balanced vs. phonics apprach

Dr. G. Reid Lyon, Chief,
Child Development and Behavior Branch,
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
National Institutes of Health
9000 Rockville Pike
Bethesda, MD 20892

During the past 33 years, NICHD scientists have studied the reading development of 34,501 children and adults at 11 sites in the U.S. and Canada, (including Yale and Harvard) and have found that “the development of phoneme awareness, the development of an understanding of the aplphabetic principle, and the translation of these skills to the application of phonics in reading words are non-negotiable beginning reading skills that ALL children must master in order to understand what they read and to learn from their reading sessions.” This is a direct quote by Dr. Lyon to the Committee on Education and the Workfore, United States House of Representatives, July 10, 1997.

Does this help?

http://www.ldonline.org/ld_indepth/reading/whole_language_lives_on.html

ONly one kid…balanced reading instruction with a wonderful Gr. 1 teacher for 9 mos, including much help at home…NO PROGRESS. Realized in April that he was using his excellent sentence memory to fake reading the whole language primers…against teacher’s advice, sent him to a private school for the summer, 3 hours a day…they use SPALDING…READING IN 4 WEEKS. YES, READING. And it took off from there, with assisted reading at home. Is now reading Harry Potter, Animorphs, Narnia, etc. in Grade 4. (still a bit of a ‘guess & go’ reader, and DON’T ASK about the invented spelling, but we’re working on that!)

NO IT WASN’T MAGIC…it was direct, explicit phonics instruction and UNGUESSABLE primers, that used cvc words matching the lesson that day, read at home each nite. PLUS a teacher who BELIEVED he could do it — that was CONTAGIOUS!

The words ‘whole language’ are like a red flag to a bull for me…good luck with the revolution — you teachers who are brave enough to stand up for the truth are AWESOME!

This question has been answered *for once and for all* by the NIH. They did a *massive* study, reviewing essentially all the published reading research for the last fifty years, and a certain amount going back 100 years. They looked at hundresd of thousands of papers. First, they went through and found all that were up to a minimum standard of measurement — that eliminated 90% (the publication standards in education are abysmal). Out of the rest, they came to three essential conclusions:
(1) ALL the research supports SYSTEMATIC, SYNTHETIC PHONICS IN *EVERY* CLASSROOM> Period. No ifs, ands, or buts.
(2) *Oral guided reading* is THE way to fluency. Period.
(3) A *variety* of comprehension teaching teaching techniques should be used.
Now, if your readers will not believe hundreds of scientists and researchers from the NIH and NICHD and one hundred years of researchm they won’t believe anything. Alas, since “whole language” is a religion rather than science or pedagogy, you will find many who won’t believe you, but please do keep trying — at least we may reach the next generation.

This study is available online. You can search on ERIC or you can go to the LDIndepth board on this site. Please, please, copy it and spread it around everywhere you can. Get the web address and keep posting it on that other board.

By the way, although this is a recent study, 1998 or 1999, it certainly is *not* news. Jeanne Chall said exactly the same thing in “Learning to Read - the Great Debate” in the 1980’s. Rudolph Flesch said exactly the same thing in “Why Johnny Can’t Read” in 1956. My grandmother said exactly the same thing in the 1930’s (which is why we are a family of readers). The facts are out there, the proof is out there, and certain people would rather have a religion than an an educational system. Keep up the good fight.

