HR 2614 READING EXCELLENCE ACT BASED ON SKINNER BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION? OR DESIGNED TO FIGHT WHOLE LANGUAGE? c:\doc\web\97\08\hr2614.txt From: "Lynn D. Leslie" Date sent: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 17:21:21 -0600 Letter to Phyllis Schlafley October 24, 1997 Dear Phyllis, I hope Eagle Forum will oppose HR 2614, the Reading Excellence Act, for the following reasons. HR 2614 is based upon research developed by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health (301-496-9849) Rickie Serles who works for that Institute confirmed that their research will be used in implementing HR 2614. G. Reid Lyon, Ph.D., Chief, Learning Disabilities, Cognitive and Social Development Branch, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development at the NIH has stated that the Institute's research programs are involved in the study of learning disabilities, reading development and disorders, language development and disorders, disorders of attention, and developmental neuroimaging. You should call Dr. Lyon and request the research which will be used in implementing this legislation. Are all our children disabled, retarded? The AFT supports Skinnerian Direct Instruction, always has. You will recall that Shanker tabled Herzer's AFT resolution which called on the federal government to cease funding these behavior modification programs. (See my book "Back to Basics Reform or Skinnerian International Curriculum"). The new President of the AFT supports Direct Instruction. (See pages from Morris/Iserbyt book "The Great American Con Game". (Am faxing to you) Although I am not a supporter in any way of Ken Goodman's (Mr. Whole Language) and have probably worked harder than most in exposing and stopping whole language, Goodman detests Skinner and has always taken a stand against mastery learning and Engelmann's Direct Instruction. We called Goodman yesterday regarding this legislation and he confirmed our worst fears. He said and I quote: "The American Federation of Teachers has a tentative list it is circulating of `promising programs for increasing student success with reading'." I have heard that they also hired the DISTAR (Engelmann/Carnine) disinformation group from the University of Oregon to evaluate state standards for them. This list will surely be representative of what they are looking for. If you are an AFT member or if you know AFT members, please let them know what this list represents. *Direct Instruction Reading and Language Arts (DISTAR/Engelmann) *Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition (CIRC) *Exemplary Center for Reading Instruction (ECRI) Phyllis, this is the program I wrote about in Back to Basics or OBE… Skinnerian International Curriculum, that makes children and teachers sick. *Multicultral Reading and Thinking (McRAT) – don't you love their revealing acronym? *Open Court Basal Series *Success for All (SFA) These are their programs based on "reliable, replicable research". That phrase occurs many times in the Goodling Reading Excellence Bill, HR 2614. Kenneth S. Goosman, Prof. Tel: 520-621-7868; Fax: 520-745-5285. Just because we "conservatives" don't like Goodman's Whole Language is no reason for us not to listen to him when he discusses something much more deadly than whole language: "training" children to read using animal psychology, rat lab training, which bypasses the brain. The candy companies and/or McDonalds are going to make a fortune. Every time a child reads a word properly, he/she will have a candy popped in their mouth, or will get a coupon worth one Big Mac. We should all go out and buy stock. Shanker has been in bed with the multinationalists for many years. He is a Trilateralist and worked closely with Carnegie, so we can be sure that the Direct Instruction method is right down their alley. In fact, it is the only method which can be used to "train" not "teach". As I said in my book, why doesn't the Education and Work Force Committee take a look at your "First Reader", Jeannie Eller's super phonics program or Sam Bluemenfeld's "AlphaPhonics"? Because they don't serve the Committee's purposes. All three of you should go before the committee and make a presentation. Interesting that Goodling opposed Senator Zorinsky's reading bill ten years ago. That was a real phonics bill. Now that the rat lab reading research is part of the game Goodling is supporting it. And, of course, Clinton will just adore that kind of reading instruction. Please oppose this legislation. Best, Charlotte [Iserbyt] [Please call or fax Charlotte for information regarding the books mentioned in these alerts, including her latest book on the Deliberate Dumbing Down of American children. 207-442-7899/0551 fax] __________________________________________________ The Christian Conscience P.O. Box 17346 Des Moines, IA 50317-0346 FAX: 515-262-9854 conscien@netins.net http://www.netins.net/showcase/conscience/ To: "Melanie K. Fields" , The LOOP:; From: "James Kilpatrick" Subject: Re: FWD:ALERT:ROBOT BILL!! Copies to: The LOOP:; Date sent: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 11:47:19 -0600 The below letter is totally full of mis-statements and attacks from the whole language movement on researched based findings. Her comments on TAD are beyond belief and not supported by anything but her opinions. What we have before us is the last chance for the whole language folks to continual their control over public education. Jimmy To: The LOOP:; From: "James Kilpatrick" Subject: Hr 2614 Response Date sent: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 11:36:43 -0600 Loopies: The emperical research in reading and reading disabilities is very clear. HR 2614 is not saying the educational system has to use Distar, Open Court or any other said program. We have two options either support HR 2614 or just give the money to Clinton and his army of "volunteers". This is the first opportunity to include research based instruction in federal legislation and HR 2614 needs our support. The effect it will have by including the language of scientific based research in the bills language will help bring about a fundamental shift in education. With billions of dollars being spent on Head Start, Chapter 1, Even Start and Special Education with little or no benefit why not include specific language to those grants. It is critical in talking about research on reading programs to stress the criteria that needs to be in place to insure that any research has scientific quality. At the least, the research must be: 1. Representative: That is, the sample that were studied in the initial validations of the program should be composed of the types of kids that the program will be used with in the school settings. In other words, you can't validate a program with white students and use it with African-Ameican students. etc. 2. Replicable: The children and the programs studied must be described with sufficent detail so that the complete independent replication is possible. 