\doc\web\99\07\lrw.txt Critique of International Reading Association and National Association for the Education of Young Children (1998). Learning to Read and Write. Young Children, 53(4), 30-46. by Patrick Groff Professor of Education Emeritus San Diego State University, This authentic appearing set of standards for teaching children to read comes on the heels of an earlier one, announced in March 1998, by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences. As their names imply, the two highly influential organizations that created Learning to Read and Write (LRW), the IRA and the NAEYC, respectively concentrate their efforts on (1) making recommendations for reading instruction at all grade levels, as versus (2) offering guidance to teachers of all subjects at the preschool level through grades K-3. In the past, both organizations have been supporters of the empirically discredited Whole Language (WL) approach to children's reading development. With that previous allegiance to WL in mind, it is pertinent to analyze the extent to which the standards for reading instruction for preschool through grade 3 found in LRW are based on WL principles rather than experimental data. First, notice should be taken of the resolutions about reading instruction in LRW which are not those originated by WL. These are ones about which there can be no legitimate controversy. For example, LRW rightly notes that "failing to give children literacy experiences until they are school-age severely limits the reading and writing levels they ultimately attain." It is equally true that children's ability to read "does not develop naturally." That children "need to practice what they have learned," also is an incontestable point. There also is no reasonable opposition to the idea that "systematic code [phonics] instruction along with meaningful connected reading" leads to "superior progress in reading" for children. The statement that children should use "word identification strategies appropriately" goes without saying. Further examples of LRW's adherence to what consistently is uncovered by relevant experimental research is its advice that children's metacognition (powers self-correction) while reading should be developed. That teachers should integrate reading and writing instruction also is sage counsel from the document. The fact that reading teaching has of late "become more challenging," due to the increasingly diverse backgrounds, experiences, and range of ability of students at the different grade levels, did not escape the notice of LRW. Unfortunately, LRW propounds far more errors about its subject than those that are empirically verifiable. This parade of inaccuracies begins in the document's introductory statement that "a great deal is known" about its topic, and that the LRW is based on a "thorough review of the research," i.e., "what is known from research." However, it immediately is apparent, from the published references it cites, that LRW refers more to qualitative (anecdotal, nonnumerical, impressionistic/intuitive) research evidence than to the experimental variety. The fact that the document also reflects, to some unnamed degree, the "collective wisdom and experience of IRA and NAEYC members" is additional evidence that it is not based firmly on experimental findings. Examples of LRW's divergence from empirical documentation of how children best learn to read are found in the following examples of its statements: o The U.S. now "enjoys the highest literacy rate in its history"; o "Outdated means of literacy development" are whole group instruction, and drill and practice on isolated reading skills; o "No one teaching method or approach is likely to be the most effective." Thus, "no one method is superior." "Diversity in children" prove that point; o The "single most important activity" for developing reading ability is "reading aloud to children"; o Training in children's phonemic awareness (conscious awareness of speech sounds) is "highly suspect." Only 20 percent of students need systematic instruction in phonemic awareness; o Children's vocabulary knowledge is best enhanced by repeated readings of stories by teachers; o The concept, word, is most suitably established by having children dictate stories to teachers who transcribe them; o Upper-case letters should be learned before lower case ones; o Instruction in first-grade reading should not "look like traditional elementary school instruction"; o Having children invent the spellings of words is an effective way to teach phonics knowledge; o Practice with phonics skills should only be done with connected text, i.e., exclusively when children are reading stories; o Children should learn to spell "personally meaningful words" rather than ones they learn to decode using phonics information; o Reading fluency comes from reading "familiar texts." (In truth it develops most auspiciously from applying phonics knowledge until familiar spelling patterns are recognized, after which their letters no longer need to be sounded-out.); o No standardized tests should be administered before grade 4 because they only measure "narrowly defined skills." (In fact, standardized tests are the most reliable and valid ways to assess written word recognition and reading comprehension.); o Use of sentence context to recognize written words is recommended for use by first-grade students, but not by those in grades 2 and 3. (To the contrary, children in grades K-3 must be weaned away from guessing at the identities of words through the utilization of context cues.); o Incomprehensible statements are found in the document. For instance, it is said that children should "sound out and represent all substantial sounds in spelling words." The idea that some speech sounds are more basic and essential, have more real worth, are more firm, stable or solid, or have a more corporeal or material nature, is absurd. In addition to its numerous specific experimentally unverified statements about reading instruction, LRW can be faulted for contradicting itself. For example, it does give token recognition of the usefulness of systematic reading teaching. By contrast, however, it accords much greater emphasis to the need for incidental, unsystematic, and indirect instruction. While the document indicates children should practice what they have learned, it maintains that this practice never should be on isolated reading skills. Then, LRW's version of how reading/spelling should be integrated is not the most appropriate. For instance, invented spelling practice is not the best way to develop children's phonics skills. As well, rather than keeping personal spelling lists, children should be immediately required to spell a word as soon as they can sound it out. The K-3 grade level expectations propounded by LRW also leave some things to be desired. They do not indicate when the teaching of certain reading skills should be commenced, nor when children should be expected to master them. Moreover, some of the grade level expectations LRW lists are more crucial than are other ones. However, the document fails to list them in the order of this priority. In sum, LRW depends more on the WL/Emergent Literacy philosophy for its content than on experimental evidence on how children's reading progress is best promoted. To this effect, LRW largely ignores the fact that the WL/EL theory is empirically unverified. The document therefore cannot be depended on by reading teachers who wish to be guided by a reliable description of what experimental evidence says about their instruction. ===================================================================== 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 .