By the way, “balanced literacy” is a euphemism. It is now fairly well-known that “whole language”, as it was watered down and implemented in the schools, was a disaster. So we need a new name and a new excuse to go on with our old religion. “Balanced literacy” means picking out a little bit from one program here and a little bit from another program there and a few things from a third idea over there, and claiming it is “balanced” because you have a little bit of everything. Some advocates of this claim to “teach” phonics as part of their “program”. This means that they hand out some sort of dittoed worksheet on Fridays, *not* that they teach systematic synthetic phonics as required.
For a comparison, imagine letting a teenager loose in the supermarket with your credit card and look at the “balanced” diet he brings home — pizza, Coke, chips, corn chips, salsa, barbecue chicken, frozen cake, candies, … — he claims its “balanced because he has some of everything, and there *is* some meat and veggies in there somewhere …

Just my personal experience—nonLD daughter was taught using balanced approach. She can read well, but she and almost all of her now fourth grade class are phenomenonally awful spellers. I have hired a Phonographix tutor to remedy her spelling. My CAPD, ADD, language LDs and a variety of other problems son (now in grad 7) was taught to read in first grade by a teacher who had taught phonetics for 40 years. Not only did he begin reading by his second week of first grade, he has been an excellent speller throughout his school career.

THANKS so much to all. This will even help me now that I have converted back to phonics. I actually always believed in it except that teachers I know and respected taught some kids in remedial with whole language such as Reading Milestones. Now I know I need to believe in it myself for all the kids who come if they can’t decode..
Michelle

Michelle,

You are preaching to the choir and I’ll add my testimony. I teach elementary students with learning disabilities. In the past school year (August to present), I have used SRA Corrective Reading (phonics approach) to teah my students to read. I have 2 students who made 2 years growth in 5 months, 1 student who made 1 year growth in 3-4 months and the remaining students make at least 4+ month growth in that time. The lessons are phonics based and also address comprehension, which a lot of our students definately need.

In your comment to better programs in place, my prinicpal and I had quite a disagreement this week. When I do inclusion next year, my intention is to use SRA with all the students in the inclusion classroom because all of the studetns have such needs. She told me that SRA was only to be used for the Special Ed kids and that the teacher needed to use other books on their level to teach reading. So, where is the consistent relaying of knowledge to systematically teach people how to read? So, I won’t mention to her next year that I am using it for all student; this way, we can boost the all-mighty test scores. (Once again, preaching to the choir). All of the teachers that know what program I use are impressed. The regular education teachers I work with can see the progress the studetns are making and most importantly, so can the students!

Unfortunately, I do not have any websites that support the information but it’s out there.

The only good thing about NCLB - it requires phonic based programs for reading!

…

…

I don’t think it is an either / or problem. I think we need a strong phonics approach to teach kids the code and how to decode. Once they are successful at decoding they need to read real books to learn how to comprehend. I have used SRA and other strictly phonics approaches and yes the students learned to decode but their ability to answer why questions or how questions were virtually nil. The use of decoadable books and stories are invaluable while they are learning to decode but students need real literature and stories with substance so that they can learn that reading is understanding. I think both approaches are necessary for students to become successful readers.

You summed it all up very well, Victoria. Just to add to that, in our school the ESL program still sticks to the whole language program and they keep on having children who can’t read and they pass them on to our special ed department. Go figure! They say, as Victoria pointed out, that they teach phonics, but they don’t do it systematically. They just look at a story and look for phonics lessons that they can find in it.

M get to the LIBRARY TODAY and get Diane McGuniness’s bood- why our children can’t read and what we can do about it.
also go to MEl LEvine? a Mind at a time get a link form oprah.com or pbs) . get ANYTHING by Reid-Lyon, Louisa Motas. it does indeed appear tat the goods ae in and decoding ability is the holy grail
good luck.

Nan — none of us here are against reading real books and literature! Quite the opposite, as you will see if you read a few days’ worth of posts on this board.

Most of us just think that it makes sense to be *able* to read before you try to read literature. The problem many of us have with the so-called “balanced” approach is that it is *not* really balanced. I try to get a reasonable balance in my own tutoring work — in an hour’s intensive lesson, we do 20-30 minutes reading connected text at the highest level the student can struggle through, 20 minutes phonics, and 10-20 minutes word study and writing — that seems balanced to me. Unfortunately, what gets called “balanced” in the schools is nothing like that, but rather really watered-down “whole language” in sheep’s clothing; the schools many of my tutoring students attend have no systematic phonics program, no spelling program at all, no consistent plan for teaching writing, and so on.