3. Reliability: The measures used in the research to assess children's characteristics and the effects of the program must be reliable and valid. If we can just ensure these features, we will have takena significant step forward. If there are more spectific questions please reply. Jimmy Date sent: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 01:48:54 -0500 From: "Melanie K. Fields" Organization: Professional Mommy To: "Hoffman, Gloria PA" Subject: Ann's reply Re: FWD:ALERT:ROBOT BILL!! James Kilpatrick wrote: > The below letter is totally full of mis-statements and attacks from > the > whole language movement on researched based findings. Her comments on > TAD > are beyond belief and not supported by anything but her opinions. What > we > have before us is the last chance for the whole language folks to > continual > their control over public education. Jimmy > >From Ann Herzer, 10/27/97 The Texas Alternative Document TAD Website "Welcome to the Website of the Texas Alternative Document (TAD)" states: "Recommendations on early reading acquisition and instruction in the document are supported by and are in agreement with over $100,000,000 worth of empirical reading research on reading acquisition and instruction funded by the Child Health and Human Development Branch of the National Institutes of Health." (p.5) On July 10, 1997 Dr. Reid Lyon testified before the Committee on Education and the Workforce in the U. S. House of Representatives. This testimony was summarized in an article titled "Report on Learning Disabilities Research" which was FAXed to me along with other articles. One article by Boonita Grossen, Research Associate with the National Center to Improve the Tools of Educators states: "The 1985 Health Research Extension Act resulted in a new change to the NICHD to improve the quality of reading research by conducting long-term, prospective, longitudinal and multidisciplinary research. Reid Lyon led the new charge by closely coordinating the work of more than 100 researchers in medicine, psychology, and education in approximately 14 different research centers." (p.1) It is the names of these programs and the research that I requested from Rickie Searles, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (301-496-9849) that I have not received. She confirmed that their research will be used in HR-2614. She said it would take at least two weeks to get this information to me. Since HR-2614 is scheduled for a vote in the House soon, I called Donna Garner in Texas who helped put the TAD document together. She also did not have the names of the programs. She then FAXed me 58 pages of Articles, two of which I have mentioned above. I received a copy of a FAX dated 9.8.97 from Dggarner to Fred001 which states" "Robert Sweet, the president of the National Right to Read has just been hired by U. S. Rep. Goodling's Committee on Education and the Workforce...He served in President Reagan's administration and was influential in getting the scientific/medical reading research started....Bob told me today that he has a copy of the Texas Alternative Document (TAD) for English/Language Arts/Reading right on his desk and plans to use the TAD as a tangible piece of evidence to illustrate how knowledge based curriculum requirements should be written by al states." Since I was unable to obtain the names of the 100 programs and the research, I called Dr. Kenneth Goodman, University of Arizona, and asked him if he had the names of the programs. he sent a two page FAX. One page states: "Friends of kids and teachers: October 18, 1997, The American Federation of Teachers has a tentative list it is circulating of 'promising programs for increasing student success with reading.' I have heard that they also hired the Distar Disinformation group from Oregon to evaluate state standards for them. This list will surely be representative of what they are looking for...: Direct Instruction Reading and Language Arts (Distar) Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition (CIRC) Exemplary Center for Reading Instruction (ECRI) Open Court Basal Series Success for All (SFA) After reading the 58 page articles from Garner, I concur that these programs or similar ones will be used to support HR-2614's scientific/medical national program. Enclosed are 5 pages of TAD listing their "experts." I have been doing educational research since 1978 when I was subjected to ECRI training. TAD is, in my opinion, based on Skinnerian/Pavlovian methods. Charlotte Iserbyt's alert quoted from a letter from Reid Lyon, Ph. D., Chief, Learning Disabilities, Cognitive, and Social Development Branch at NIH states:..."the Institute's research programs are involved in the study of learning disabilities, reading development and disorders, language development and disorders, disorders of attention, and developmental neuroimaging." (Please see TAD bibliography page 2 "Lyon, G. Reid and Vinita Chhabra. 'The Current State of Science and the Future of Specific Reading Disability.' MENTAL RETARDATION AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES RESEARCH REVIEWS, 2:2-9 (1996) The American school children have been, and continue to be used as human guinea pigs by the federal government and other vested interest groups who make their living off foundation and government grants. One can only wonder how long they will continue to tolerate this human tragedy. Citizens have a right to demand to see the names of the programs and the research used to support it. My only interest in HR-2614 is for our children. I believe HR-2614 is totally unconstitutional. This will be the first time in the history of our nation that Congress has passed a law for a reading program. What's next? Ann Herzer, M.A. Reading Specialist, Graduate Arizona State University, Member, Pi Lambda, (National Honors and Professional Association in Education) Figure 4 - Bibliography for the Texas Alternative Document BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR TEXAS ALTERNATIVE DOCUMENT Adams, Marilyn Jager. BEGINNING TO READ. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1995. Ayers, Leonard Porter. A MEASURING SCALE FOR ABILITY IN SPELLING. Milford, Massachusetts: Mott Media, Inc., 1986. Bergman, Eldo. READING CLINICIAN'S MANUAL. Houston: Texas Reading Institute, 1996. BUILDING A POWERFUL READING PROGRAM: FROM RESEARCH TO PRACTICE. Sacramento, California: California Education Policy Seminar and California State University Institute for Education Reform, 1996. California. READING PROGRAM ADVISORY: TEACHING READING. Sacramento, 1996. Carnine, Douglas, Jerry Silbert, and Edward J. Kameenui. DIRECT INSTRUCTION READING. