\doc\web\99\03\wl.txt From: "J. E. Stone" Subject: [education-consumers] About the Next WL "guru" Regie Routman--by Dr. Patrick Groff Replies intended for Dr. Groff should be sent to JunglJulie@aol.com ********************************* The Reckless Ruminations of Regie Routman by Patrick Groff Professor of Education Emeritus San Diego State University Since its inception in the 1970s, the Whole Language (WL) movement in America has been headed almost exclusively by an influential cadre of professors of education. The co-founder, and leading proponent of WL since then has been professor of education Kenneth Goodman. During his tenure as a teacher educator, Goodman conceived and promoted the illusion that WL is a grassroots movement in education for which he simply serves as its humble and obedient facilitator. In truth, WL always has been a top-down enterprise, whose theory, practices, and politics are tightly regulated by a relatively small group of charismatic, tireless, and highly- ideological overseers. With Goodman’s retirement from his university professorship, the mantle of supreme leadership in the WL movement necessarily will be transferred to a younger member of its inner circle. Many WL-watchers predict that this distinction will be bestowed on Regie Routman. Besides being a fervent and ceaseless defender of WL according-to-Goodman, Routman is seen as his heir apparent for other reasons. For one thing, her selection as such would seem to lend credence to Goodman’s argument that the WL movement closely reflects teacher opinion about how reading instruction should be conducted. Routman is not a professor of education, but instead a "resource teacher." As such, she urges teachers in her Ohio school district to follow WL principles and practices in their reading instruction. That is only one part of her dedicated service to WL, however. In addition, Routman’s remarks on WL are given a prominent place in publications and conferences of the International Reading Association and the National Council of Teachers of English, both of which actively ballyhoo WL doctrines and procedures. Her WL "workshops" for groups of teachers across the nation also are said to be enthusiastically received. And last, but not least, Routman is a prolific author of complimentary descriptions of WL. In two such recent books, Invitations (1994) and Literacy at the Crossroads (1996), published by Heinemann, Routman insists that "whole language hasn’t failed; we [educators] have failed whole language." She means to say that the reason why the widespread adoption of WL practices in California schools, as a particular but not unusual case in point, led to a precipitate decline in students’ reading test scores "is that only about 20 percent of us [educators] are truly grounded in whole language philosophy to the point where we can understand and apply it." This statistic sharply contrasts with my findings that only about 25 percent of first-grade teachers endorse the basic principles of WL after hearing about them. In any event, what are the unrecognized or otherwise clandestine aspects of WL, the adoption of which supposedly would ensure that the performance of teachers of beginning reading would improve remarkably? Routman addresses that question in elaborate and effusive detail in many chapters of her two books. Reduced to its essentials, Routman’s answer to the above question is that first-grade teachers must stop conducting direct, systematic, intensive, comprehensive, and early instruction of a prearranged sequence of reading skills, and replace it with her "balanced" reading program. In this respect, she abides by the dictum laid down by WL co-founder Frank Smith. He "tells us that everything we need to know about reading and writing we can learn from authors" of children’s books, Routman avers. Hence, being read aloud to "is seen as the single most influential factor in young children’s success in learning to read." If first-graders listen to repeated reading aloud of "favorite books and poems," this will teach them to read the words in them, Routman vouches. This practice putatively "is cost effective," and moreover "requires little preparation." It thus is the first step in Routman’s balanced reading program for beginning readers. Not surprisingly, there is no experimental evidence to support these conclusions since empirical studies by reading instruction specialists make clear that learning to speak/listen and to read are remarkably different processes. Leading experts in psycholinguistics, cognitive science, psychology, and neurology also find no experimental evidence in their academic disciplines that support Routman’s notion. The next step in Routman’s balanced reading program is called "shared reading." Here, the teacher again reads aloud a story, now one that is printed in enlarged type, "several times" to novice readers. During these repetitions, first-grade students are "invited to read along." By perhaps the fifth reading, the teacher pauses when reading to allow students to say aloud certain words from the text. Finally, given words may be pointed out through the use of a sliding mask or an underlining device. There is no experimental evidence that this indirect, unsystematic, and nonintensive approach to teaching written word recognition to neophyte readers is time-effective. Therefore, its use will not result in these students’ acquisition of quick and accurate (automatic) word recognition skills in the shortest time possible. It is equally clear that experimental evidence does not support the third and last step in Routman’s scheme for fledgling readers, called, "guided reading." At last, these students are provided a personal copy of a book, which it is assumed (from what they learned in steps one and two) they now can read successfully. Therefore, in guided reading it is presumed that students are ready to "think critically about a book," discuss it, respond to it "in open- ended and personal ways," appreciate and enjoy it, and share "insights" about it. There also is oral reading here, but only "for pleasure." That is, oral reading with "emphasis on getting the words right" is proscribed by Routman. What about beginning readers’ word recognition skills and vocabulary knowledge, the two most important elements in their success in reading, according to experimental studies? There may be some "teachable moments" in guided reading, Routman explains, in which "specific teaching for strategies as the need arises" is given. However, students’ "vocabulary development is best promoted through wide reading." As for phonics information, according to Routman, it only is taught "strategically, in the meaningful context of the predictable stories children read." In other words, children should be taught to guess at the identities of words using sentence contexts. This is perhaps the most flagrant violation of experimental evidence made by Routman. Nonetheless, blithely carrying on, Routman warns teachers that there is a great danger of "overemphasis" on phonics teaching. In that respect, beginning readers supposedly "can read quite well without knowing short vowels." She refers here to the letters in words that represent "short" vowel sound (e.g., the a in had). Students supposedly perceive blanks in words where these letters normally appear. Nor is there any "prescribed sequence" in which letter-speech sound correspondences should be taught, it is held. Routman makes no pretense at offering objective test evidence that her reading approach is effective. She expediently avoids that issue by objecting in principle to the use of any such standardized tests to measure students reading skills. Instead, students must be allowed to self-evaluate their reading ability. Teacher judgments made in this regard must be careful to always "view the child in comparison with self—not others." In Routman’s view, it thus is illegitimate to set grade-level norms for expectations as to how well children can read. Nonetheless, Routman contends that only the subjective evaluation of students’ reading ability she promotes is "authentic assessment." She is certain that standardized reading tests are artificial, outdated, always underestimate how well children can read, give an inaccurate picture of students’ reading needs, and badly damage their self-esteem. It might be expected that the experimentally invalid statements that Routman makes about first-grade reading instruction, and measurement of its results, would be summarily dismissed by educators for what they are, undisciplined ideological ramblings about this topic. However, as noted, her views hold a stunning attraction for teacher educators and school officials. For example, most of the university courses for future reading teachers praise the WL dogma and practices that she recommends. Until recently forced to change its favorable policy toward WL by state laws, the California Department of Education also mandated the use of WL for first grades in this state’s public schools. At present, school districts throughout California continue to flout the new reading laws. For instance, the San Diego city district directs its teachers to implement a "balanced reading program" that is a faithful clone of Routman’s directives in that regard. The fact that neither laws nor experimental evidence seem to dull the appeal of WL for teacher educators, and school authorities, illustrates the tenacious influence this empirically unverified teaching innovation has on their judgments as to how beginners in school best learn to read. It thus is necessary to consider the sage advice that war is too vital a concern to be left in sole control of the generals. By analogy, it appears that the public through their elected school boards must make the same statement about the educational establishment and reading instruction. It will be a tedious and lengthy struggle to wrest control over reading teaching away from professional educators. However, the stakes are so high—whether their children will be provided full opportunity to learn to read—that the people cannot ethically avoid this struggle. 12-98 ===================================================================== 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 .