I am in total agreement with the fact that kids need a good solid base of phonics instruction but they also need to do more than programmed reading and writing. I am a special ed teacher. I use Phonographix, decodable books and writers workshop along with sequential spelling and independent reading of real books. My kids make great progress. I did not have as much progress when I used only remedial programs. What I am saying is there should be a balance. I use a 4 blocks approach except i add PG and sequential spelling to the mix. Balanced literacy is not always watered down whole language. I think we need to forget the whole language phonics wars and realize that kids need some of everything to really learn to decode and comprehend what they read.

Well, I’m glad for you and your students that you are teaching a really balanced program. Certainly that’s what we all hope for.
But on the whole, looking at what is being reported from all over both the US and Canada, what gets *called* balanced is generally not what you do.

Getting from Kindergarten to graduation can be compared to taking the kids all around the country as a class on bicycles. First, we must teach the kids how to ride then we go places as a group and our vehicle, which is a bike.

Long before kids ever start school many children are riding on the back of their mom and dad’s bicycle. Some parents even provide tricycles and their child starts to get the feel of riding or, reading. (parent reading to child). Some kids are completely riding the first day of school.
Unfortunately, some of the kids have never even seen a bike except on TV.

K-3 teachers must get their students on the bike and peddling as quickly as possible. More than half of the kids do just fine no matter how their taught. The teacher shows the kids a few times and the kid becomes a rider without too much trouble. Presto, these kids are off on the race to all the states (state standards).

But, too many times some children, for whatever reason (especially those who never had a tricycle or books at home) need extra practice. They keep getting on and keep falling down. Research shows that if you show these kids the necessary steps, sometimes in isolation, and practice thoroughly, that you will greatly increase the odds of becoming a rider (steps are segmenting, blending, phonemic manipulation, letter sounds etc….).

Effective teachers know these steps. Effective teachers find ways to get these kids practicing and beginning to ride either in whole class instruction or pull them out in small groups to teach kids how to ride.

There will be bumps along the road. (unknown, often, multi-syllable words)

Too many times teachers run to special ed saying hey, this kid’s leg is broken, he can’t ride when in fact the problem is he needs more explicit instruction on how to learn to ride.

Phonics is the breaking it down into smaller steps, practice peddeling in isolation for example or, maybe try it on a stationary bike first to get the feel of it.

Here’s what happens. The class starts moving at a pretty good pace. A few kids are getting off the path and must be constantly redirected (ADHA kids)
The gifted kids are already way up ahead, some of which are bored.

The trip is hard.

Meanwhile there are still a few kids who are back in Phoenix clueless on how to ride seeing their buddies half way to the Grand Canyon. Some don’t even know how to get on the bike. They are frustrated. They see the group way ahead of them. These kids are hearing about all the neat sites along the way but can not see it with his or her own eyes.

Decoding + comprehension +fluency + practice = READING.

Some districts spend big bucks on AR (accelerated Reader) thinking the kids need to just practice. But what they don’t realize is that yes, AR is great, but that the kid needs to know how to ride the bike first. Fluency programs are great too, but after the kid can decode. You can’t teach them to peddle faster when the kid is not a rider yet. And finally, comprehension. Sometimes teachers bug the heck out of kids asking questions like…..what was the house on the left like that we passed?….Where do you predict your bike will go after you get past the park?. The kid is so busy, holding on to the handle bars, trying to balance, making sure he stays on the path, he can hardly see what he is passing. Give this child a little practice before bombarding him with too many questions. He feels stupid that he can’t do it all at once. If he falls, everyone will laugh. Decoding first.