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1990. CENTER FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF READING INSTRUCTION. Sacramento: California State University for Education Reform, 1996. CONSORTIUM ON READING EXCELLENCE. Emeryville, California: Institute for Policy Analysis and Research, 1996. CORE KNOWLEDGE SEQUENCE: Content Guidelines for Grades K-6. Charlottesville, Virginia: Core Knowledge Foundation, 1995. ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS AND READING, Second Draft. Austin, Texas: Texas Education Agency, 1996. ENGLISH STANDARDS OF LEARNING: For Virginia Public Schools. Richmond, Virginia: 1995. Foorman, Barbara. "The Case for Early Reading Intervention." COGNITIVE AND LINGUISTIC FOUNDATIONS OF READING ACQUISITION: IMPLICATIONS FOR INTERVENTION (B. Blachman, ed.). Mahwah, New Jersey: Erlbaum. Gilman, Mary Louise. 3000 SOUND-ALIKES AND LOOK-ALIKES. Vienna, Virginia: National Shorthand Reporters Association, 1986. Henry, Marcia. WORDS. Los Gatos, CA: Lex Press, 1990. Hirsch, E. D. THE SCHOOLS WE NEED: WHY WE DON'T HAVE THEM. New York: Doubleday, 1996. Honig, Bill. HOW SHOULD WE TEACH OUR CHILDREN TO READ?: THE ROLE OF SKILLS IN A COMPREHENSIVE READING PROGRAM--A BALANCED APPROACH.. San Francisco: Far West Laboratory, 1996. Houston. A BALANCED APPROACH TO READING: A PEER REVIEW OF HISD'S READING PROGRAM, 1996. Kolenovsky, Gladys and Sue Jones. PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS TRAINING FOR READING IMPROVEMENT. Dallas: Luke Waites Child Development Center, Texas Scottish Rite Hospital for Children, 1996. Lindamood, Pat and Charles Lindamood. AUDITORY DISCRIMINATION IN DEPTH. Austin: PRO-ED, 1972. Lyon, G. Reid and Vinita Chhabra. "The Current State of Science and the Future of Specific Reading Disability." MENTAL RETARDATION AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES RESEARCH REVIEWS, 2:2-9 (1996). McWhorter, Kathleen. STUDY AND THINKING SKILLS IN COLLEGE. Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman/Little, Brown College Division, 1988. Moats, Louisa. "Spelling: A Window on Linguistic Development." TEACHING READING (Sara Brody, ed.). Milford, NH: LARC Publishing, 1994. Newhouse, Dora. THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF HOMONYMS 'SOUND-ALIKES.' Los Angeles: Newhouse Press, 1976. Partridge, Eric. USAGE AND ABUSAGE. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1994. Prator, Clifford and Betty Wallace Robinett. MANUAL OF AMERICAN ENGLISH PRONUNCIATION, 4th ed. Chicago: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1985. Shaw, Henry. DICTIONARY OF PROBLEM WORDS AND EXPRESSIONS. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1987. Spalding, Romalda B. and Walter T. THE WRITING ROAD TO READING. New York: Wm. R. Morrow, 1990. Stanback, Margaret. SYLLABLE AND RIME PATTERNS FOR TEACHING READING. New York: Teachers' College, Columbia University, 1991. Texas. READING SKILLS DEVELOPMENT-- WHAT WORKS?: PROCEEDINGS OF THE PRE- SUMMIT WORKSHOP. Houston, Texas: April 1996. Torgesen, Joseph. THE PREVENTION AND REMEDIATION OF READING DISABILITIES: EVALUATING WHAT WE KNOW FROM RESEARCH, in press, 1996. Truch, Stephen. "Stimulating Basic Reading Processes Using Auditory Discrimination in Depth." ANNALS OF DYSLEXIA 44 (1994): 60-80. Warriner, John E. and Francis Griffith. WARRINER'S ENGLISH GRAMMAR AND COMPOSITION. New York: Harcourt Brace and World, Inc., 1965. Watson, Ian. "Phonological Processing in Two Languages." LANGUAGE PROCESSING IN BILINGUAL CHILDREN (Ellen Bialystok, ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Figure 5 - List of Experts We wish to thank the following people whose expertise has impacted the writing of this Texas Alternative Document –7/10/97: Marilyn Jager Adams -- Senior Scientist at Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts Isabel Beck -- Professor of Education, School of Education -- Senior Scientist, Learning, Research, and Development Center, University of Pittsburgh Eldo Bergman -- Executive Director, Texas Reading Institute, Houston Maggie Bruck -- Associate Professor of Psychology and Pediatrics, McGill University, Montreal, Canada Kenneth R. Burton, Jr. -- Attorney-at-Law, Houston Douglas Carnine -- Professor of Education, Director of the National Center To Improve the Tools of Educators, University of Oregon Maureen Dimarco - Secretary of Child Development and Education, State of California Barbara Foorman -- Professor of Educational Psychology, Department of Psychology, University of Houston, Houston Neal Frey -- Senior Textbook Analyst, Educational Research Analysts, Longview, Texas Cynthia C. Fry – Master Trustee, Clifton Independent School District; Owner of Systems Engineering Services Philip Gough --Barbara Pierce Bush Regents Professor of Literacy, University of Texas, Austin Bill Honig -- Visiting Distinguished Professor, School of Education, San Francisco State University, San Francisco -- Former California Superintendent of Public Instruction Lloyd Huff -- Retired Chairman of English Departments, Hardin-Simmons University and McMurry College, Abilene David Hungerford -- Clinician, Lindamood-Bell, San Luis Obispo, California Constance Jones -- Director of School Programs, Core Knowledge Foundation, Ft. Myers, Florida Marion Joseph -- Former Chief of Staff for Superintendent of Public Instruction, State of California Connie Juel -- Thomas G. Jewell Professor of Education, McGuffey Reading Center, University of Virginia Jimmy Kilpatrick -- Director, Texas Educational Task Force, Houston Reid Lyon -- Chief Director of Learning Disabilities, Cognitive and Social Development Branch, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland Louisa Moats -- Director of Teacher Training at Greenwood Institute, Putney, Vermont -- Adjunct Assistant Professor of Clinical Psychiatry at Dartmouth Medical School Donna Muldrew -- President of Texas Citizens' Academic Network, Austin Alice Nine -- Director of Northwest Instructional 'N' Educational Enterprises, Inc., Portland, Oregon Jean Osborn -- Professor, Center for Study of Reading, University of Illinois Keith Stanovich -- Researcher, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Ontario, Canada Robert W. Sweet, Jr. -- President, National Right To Read Foundation From: Redyarrow@aol.com Date sent: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 23:27:35 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: ALERT:ROBOT BILL slur Several vocal members of the LOOP slung many stones last year over Direct Instruction an old fashioned phonics approach in which students in a classroom answer in unison during parts of the lesson so all the children are occupied and actively participating ; DI is not the same as the "mastery learning" program -- although anyone who feels that a child should thoroughly know how to subtract (i.e., mastered subtraction) before moving on to division, can be called someone who believes in "mastery learning." More research has been done on Distar Reading programs with