in educating readers.