Effective teachers know how to get the kids on the bike. A research-based program will go over the basic steps on how to ride. Some kids do learn from starting at the top of the hill and coasting down (predictable books, kids memorize the words seeing it over and over). This will work for a while. But soon there will be mountains to conquer (3rd grade folks) and the territory will be different. We must teach kids how to peddle up hill. We need to teach the strategies for getting into unfamiliar territory.(phonics)

Our state tells us there are a certain number of places we must get to in language, reading, math each year. The kid who hasn’t learned to ride yet, can’t write either. Writing is a prerequisite to reading. The kid might be fine in math until the word problems. We must getting them riding quickly, as the gap for these non-riders grows wider each day. (Special ed referrals are often big in 3rd grade)

Now, yes, there will be a certain number of kids with disabilities, broken leg who most certainly can’t ride yet. The kid must go to the hospital (SPECIAL ED) for special accommodations, special therapy.

But too many times teachers’ directions/maps (reading manuals) have too much stuff in them and the teacher gets confused. The teacher is moving most of the kids along to see all the beautiful places. The teacher is frustrated because she sees 6 students still back in Phoenix. She might think these kids need to go to the hospital, any yes, maybe one or so does. If this teacher had good assessment tools she would find what that the problem is (usually segmenting, blending, phonemic manipulation, etc)…research tells us this.

The teacher feels pressure and she must get her class to the Grand Canyon by April. This is a hard job. Effective teachers know how to get their kids riding and have their whole class pretty much together moving along.

In theory, balanced is great. I want it for my own child. You go to all the places and do it in fun ways. Even effective teachers who use “balanced” have figured out how to get all their kids riding. Great, super, all the kids can ride (read at 50th percentile). But in the real world it doesn’t always happen. The balanced manuals have a ton of stuff crammed in them. Effective teachers know how to separate it out. But many teachers quite frankly don’t know how to get all the kids riding (reading) because the manual is somewhat confusing and college didn’t do a good job of telling them the key ways to get kids reading. (if you don’t believe me sit in on an interview and ask the question to new graduates)

A research based program will often take the guess work out of what the nuts and bolts of reading really are. Some of these are scripted, like Saxon, which is what the original poster was asking about. Some teachers hate this because they already know how to get each kid riding. But all too often, (look at the test scores in your state or mine) too many kids are not riders by 4th grade. Research based programs take the guess work out and they sift out extraneous stuff. This is why these programs do better in the studies of phonics vs. balanced. Are some of the kids bored like one of the posters said, yes, I know some are, they are already riders (readers). Balanced works when teachers know how to teach reading. Balanced doesn’t work all too often though. Teachers know when their kids are not riders but they often don’t know how to diagnose the specific problem. This is why I love DIBELS (www.dibels.uoregon.edu). It tell you where each kid is and what to do if he gets off track……AND IT’S FREE FOLKS.

Some teachers don’t want to change. Some teachers are told to use these maps or those vehicles and are resistant. Some principals force teachers to use this or that and some don’t like it. In theory, balanced is great. Effective teachers, like some who have posted here, use balanced and it works. I believe them. Most of the country is balanced. Few people would ever say, “we just do phonics….we just do whole language….” But the research shows that phonics initially is the way to go. Use phonics to get the kid riding the bike….then do all the balanced you want and take them to all the cool places. So really, I’m not anti-balanced but the research shows these books don’t score as high. I’m all for getting all your students to become riders (readers) so the next year’s teacher can take them to even more places. And hopefully, the teachers won’t just think all the kids’ legs are broken and need to go to the hospital (special ed). Teach them to ride, (blend, segment, phonemic manipulation etc…) TEACH THEM TO READ. Learn the components of reading by reading the research because you might not have learned it in college.

This is how responded with my response on the teachers.net primary board. I would love to hear your feedback. I couldn’t stop thinking about this all weekend.
Michelle

Double post.

Deleted by Jessica.

my feeling is that these whole language folks ought to be tarred and feathered- is it that they are truly ignorant, or just slothful and indifferent to struggling readers?

sandy

ye of ourse- but please note the chronology-decode first- this is the holy grail of reading.

Try brainwashed.

Which works best if they are also ignorant and deliberately selected as “people-pleaser” personalities.