disadvantaged and children with learning disabilites because of the political clout of the constructivists in the regular education arena. I wrote the following description to describe a direct instruction approach vs. constructivist curriculum. I would urge everyone to carefully read the TAD curriculum document and to watch a classroom full of students learn to read easily and adeptly with Direct Instruction phonics before throwing them out along with Hirsch. Otherwise, we'll ineffectually go in circles while focused whole language and whole math advocates pass us by at the starting line. Direct Instruction techniques. vs. constructivist curriculum >> 1. Difference Direct instruction 1. Emphasizes knowing and applying knowledge to solve problems vs. Constructivism 1. Emphasizes gaining knowledge through problem solving 2. Difference Direct instruction Views knowledge as hierarchical vs. Constructivism Views knowledge as relative, wholistic, gained from authentic context 3. Difference Direct instruction Groups students by age or skill level vs. Constructivism groups students with mixed ages and skills 4. Difference Direct instruction teacher-direct instruction that is planned vs. Constructivism discovery learning; student directed 5. Difference Direct instruction teacher is active and students are active or passive vs. Constructivism lessons are experienctial; students are active, teacher is nonintrusive I wrote the following article as part of a book, I eventually hope to finish. This section describes a direct instruction reading program and explains what it is: I recommended that the teacher use the DISTAR curriculum based on research analysis as well as my own experience teaching some of the most challenging children to read. By switching to the DISTAR reading program she would teach her students to read with reduced stress and increased accuracy. Research generated by Project Follow Through, the largest educational study ever conducted, overwhelmingly established the supiority of this phonics-first approach. Between 1967 and 1995, the Federal governement at a cost of over one billion dollars explored how to improve the education of disadvantaged children in grades K-3 in order to establish which specific teaching methods could raise the reading levels of children in America’s poorest schools. Project Follow Through, the largest educational study in United States’ history, cost over a billion dollars and covered 79,000 children in 180 communities. Students in model Direct Instrction classrooms ouperformed their peers in other classrooms based on developmentally appropriate practice models, including “student-centered learning,” “learning-to-learn,” “active learning,” “cooperative education” and “whole language.” Children taught in the majority of these developmentally appropriate classrooms received lower achievment test scores than they would have without the special intervention. Only the students in Direct instruction classrooms demonstrated significant growth in academic skills, problem solving skills and enhanced self esteem. As Dr. Jones puts it, "The inescapable conclusion of Project Follow Through is that kids enrolled in educational programs, which have well-defined academic objectives, will enjoy greater achievement in basic skills, thinking skills and self-esteem. Self-esteem in fact appears to derive from pride in becoming competent in the important academic skills." In Direct Instruction reading classrooms based on the model evaluated in Project Follow Through, teachers directed all instruction using carefully sequenced, structured materials with clear goals presented to the students. Students answered questions in unison to increase their level of engagement; Immediate feedback was presented by the teacher to students when they answered incorrectly and the students were given the opportunity to practice the difficult skill some more. Unfortunately, the educational establishment did not expect the findings of Project Follow Through and has chosen to ignore the results of Project Follow Through’s conclusive findings. Although this research project disproved the effectiveness of “natural” learning philosophies, today we find the majority of school districts teaching reading based on these same methods that led to documented decreases in student skill levels. To: The LOOP:; From: "James Kilpatrick" Subject: MY VIEW OF HR 2416 Copies to: The News Bunch:; Date sent: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 12:38:26 -0600 Dear Jimmy, Thanks for asking for my opinion on H.R. 2416. As you know, there have been widespread assertions that the Reading Excellence Act, H.R. 2416, would mandate specific models of reading instruction to be implemented at the local level. When one takes time to read the language of the bill, rather than certain individual’s misrepresentation and speculation about hidden intentions, you can see that H.R. 2416 has carefully struck a balance between ensuring flexibility and adaptability and utilizing the best available research findings on reading instruction. A Balanced Approach: >From my vantage point as former director of policy development for the House Education and Workforce Committee, I believe the Reading Excellence Act strikes a careful balance between two goals: First, to encourage early reading instruction to reflect principles of effective reading identified by decades of scientific research; Second, to maintain local flexibility and adaptability of reading instruction to individual student needs. Some commenters have pilloried a respect for "scientific" research methods applied to education as if it meant that children were treated as animals with no innate cognitive or moral capabilities. Using the "scientific method" simply means using logical, analytical methods to determine the relative effectiveness of varying approaches to reading instruction. This is best accomplished by asking: for what students and under what circumstances do varying types of reading programs seem to be effective or not effective? The very fact that most reading programs today have never been subjected to serious, objective evaluation is a primary reason why many children today are unable to read well. Consult Research-Based Reading Principles, But Adapt Teaching Methods to the Child Research conducted by the U.S. Department of Education, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, and many other researchers indicates that an effective reading program needs to reflect key principles such as: vocabulary acquisition, phonemic awareness, systematic teaching of sound-letter relationships, as well as ensuring that children read widely and understand what they read. Too many of American classrooms have ignored these principles, in whole or in part, and many children are reading and thinking far below their God-given capacities. Research also indicates that different