CHICAGO TRIBUNE - WHOLE LANGUAGE BRINGS ST CHARLES INTO DECLINE \doc\web\99\01\tribread.txt From: rdyarrow@elnet.com Date sent: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 10:42:46 -0600 To: "ClearingHouse" Subject: [education-consumers] Inadvertently my letter ends up in the Tribune's Voice of People Send reply to: rdyarrow@elnet.com ===================================================================== I did not set out to write an opinion piece for the Chicago Tribune. Over the past two years I have sent a number of stories, leads, etc. to the Tribune which have always been ignored. Frankly, I had given up ever impacting that paper in any way. Besides this year has been especially busy and even in all my pervasive optimism, I had given up on ever being able to influence my school district at the local level. When I look back at the past four years and realize that the biggest change brought about by all our parental protest has been the hiring of a PR person by the district - that teachers of eighth graders are still reading third grade-level books out loud to the students each day , I can no longer believe that mere parents living in a district will ever directly change anything of substance. Nevertheless, for the past two years, I have analyzed the school district's IGAP scores, a task which the hidden statistician within me enjoys, and which I once again put in the long hours to complete this third year. Not until one has several years' worth of testing data do the strong trends, areas of weakness, areas of strength, and clear patterns reveal themselves. As I suspected, this years' data showed few surprises, substantiating the declines the parents had been highlighting for the last two years. By the time the whole language kids reach middle school, at least 20% of them are unable to read anywhere near grade level. Our students' writing scores when compared with the rest of the state are comparable with students in large underfunded urban districts. Last spring when I was in Springfield a legislator with a knowing wink had let me know that many superintendents were openly talking to each other about excluding larger numbers of students in their districts this year for the state test, and so I paid special attention to that percentage. I was appalled to see that every one of the weak schools in our district which we identified last year omitted between 18 - 20% of the students for the state testing this year... And it didn't even make that much of a difference in the end results!!!! Armed with the latest analysis of our test, several weeks ago I presented the information to the school board accompanied by an analysis packet that they would have paid a consultant thousands of dollars to develop for them. Knowing their abhorrence (possibly ignorance) of numbers I prepared interesting packets of visual information and charts so that the results were easily decipherable. I even threw in some clip art to improve the graphic presentation and make the information more user-friendly. Their reaction was even worse than last year. The pervasive hostility was thick enough to cut through, and although I make my living speaking and teaching adults, I found my voice wavering and my words faltering as I faced the table of sneering, jeering contempt. Presenting my data to the hostile L-shaped table of faces who reminded me of the "See no evil.....hear no evil" simian parody in the "Planet of the Apes" movie, my last threads of hope for rational "Gentle persuasion, relentlessly applied" disappeared. One of the board members visibly sneered at me - another shut his eyes as if he was sleeping. Although other parents were allowed to speak well past the allotted five minutes - doubling and tripling that time, as they brought up their issues about whether drug dogs should be used in the high school (we now have a big heroin problem emerging) I was told that my time was up the exact second 5 minutes had elapsed. The district had clearly expected me to present another analysis this year, and after I spoke the superintendent read Riley's speech about the need to end the reading wars and go with "balanced programs". The school board president presented a prepared speech about how pleased the district was with the ACT scores of students in our district. After the district's reaction and my own frustration that after all this time it still bothered me enough to result in a sleepless night, I sat down and penned a letter to the local paper in town. At least the past three years' worth of test analysis would be recorded in the paper and not just "die" at the board meeting. A few day's letter our local paper printed the letter and several hours later a mother I had never met found my name in the phone directory and called. She was the mom of one of those older students who had never learned to fluently read, and was currently in the middle of a dispute with the school district, desperately trying to have them address the situation. As we talked, this mother said she wanted to see my letter and its tale about the ravages of whole language get wider distribution. She specifically wanted to see it in the Tribune. Although I explained that based on experience that route was a waste of time, she claimed she would make phone calls and arrange