Read It and Weep - Why does Congress hate the one part of No Child Left Behind that works?

Thanks for posting this; it’s VERY COMFORTING to me to know that I am being PROPERLY trained on how to teach reading, the right way, to elementary school children. Everything praised in this article as effective teaching methods is exactly what I’m being taught to do at the University where I am expecting to receive my Masters in Teaching!

I wondered where the author came up with her assumptions on what education schools are teaching.

I noted several contradictions in the article - for instance:

Laverne Johnson, is doing something that flies in the face of more than three decades of the most advanced pedagogical principles taught at America's top-rated education schools.

contrasted with:

Furthermore, every third-grade classroom follows the same daily schedule of instruction in the five components of literacy that reading researchers at Harvard University and elsewhere have identified over the past four decades

So is what Ms. Johnson is doing backed by research at top universities, or does it "fly in the face" of them?

I would suspect that the major problems in Richmond schools stemmed from a lack of leadership at the school & district levels, as evidenced in this paragraph:

Before that, every teacher had been free to pick his or her own reading materials and design his or her own curriculum. This led to widespread "hobby teaching," as one Richmond teacher called it: Instructors left to their own devices would sometimes spend the entire school year working with their students on art and other projects that suited the teacher's interests and skipping tests and other written assignments that could be assessed, with the upshot being that the teachers often "never got around to teaching anything."

Principals and the superintendent weren't doing their jobs if teachers were allowed to do that.

Then there's this:

efforts to teach the elements of reading in a direct and systematic fashion--the way Laverne Johnson does at Ginter Park--are derided at most U.S. education schools as "cutting learning up into itty-bitty pieces," or "one-size-fits-all," or "the factory model,"

I think that someone doesn't understand what is referred to by those terms...obviously individualizing instruction and working with small groups and individuals as Ms. Johnson is doing are not "one-size-fits-all" or "factory model"....

What I do know: when the whole language instruction was in use in California, and took hold across the country, reading scores plummeted. This was because the threw out systematic phonics instruction, as well as phonemic awareness, and anything else related to same.

What they are teaching in programs, such as Reading First, is to absolutely teach phonics and phonemic awareness BUT, not to ignore, also, other things that “good readers” use when reading a text. It’s come back around to teaching phonics instruction, dependent upon the learner’s needs (individualized) as well as reading for understanding within texts. Systematic phonics instruction and phonemic awareness is absolutely critical to be taught during the primary grade school years (by end of 3rd grade).

These things were not being done during the 80’s and 90’s...which is why California scored at the bottom (only over Guam) in national standardized reading tests, and why Grey Davis, then gov. of California, mandated that phonics instruction be brought back into CA schools. The whole language approach, without systematic phonics instruction, was disastrous.

I am glad to see the research continues to support the need for systematic phonics instruction, something that the whole language gurus back in the 80’s and 90’s were shoving aside.

I agree with your thoughts on this writer....there are inconsistencies in what they are saying. And also, very true, if any school was allowing their teachers to “come up” with their own varieties of “curriculum”, they were at fault for the disastrous consequences that occurred.

It’s worse than long, by being filled with phrases sifted through a “Thesaurian” sieve such as, “Reading First and the change in Richmond’s pedagogical culture over the past five years have had a galvanizing effect on the morale of Richmond teachers.”, even with a rich, juicy kernal of sweet truth this tediously written piece is like counting walnuts after they’ve been shelled.

Thanks for the ping!

Reading First is under fire for picyune issues and also in part because it is perceived to be a 'conservative' method of teaching. This in and of itself is hilarious as I know several of the key players and they are as about as liberal in their politics as it comes. I sat in a room with 2 of them (Dr. Abouzaid and Dr. Invernezzi) and 20 other adults and watched them stammer as they recalled how they were accused of being Bush cronies and Right-wing extremists. Yea, it was actually pretty funny in a way, especially since the group of teachers were mostly conservative.

This method incorporates very well researched methods - and I know first hand. Reading First is largely supported by the University of Virginia, where I earned my masters in teaching reading.

For anyone in the mood to see some of the research under fire, the link to the site is http://readingfirst.virginia.edu/

What this teacher is doing is exactly, 100% what she should be doing. As far as history and science - it is probably imbedded in the reading materials, but that was not discussed in the article. A huge part of reading is the ability to read non-fiction, which would be the history/science component.

Does every school and every teacher conduct their classes this way? Probably not, but they should if they want to reach young children and teach them to read.

Congress doesn’t want it to work, because it wants to keep blacks down and out of the mainstream of American life.

Thanks neverdem.

You are painting with a broad brush.

I think a good reading program basically teaches phonics and some of the whole word techniques.

Kids who cannot memorize words or use context clues have problems with reading also.

Because I have a special needs kid who has some trouble reading, I have learned that you really need to know where a child is having problems in order to help a kid read.

Some kids have great phonemic awareness and are great with phonics, but they don’t have any comprehension. They don’t need to be explicitly taught phonics, but they need to be taught how to comprehend a story.

I think we’re on the same page!

I thought it sounded as if the teacher is doing a good job - but I didn’t think what she was doing was oh-so-different from what the ed schools are teaching. It may be different from some of the curricular materials some schools have been buying?

I am still amazed at the small class sizes in that school, though!

Sounds like!