children come to school with different levels of reading preparation, and that they master the skills of reading at different rates. Thus, adopting one uniform teaching method for all children from varying levels of preparation does not yield the best results for the greatest number of children. Additionally, even with strong, research-based instruction, a small number of students will still face problems due to learning disabilities or other difficulties; these children will need carefully tailored tutoring and remediation. To be clear, supporters of HR 2416 do not believe, nor does research support the notion, that one scripted instructional reading method should be used for all children. Thus, principles of reading instruction that are based on reliable, replicable research have broad applicability for all children. But specific teaching methods must be carefully adapted and implemented by well trained, professional teachers and reading specialists. Helping teachers and reading specialists have access to and understand this research so they can make informed instructional decisions is a primary purpose of the Reading Excellence Act. The Reading Excellence Act: Myth vs. Reality Myth: All states must participate in the Reading Excellence Act. Reality: The Reading Excellence Act is a voluntary program aimed at States that want to make their reading instruction more reflective of decades of scientific research on reading. No State is compelled to participate. In fact, there will not even be enough funding for every state to participate. Myth: Local schools are forced to accept federally-mandated reading programs, such as Direct Instruction. Reality: The bill does not require any local school district to participate, nor does H.R. 2416 override state law affecting local school district standards or curriculum. No curriculum or reading program can be imposed on a local school district. In fact, local school districts have significant flexibility in the use of funding. The only substantive requirement is that the district implement one or more reading program models that are based on the principles found in reliable, replicable research on reading. Proven principles can, and should be, adapted and implemented in a way that best meets the needs of individuals students. There is no "one-size-fits-all" reading curriculum. Myth: Federal bureaucrats decide what kind of reading program local schools will adopt. Reality: When the State makes its decisions on how to allocate funding within the State, it will need to attempt to ensure that local reading reforms are based on principles of reliable, replicable research. As the State makes this decision, it can request advice from the federal peer review panel as well as other researchers; but the decision for local funding is a state, not federal, decision. Myth: The Reading Excellence Act creates new state bureaucracy. Reality: States that seek funding have wide flexibility for using the funding, but 95 percent of funds must be provided to local schools. Large state bureaucracies can not be established with this funding. In my opinion, Congressman William Goodling, author of HR 2416, has made a good-faith attempt to create a balanced program that encourages schools and teachers to pay attention to high-quality research, and at the same time, apply those research-based principles in a way that will help individual students succeed in developing their individual talents and thinking skills. Hans Meeder Jimmy Kilpatrick Phone 713 520-9715 Coordinator of Community Programs Fax 713 520-7214 Advisor for Reading and Reading Disabilities University of Texas at Austin Home 281 265-2368 Charles A. Dana Center Mobile 281 536-4713 1723 Westheimer Road Houston,Texas 77098-1611 From: Bonnylinn@aol.com Date sent: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 11:03:50 -0500 (EST) To: EDUCATION-CONSUMERS@tricon.net Subject: Response to Herzer on "Robots" Dear All, It is only fair that Donna Garner, lead author of the Texas Alternative Document (TAD), should have an opportunity to respond to Ann Herzer's comments. Therefore, I am forwarding Donna's letter to Ann so that you will hear both sides. Frankly, I find it very discouraging that one practicing Christian could so completely misunderstand the intent of another devoted Christian. Had the TAD language arts curriculum been in place when my children entered the Texas school system, they would not now be nearly two years behind in their potential. I wholeheartedly support the TAD team's efforts to restore co mmense and knowledge to the classroom. It's precisely because these things are currently missing that our children are easy victims to manipulation. Jeanne Donovan, Coordinator Education Consumers Association of Fort Worth and Crowley http://geowww.geo.tcu.edu/eca --------------------- Forwarded message: Subj: My response to Ann Herzer's letter Date: 97-10-27 22:52:37 EST From: Dggarner To: Bonnylinn October 27, 1997 Ann Herzer The Christian Conscience P. O. Box 17346 Des Moines, IA 50317-0346 Dear Ann: I am the Lead Writer of the Texas Alternative Document (TAD) for English / Language Arts / Reading. I saw your letter to "Dear Fellow Americans" this morning in my e-mail and am very concerned. First, let me say that I have been in the classroom for over 26 years; and for most of those years, I have had to fight just to have the opportunity to teach explicit skills. I know that in my field of ELAR, children must first memorize critical information before they can apply it to their own communication. That step of memorization does take drill and repetition, and then that memorized information becomes a foundation upon which students can move to more sophisticated skills. That is what the debate between the TAD and the Texas Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) is all about. The agenda behind Goals 2000/National Standards Project is to move the schools from teaching explicit, knowledge-based, academic content into performance-based content. The problem with the latter is that performance-based content cannot be evaluated objectively; it requires the evaluator to grade (assess) the student's work based upon the value system of the grader instead of on an objective standard. Unfortunately, in our world today, that means that our students would be forced into producing work which would have to satisfy the value system of the "powers that be" who grade their work -- a very dangerous practice in a country where social engineering has already infiltrated so many of our institutions. It would also bring in the affective domain (feelings and emotions) which would turn our schools into places where the students become their own masters, and teachers become simply "facilitators." Many schools in America have already adopted this philosophy. We made it clear in the Introduction to the TAD that we believe that the