it....... The upshot was that a few days later I was asked to FAX my letter which to my surprise appeared today on the Tribune Editorial page (albeit changed from the original form). Never underestimate the power of a mother of a teenager who suddenly realizes that after years of whole language her child is not literate. I wish that the Trib had not cut out some of the most powerful concepts in my original letter and had kept the same format which seemed less whiny - but I'm glad with all the changes some basic concepts stayed intact. If all that happens from this letter is that more discussion is generated about how districts are allowed to exclude such large numbers of students from state testing or that more parents become aware of the "phony ten-minutes of daily phonics" thrown into all these whole language programs as appeasement, then I'm glad the letter ended up in print. Because I still like my original letter best, I will first paste that one into this posting, followed by the new Tribune letter which was in the "Voice of the People." Mary ORIGINAL LETTER: Dear Editor: Last year's state testing results reveal that eight years after the majority of suburban school districts began investing vast amounts of time and money into whole language, 1 out of every 5 students writes poorly and is unable to read grade level books in many of those districts. For the past three years, consumer parents in St. Charles have used the Tribune's IGAP web site to analyze their district's scores. We found that 40% of the students across Illinois received higher writing scores in 1998 than the children attending four of our elementary schools. For the second year in a row many of our schools' IGAP scores indicate that 20% of the students do not read close to grade level - the same percentages that California experienced under whole language. Parents throughout the suburbs report this same decline. A look at the past eight years reveals how and why we sank to this level. 1990: A language arts committee recommended to the board of education that the district abandon the basal reading series for a new whole language program based on the premise that children learn to read and write naturally in the same way they learned to speak. Child-centered whole language classrooms were supposed to allow students control over their pace of learning with teachers functioning as guides, otherwise known as facilitators. 1991: A lone parent wrote letters to local papers warning that a child who would not learn to read with whole language would ultimately be labeled as a behavior problem or a child not working up to his or her potential. No one listened. 1995: In response to a reporter’s question about the decline in district IGAP reading scores the assistant superintendent replied: “I really feel there should be less than 1 percent of kids who aren’t meeting the standards. We should be able to bring all kids up to the state standards, because they aren’t all that high.” Because so many second and third graders were not fluently reading, the first activist parents' group was formed in our community. During the next two years this group would be followed by two more activist groups comprised of parents who were convinced that students would not learn most language arts skills “naturally.” Parents set up booths at local malls, sent out informative newsletters, and held meetings in their attempts to educate the community about research-based teaching methods. Their efforts always seemed to die a cyclical death when parents belonging to these groups removed their children to a private schools or homeschooling situation within months after joining. 1996: Because of the parents' demands for phonics, the St. Charles School district paid Dr. Harvey Daniels, a whole language advocate, to analyze its language arts program. He praised it as effectively "balanced." Six months later Daniels published an article in an educational journal recommending that all teachers call their language arts programs “integrated” while still attending whole language meetings. Parents in the newest protest group analyzed the 1996 IGAP and achievement test scores, hoping that this approach would convince the district to reintroduce explicit phonics instruction for beginning readers. Parents pleaded that suitably challenging literature should be assigned to students in all grades after they had fluently learned to read. The Catholic school in town reported a waiting list of more than 40 students per grade level. 1997: IGAP tests revealed that when students in nine St. Charles elementary and middle schools were compared to schools throughout Illinois, they scored lower than between 22% – 48% of them in writing or reading. The 1997 IGAP test results indicated that 20% of the students at two out of three St. Charles middle schools did not meet the minimum state reading standards. Parents who presented this information to the school board were rebuffed. The district still did not use explicit phonics with beginning readers. 