Most schools in Oregon now use the same reading
approaches that placed California's children last in
a national ranking in reading.
|
| Oregon's latest statewide language arts adoption (1993) includes
only whole language approaches for teaching beginning reading.
Oregon adopted whole language because it was a new trend in
education, not because whole language has achieved superior
results anywhere. (State IMS Evaluation Training Sessions, May
3, 1993).
|
| Most schools in Oregon, including Springfield,
Bethel, and Eugene 4J, subsequently purchased whole language
programs.
|
"Phonic/linguistic programs used in
first grade produced strikingly larger effects than language
experience approaches [whole language]."
--Steve Stahl & Pat Miller
|
| California set the national whole language trend
when it mandated the exclusive use of whole language for teaching
beginning reading in 1988.
|
California's 4th-grade children now score last
in the national ranking of 39 participating states in reading
according to the 1994 National Assessment of Educational Progress
(1994 NAEP READING: A First Look; 1-800-424-1616).
- Aren't the low scores due to low levels of funding?
No. California falls slightly below the national average in
per pupil expenditure. In 1991-2 California spent $4491 per
pupil. Across the states per pupil expenditures ranged from
$2960 (Utah) to $8645 (New Jersey).
- Aren't the low scores due to a large population of
minorities? No. Among white children, California scored
last; among children of college-educated parents, California
scored second from last. Among black children, California
scored fourth from last.
- Has California changed direction on whole language?
Yes. A 1995 California task force on reading concluded that
mandating whole language statewide was a mistake. On
September 12, 1995, the California legislature passed AB170,
which requires the State Board of Education to ensure that
the materials it adopts for reading instruction include
"systematic, explicit phonics." The vote was unanimous in
both legislative chambers.
|
How is it possible that an entire state could
make such a terrible mistake?
California did not use
research on what works best for teaching reading to determine
what approach to adopt in 1988, although definitive research was
available (e.g., Adams, 1988; Anderson, Hiebert, Scott, &
Wilkinson, 1985). In fact, the California courts found in 1989
that the adoption of whole language violated a "learner
verification" law, which required the State Board to adopt only
tested approaches. The decision against the Board was upheld all
the way through the Court of Appeals to the State Supreme Court.
Rather than comply with the law and adopt tested practices
though, the legislature removed the law allowing the statewide
mandate of the exclusive use of the untested whole language
approach to continue.
|
| Isn't anyone else concerned about the
widespread use of whole language? Yes. For example, in
Massachusetts 40 researchers in linguistics and psycholinguistics
from Harvard, MIT, University of Massachusetts, and other
research institutions have signed a petition to the state of
Massachusetts to reverse the direction of the proposed language
arts standards advocating whole language methods for reading
instruction.
|
"That direct instruction in alphabetic coding [phonics
instruction] facilitates early reading acquisition is one of the
most well established conclusions in all of behavioral
science."
--Keith Stanovich
|
| Is Oregon's textbook adoption process the same
as California's? No. The list of programs approved by the
Oregon State Board of Education is only a recommended list.
Local districts can adopt any programs and materials they wish.
However, individual schools must fill out extensive applications
to use materials that differ from those adopted at the district
level.
|
| So why did our state recommend only one reading
approach that doesn't work for many children? State adoption
committees did not use scientific research-based criteria in the
selection process. Local adoption committees assume that the
state-level process is reliable, when it isn't.
|
|
What can we do in Oregon?
|
- We need to improve the way we teach beginning reading
right now.
To prevent massive reading failure in Oregon, as occurred in
California, Oregon schools must include systematic, explicit
phonics in initial reading instruction. Research continues to
demonstrate that systematic, explicit phonics achieves superior
effects (Aaron, 1995).
- We need better decision-making processes in education.
At the state level, education agencies should
disseminate information on scientific research in reading, the
effectiveness of reading programs for different categories of
children, and how schools are doing comparatively.
At the local level, school communities need to use
the information to choose programs and practices that will best
meet the needs of all students.
|
For teaching beginning reading,
research says to:
- Develop phonemic awareness.
- Teach the relation of sounds and letters.
- Teach children how to sound out words.
- Provide practice in decodable text.
--
Learning To Read/Reading To Learn Information Kit
(1-800-759-4723)
|
|
How do we do that?
|
- Copy and share this fact sheet.
- Advocate that
- schools include systematic, explicit phonics instruction
now, and
- schools, districts, and states adopt sound
decision-making processes.
|