classroom should be "student-centered"and "teacher-directed." We also believe that the curriculum requirements should be based as much as possible on skills which can be measured objectively. This does not mean that we create "robots" of our children. We simply want to make sure that they have a strong foundation of basic core knowledge which will help them adjust to an ever-changing world. If a person has not been associated with the public schools of our country lately, it may be hard to understand just how bad things are. The agenda behind Goals 2000 and the TEKS has already permeated many of our schools today. Teachers are not respected for their position as authority figures, and rebellion among the students is rampant. Somebody, hopefully the teacher, has to be in charge of the classroom before children can focus their attention and be able to learn. We believe that whole language classrooms have promoted much of the upheaval during the earliest years of a child's school life when he should be learning self-control through the disciplined study of the sounds of the English language. Then he should apply that knowledge of the sounds to the letters themselves -- in other words, he should move from the part to the whole. He should be taught "to break the code." Instead he is being taught to look at the whole sentence and "predict" what he thinks the words are. No wonder children are confused and never read with ease. Unless they read the words with automaticity, their brains are not free to think about the meanings of the sentences. The NIH research has been replicated, peer reviewed, and analyzed. It shows conclusively that to prevent children from developing reading problems later in their lives, they must first learn to hear, target, and manipulate even the smallest subsounds of the English language (phonemic awareness) before they can take those sounds and apply them to letters. When that connection is made through the direct, systematic instruction (decoding or "phonics") of the teacher, the child is then free to read anything. The world of the printed word is laid open to him, and he cannot be stopped in his acquisition of knowledge. That is the goal of our TAD--to make sure that curriculum requirements are in place which will help children to develop phonemic awareness and decoding skills. Next in importance, we want them to develop the ability to comprehend what they read, to love literature, and to be able to write and speak correctly. It would take too long to describe the political picture here in Texas during the time that we were trying to get the State Board of Education to recognize the TAD over the TEKS. The TEKS cost $9,500 per page for the Texas Education Agency to produce. Of course, that money came out of the pockets of the taxpayers of America. The TAD was written on our own time and at our own expense for less than $50 a page. We did utilize information from the experts and from the documents listed at the back of the TAD; but I can assure you that since most of us writers are in the classroom every day, we filtered that information carefully based upon our current experiences with children. Our students have a way of anchoring us in reality; they do not let us teachers get very far off into theoretical "pie in the sky" fads. I can also assure you that the curriculum requirements as laid out in the TAD are very rigorous and do increase in depth and complexity from year to year. Many people may not realize just how far our schools have slipped in this country. In fact, most of the people who opposed the TAD, I believe, are frightened of being held to such grade-level specific requirements because they are worried that their students cannot meet those expectations. For more information about the actual standards writing process in Texas, please read the November issue of Teacher Magazine (sister publication to Education Week). The article on the TAD is called "Texas Showdown: Renegade Teachers Gun for the State's New Standards." The web site of Education Week is http://www.edweek.org. Drew Lindsay, who wrote the article, did an excellent job of tracing the entire process. If you should want to order a hard copy of Teacher Magazine, please call (202) 364-4114 to arrange for payment. It is also important to compare the TAD to the TEKS. Unfortunately, the TEKS were adopted by the Texas State Board of Education at its July 11 meeting. We are terribly disappointed with this decision. The TEKS are on the web at http://www.tea.state.tx.us/teks. Our TAD web site is http://www.htcomp.net/tad. I believe that when a person puts the two documents side by side, it is easy to see that the TAD is far superior and, had it been adopted, would have brought challenging curriculum requirements into the public schools of Texas. Please let me know if you would like any other information. Somehow I feel that you may not be current on the political landscape in Texas and that you do not understand how hard we TAD writers have battled to get the education establishment even to acknowledge the existence of our document. Yes, in a perfect world, we probably would have written our TAD differently; but we had to make decisions based upon what we felt was politically doable. I am very supportive of Bob Sweet and the Reading Excellence Act because it is our best chance to turn public school education around and point it toward what actually works with children. The research evidence from the National Institutes of Health is very clear and has been based on large numbers of public school children across America. We need to make sure that schools move toward a heavy emphasis on phonemic awareness and the teaching of phonics through direct, systematic instruction. Sincerely, Donna Garner 236 Cross Country Drive Hewitt, TX 76643 dggarner@aol.com EDUCATION CONSUMERS CLEARINGHOUSE To: The LOOP:; From: "James Kilpatrick" Subject: response to Herzer/NICHD Research/Dr. Reid Lyon Copies to: The News Bunch:; Date sent: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 19:50:53 -0600 October 27, 1997 Ms. Ann Herzer 2505 North 61st Way Scottsdale, AZ 85257 Dear Ms. Herzer Per your request, I am sending along a number of documents and papers that should provide you with general background on the NICHD research programs in reading development and disorders, learning disabilities, dyslexia, language disorders, and disorders of attention. The NICHD research program is relatively large and utilizes multidisciplinary research teams in sites within the United States and Canada to address a number of research targets. Reviews of some of this work are provided in the enclosed papers. I am also enclosing the research rationales and design guidelines for many of the projects underway. These guidelines identify critical questions that must be addressed and criteria for sample selection, design, etc. I write these documents following