1998: Parents were surprised to see a slight improvement in IGAP reading scores this year. Why would scores increase even slightly with no new reading interventions? Answer - by excluding more students from taking the test. The schools with the lowest scores in 1997 excluded between 18 – 20% of their students in 1998. Parents who wanted clear data were appalled by this deception. A whopping 20% of all 10th grade students did not meet state reading standards. Today: Years of parental protest have not brought about substantive change. St. Charles, like most other suburbs is still a whole language district. Its claim that the five or ten minutes of haphazard phonics sprinkled in creates a "balanced" program is a deception. This latest spin control confuses some parents and angers others who recognize that this approach mirrors what California parents call "phony phonics." Without sequenced phonics books containing only words that match the sounds mastered by a student, no school district will ever increase its percentage of fluent readers. Mary Damer, Instructor Northern Illinois University DeKalb, Illinois LETTER IN CHICAGO TRIBUNE: http://chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/voiceofthepeople/article/0,1051,SAV -9 901100081,00.html THE NEED TO RETURN TO READING BASICSMary DamerJanuary 10, 1999 ST. CHARLES -- Last year's state testing results reveal that eight years after the majority of suburban school districts began investing vast amounts of time and money into whole language, in many of those districts one out of five students writes poorly and is unable to read at grade level. For the past three years, parents in St. Charles have used the Tribune's IGAP (Illinois Goal Assessment Program) Web site to analyze their district's scores. We found that 40 percent of the schools across Illinois received higher writing scores in 1998 than four of our elementary schools. For the second year in a row, many of our schools' IGAP scores indicate that 20 percent of the students do not meet state goals--the same percentages that California experienced under whole language. Parents throughout the suburbs report this same decline. A look at the past eight years reveals how and why we sank to this level. In 1990, a language-arts committee recommended to the board of education that the district abandon the basal reading series for a new whole-language program based on the premise that children learn to read and write naturally in the same way they learned to speak. Child-centered whole-language classrooms were supposed to allow students control over their pace of learning with teachers functioning as guides. By 1995, because so many 2nd and 3rd graders were not reading fluently, the first activist parents' group was formed in our community. During the next two years, this group was followed by two more activist groups of parents who were convinced that students would not learn most language-arts skills "naturally." In 1996, because of the parents' demands for phonics, the St. Charles school district paid a whole-language advocate to analyze its language-arts program. He praised it as effectively "balanced." Parents in the newest protest group analyzed the 1996 IGAP and achievement test scores, hoping that this approach would persuade the district to reintroduce explicit phonics instruction for beginning readers. Parents pleaded that suitably challenging literature be assigned to students in all grades after they had learned to read fluently. The 1997 IGAP test results indicated that 20 percent of the 6th grade students at two out of three St. Charles middle schools did not meet the state reading goals. Parents who presented this information to the school board were rebuffed. The district still did not use explicit phonics with beginning readers. Parents were surprised to see a slight improvement in IGAP reading scores in 1998. Why would scores increase even slightly with no new reading interventions? Answer--by excluding more students from taking the test. The schools with the lowest scores in 1997 excluded between 18 percent and 20 percent of their students in 1998. Parents who wanted clear data were appalled with this deception. Years of parental protest have not brought about substantive change. St. Charles, like most other suburbs, is still a whole-language district. Its claim that the five or 10 minutes of haphazard phonics sprinkled in creates a "balanced" program is a deception. This latest spin control confuses some parents and angers others who recognize that this approach mirrors what California parents call "phony phonics." Without sequenced phonics books containing only words that match the sounds mastered by a student, no school district will ever increase its percentage of fluent readers. MARY DAMER ===================================================================== EDUCATION CONSUMERS CLEARINGHOUSE networking and information for parents and taxpayers on the internet Subscriptions & Archives: http://education-consumers.com or You are currently subscribed to education-consumers as: arthurhu@halcyon.com TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Send a blank email to leave-education-consumers-989462S@lists.dundee.net ===================================================================== For less mail, click on the following link and choose 1) a daily digest, 2) a daily list of subjects, or 3) no mail (read postings on Web) http://lists.dundee.net/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=education-consumers For more help & info: http://www.lyris.com/help or