reviews of literature, and scientists wishing to address the questions and compete for funding respond via grant applications can contact me. The NICHD Reading Research Program has supported investigations since 1965. Fifty-two percent of the studies address normal reading development and 48% address reading difficulties and disabilities. I have enclosed a list of selected studies of normal and atypical reading development in addition to the overview provided below. For more specific information on the NICHD research in reading and reading disorders, you may wish to peruse ERIC or MEDLINE, or standard library sources for the following names - I am listing them along with their research program affiliation: Page 2 - Ms. Herzer Yale University/Haskins Laboratories Research Center Schlomo Bentin Benita Blachman Susan Brady Jack Fletcher (also Associated with the Houston Group) Barbara Foorman (Also associated with the Houston Group) Anne Fowler Carol Fowler David Francis (also Associated with the Houston Group) Leonard Katz Alvin Liberman Isabelle Liberman (Now deceased) Ignatius Mattingly Kenneth Pugh Donald Shankweiler Bennett Shaywitz Sally Shaywitz Linda Siegel (Primarily associated with the Ontario Institute) Keith Stanovich (Primarily associated with the Ontario Institute) Michael Studdert-Kennedy Michael Turvey Note: The Haskins Laboratories program is devoted to the study of the speech code and emergent reading. This program has been continuously funded by the NIH since l965 and has produced over 1700 publications addressing reading development and disorders. The Yale programs are tasked with definition and classification of reading disorders and other learning disabilities, mapping the developmental course of normal reading development and and readaing disabilities, identifying neurobiological and genetic substrates for both normal and atypical development in language and reading abilities, and identifying productive intervention modalities for different types of oral language and reading difficulties. Contact: Dr. Bennett Shaywitz (Yale): 203/785-4641 Dr. Alvin Liberman (Haskins): 203/865-6163 THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO RESEARCH CENTER John DeFries Pauline Filipek Helen Forsberg David Fulker Albert Galaburda (Also Directs Harvard Research Program) Richard Olsen Bruce Pennington Robert Ploman John Rack Barbara Wise Page 3 - Ms. Herzer The Colorado group is tasked with elucidating the genetic aspects of reading development and disorders and the language and orthographic capabilities that are related to such development and relating these findings to neurobiological development. This group has been continuously supported by the NICHD since l973. Several intervention trials for reading disabilities are also underway at this site. Contact: Dr. Richard Olsen: 303/492-2967 THE JOHNS HOPKINS RESEARCH CENTER Mark Appelbaum Gary Chase Christine Cox Martha Denckla Allan Reiss Donna Scanlon Linda Scheurholz Frank Vellutino Note: The Hopkins program is responsible for understanding the genetic and neurobiological underpinngs of both disorders of attention and language-based reading disorders. The research group is larger than depicted here, but I have left off names of those not directly involved in the reading research. Dr. Denckla is the P.I. and Dr. Vellutino is responsible for the reading intervention trials that are based in Albany, NY. Contact: Dr. Martha Denckla (Hopkins): 410/550-9398 Dr. Frank Vellutino (Albany Site): 518/442-3770 THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON RESEARCH CENTER Virginia Berninger (Director) Anne Cunningham Deborah McCutchen Louisa Moats Susan Nolan Note: The UW Center is newly funded and is tasked with a range of basic neurobiological and genetic studies, but also concentrates on assessing the effects of different types of interventions on deficits in early reading and writing development. Dr. Benrninger has been supported on other projects since l986, and has contributed nicely to the literature. A large number of scientists are working at this Center, but I have provided the names of only those who are directly involved in the language Page 4 - Ms. Herzer development and reading research. Dr. Berninger can provide you with the names of the specialists in neurology, radiology, behavioral and molecular genetics, pediatrics, neurposychology, nuclear physics, and psychiatry. Contact: Dr. Virginia Berninger (U. Washington): 206/543-1846 The Children's Hospital/Harvard University Research Center David Bellinger Jane Holmes Berstein Frank Duffy Bruce Rosen Deborah Waber (Director) Peter Wolff Contact: Dr. Deborah Waber (Boston Children's):617/771-2211 This Harvard group is tasked with testing hypotheses related to temporal processing and reading development and disorders. In addition, functional MRI studies are being conducted with both normal reading children and youngsters with reading difficulties to better understand the neural basis of language and reading behaviors. The Beth Israel/Harvard University Research Project Victor Dennenberg Albert Galaburda (Director) Gordon Sherman Glenn Rosen Note: This Harvard program project is devoted specifically to identifying neuroanatomical and neurophysiological models of reading disorders. No intervention trials are included. Contact: Dr. Albert Galaburda (Harvard): 617/667-3235 The Bowman Gray Reading Research Project Rebecca Felton Raquel Gur Connie Juel Jan Loney Mary McFarlane Cecile Naylor Frank Wood (Director) Contact: Dr. Frank Wood (Bowman Gray): 910/716-2261 Page 5 - Ms. Herzer The Bowman Gray studies have been in operation since 1985 and have followed a number of cohorts of children from kindergarten through high school. This team has studied the linguistic basis of reading development and disorders and the genetic and neurobiological correlates of reading development and difficulties. Additional studies have assessed the relative merits of code based instruction and literature based methods of reading instruction with children with varying degrees of reading difficulty. The Florida State Reading Interventions Project Anne Alexander Tim Conway Patricia Lindamood Carol Rashotte Joseph Torgesen (Director) Richard Wagner Contact: Dr. Joseph Torgesen (Florida State): 904/668-3367 The Florida State project is in its fifth year of longitudinal study of children at-risk for reading failure and will continue for an additional five years. The major emphasis of the studies conducted at this site is: identifying for which children, which instructional methods and procedures, are most beneficial at which stage of reading development. Children are identified for the longitudinal studies during kindergarten and then assigned to different teaching methods/approaches for two years. The children are then followed for three years to determine if gains in reading are maintained over time. The University of Texas Medical Center Reading Interventions Project Jack Fletcher Barbara Foorman (Director) David Francis Bennett Shaywitz Sally Shaywitz Contact: Dr. Barbara Foorman (U. Of Texas Medical Center, Houston): 713/500-3687 The Texas Interventions Project is now completing its fifth year and will continue for an additional five years. Longitudinal intervention studies have compared the effects of implicit code instruction, embedded code instruction, and explicit code Page 6 - Ms. Herzer instruction on the reading development of children who are initially below the 20th percentile in reading skills. The Georgia State Reading Interventions Project Jack Fletcher Maureen Lovitt Louisa Moats Robin Morris (Director) MaryAnne Wolf Note: This project is conducting longitudinal intervention projects in Atlanta (Morris), Boston(Wolf) and Toronto (Lovitt). These projects are currently beginning their third year of study. Contact: Dr. Robin Morris (Georgia State): 404/651-1620 Syracuse University Reading Interventions Project Bonita Blachman (Director) Diane Tangel Eileen Ball Sandra Black Sally Shaywitz Bennett Shaywitz Ken Pugh Note: This project is in its second year. First and second grade children at-risk for reading failure are studied first with neuroimaging technology and then reading intervention is initiated. Neuroimaging is repeated during and after the intervention trials to better understand how and when gains in reading skills are accompanied by changes in neurophysiological substrate. Contact: Dr. Benita Blachman: 315/443-8533 The NICHD/Washington, D.C.Early Reading Interventions Project Marilyn Adams (Consultant for Open Court)) Douglas Carnine (Consultant for Reading Mastery) Jack Pikulski (Consultant for Houghton-Mifflin) Barbara Foorman (Principal Investigator) Doreen Haywood Louisa Moats (On-Site Director) Deborah Speece Page 7 - Ms. Herzer This five-year longitudinal early reading interventions project is comparing the relative effectiveness of the Houghton Mifflin reading Program and the Open Court Reading Program for children who are reading below the 20th percentile for age in kindergarten and first grade. The studies are designed to better understand which components of reading instruction are most beneficial for well defined children at different stages of reading development. Contact: Dr. Louisa Moats: 202/270-7389 Additional Research Sites Omaha, Nebrasksa (Genetics Research Arm for U. Colorado Center) Irvine, California (Neuroimaging Research Arm for U. Colorado Center) University of Florida/Gainsville (Intervention Research Arm for the Florida State Intervention Project SUMMARY OF CENTERS AND SITES WITHIN THE NICHD LD RESEARCH NETWORK Research Centers Yale University The University of Washington The Johns Hopkins University Children's Hospital/Harvard University The University of Colorado Reading Program Projects The Bowman Gray School of Medicine Yale University Beth Israel Hospital The University of Colorado Reading Disabilities Intervention Projects and subprojects The University of Houston Florida State University Georgia State University The University of Washington Yale University The University of Colorado Tufts University The University of Toronto State University of New York at Albany Syracuse University Children's Hospital/Harvard University Note: The majority of these Centers and Projects employ the same common assessment battery and employ prospective, longitudinal designs with the context of the research. In addition, as you will note from reading the Request for Applications that stimulate this research, that a number of criteria must be in place for the studies. First, the children under study and the Page 8 - Ms. Herzer instructional programs being assessed must be described in sufficient detail so that compleindependent replication can take place. Second, all measures and observations of the chldren in the studies must meet acceptable standards of reliability. Third, the samples under study must represent the population for whom any instructional recommendations will be made - that is, the studies must be representative. I would strongly urge you to contact each of the sites independently. Even better, the principal investigators would be more than happy to meet with you and discuss in detail the research protocols in use. A somewhat surprising and consistent behavior that has been noted among some educators and reading educators, in particular, is that there is a tendency to report on the above programs without obtaining full information on the studies or the products of the research from the actual sites and investigators. Frequently, selective reporting is carried out to support or reject a particular perspective or belief, without amalgamating all of the information that is clearly available to anone who is interested in the research. The NICHD is particularly interested in stimulating independent replications of the research conducted thus far. To be honest, we have been surprised at the tendency for many reading professionals to critique the research on emotional grounds rather than taking the time to carefully replicate the work. This clearly represents an interesting non-scientific philosophy that I hope is not endemic to the entire reading community. Scientific knowlege about reading development and difficulties will accrue as many investigators bring their research talents, not emotional agendas or "belief systems" to the task. Disagreement is healthy and will hone our eventual understanding of the reading process. However, disagreement must be dealt with in a mature and objective manner. If one does not appreciate a particular finding from the NICHD research, we welcome any objective and reliable data that can inform the research and clinical communities of alternate interpretations of the findings. If no data are available to those who do not agree with the findings, then we are very hopeful that full replication studies will be conducted. Page 9 - Ms. Herzer In closing, I hope that I have provided you with information that is relevant to your research and your writing. If you have time to contact each of the individuals cited above, I feel assured that you will be able to assemble a comprehensive list of references (including my own) produced to date from each of the NICHD research sites. Please feel free to contact me at 301/496-9849 if I can be of further help. Sincerely, G. Reid Lyon, Ph.D. Chief Child Development and Behavior Branch National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Center for Research for Mothers and Children National Institutes of Health Enclosures Jimmy Kilpatrick Phone 713 520-9715 Coordinator of Community Programs Fax 713 520-7214 Advisor for Reading and Reading Disabilities University of Texas at Austin Home 281 265-2368 Charles A. Dana Center Mobile 281 536-4713 1723 Westheimer Road Houston,Texas 77098-1611