multisensory reading instruction

If it’s a trend, it isn’t a new one. I’ve seen it for generations and it’s been described in the eighteenth century by Rousseau and the nineteenth by one of the Bronte sisters.
It’s called shooting yourself in the foot, and it’s a favourite habit of a large number of school reading teachers. They were trained in college that phonics is evil bad-tasting medicine that should only be used as a last resort if then (maybe better to let those poor dyslexics just be read to instead, teaching them is much too painful), and they will do just about anything to avoid inflicting this horrible stuff on their poor darling students. Needless to say this attitude rubs off on the students too, and is often sold to the parents.
It took a long, hard fight to get phonics back into the schools. It will take more continued fighting to avoid backsliding, do it for real, and keep it there.

a second and third thought:

It is human nature to look for the easy way out. And that isn’t necessarily bad, civilization is all about finding ways to do things more efficiently, invent labour-saving devices, and save time and energy for things we really want to do, beyond survival needs.

The trouble in teaching reading is that what *looks* like the easy way out is actually a dead end. When you start teaching reading by memorize and guess, it goes so swimmingly and easily and everybody (well, almost, except for that difficult kid in the corner who keeps asking why) … everybody has so much fun and you don’t have to fight through all those repetitive exercises. When it comes to a crashing halt a couple of years later when the kids cannot memorize and guess any more, well, that isn’t *your* class, and *you* have no responsibility for what happens in Grade 3.

This leads to the second problem, that schools seem somewhere along the last few decades to have lost the long-term (heck, even the medium-term) view. Education is after all a minimum twelve-year project and we hope a lifelong value after that. Traditional schools look at curricula on the basis of whether they will prepare students for the levels to come, and won’t buy into a curriculum that leave gaping holes undeveloped.
The trend that I am seeing recently is that people in schools, even teachers, aren’t looking past the single year, sometimes the single semester. I see teachers simply omitting chapters and topics because they don’t think they need the material this year, practically guaranteeing failure for the students in the following year when that foundation work isn’t there. I don’t know why this is; they are often teachers who are otherwise responsible and hard-working and caring, but they seem to work with blinders on, refusing to see anything outside of their own compartments. So Grade 1 teachers can happily teach the kids to guess, because the material is so simple that you can get by with guessing; and Grade 2 and 3 teachers are left holding the bag, either continuing the same because it’s already been done, or trying to unteach and earning bad feeling and criticism for making things hard.

multisensory just means you’re bringing in all the senses. It doesn’t mean you’re doing a structured, systematic, multisensory language program building phonics foundations. Multisensory is a good thing - but it isn’t the only thing.
Phonics isn’t back in the schools, not yet…

Multisensory uses different senses (modalities) and it can be helpful just like phonics….it is one tool that is in my bag of teaching tricks. As a reading teacher (phonics never left my room) I find most of my students don’t need to spend that kind of time on reading acquistion, practicing with tactile , auditory and visual stimulation. But my 4th grade son with significant delays in reading DOES need it. He needs all the sensory input he can get…overlearning so to speak. Different students need different interventions…..and hopefully our IEP will insure that his needs are met. That is another thread…..:wink:

Phonics certainly is not in the schools yet. In NM, whole language is alive and well. Sure they have some phonics instruction which amts. many to lists of word families and teaching kids the blends (ie “bl”, “st”) instead of teaching kids how to sound out the individual letters.

—des

Yes, I find a lot of teachers say “of course I teach phonics” — but don’t know what makes a vowel a vowel and a consonant a consonant, or much beyond the odd word families; the “well, we include it as needed” model. It ain’t phonics — and it’s enough for some, but even most could be doing a lot better with more thorough teaching.

Sorry, I accidentally deleted the part about VAKT modalities in my original post while trying to make it shorter. The districts that I know do this under the name of “balanced reading.” They’re taking phonics (delivered in multisensory fashion) and then asking kids to not use it—or only as a last resort. This just seems so outrageous to me; the kids who are weak readers will suffer the most (they rely on context w/o anyone telling them to do it).

Balanced literacy or reading is one of those code names for whole language. As even though they think they are right on this they still feel it is necessary to change the name of their process every few years since all the research is saying it doesn’t work.

Including VAKT strategies to inefficent teaching doesn’t help it any. Say you have kids trace the word families or the blends, have them write them in sand, or any no. of things, it isn’t really phonics. You could do that til your blue and you won’t prevent reading failure like real phonics will. In these cases, VAKT strategies turn into gimmics.

Sure some kids will get it. But some kids would get it if it was all taught backwards.

—des

And the kids who apparently “get it” from weak or downright wrong teaching show up later with all kids of other weaknesses — it is no accident that schools with low reading scores almost always have bottom-of-the-barrel math scores. Just because you can sort-of kind-of read doesn’t mean you can actually use that reading to learn anything else.

The “use phonics as a last resort” (last afterthought on a list of twelve, from “what does the word look like” and “look at the picture” on down)methodology has been around at least since the 1970’s; I once saw this promulgated as an official reading teacher’s ‘approaches to word identification’ guide.
It’s an uphill battle, but keep telling people that this only *looks* easy and quick, they will pay back the time and work many times over later.

thanks for your thoughts—it helps to commiserate a bit. i’ve passed along some info to people in the districts from those who discuss why the approach is wrong, but I haven’t found much except by Moats (good enough for me, but some people stll say “who?”). has anyone found anything else on this? i have something by Pressley (my hero), too.

Right on this site, LD In Depth page, oodles of info.

Start with National Reading Panel sponsored by NIH — they had better have heard of the US government? The summary of the NRP report is clear, concise, and definite — systematic synthetic phonics in every classroom.

Jean Chall (or is it Jeanne?), too — she did a pretty thorough breakdown of “code” vs. “word” instruction in an oft-referenced book.

I just wish people who post that Whole Language is not appropriate for learning to read would actually study it. There’s so much more to reading than phonics OR skipping and guessing a word. Check out Miscue Analysis Made Easy by Sandra Wilde. I saw it mentioned on another special ed site. Many times when we read, we are predicting ahead based on context and say something that doesn’t match what’s on the page. Then we keep reading and realize that what we said doesn’t make sense, so we go back and re-read, correcting the miscue. Or, we correct it in our heads and just go on, leading a listener thinking we didn’t know the word.

MOst of the poor readers I work with have wonderful decoding skills. They just can’t read. They can’t figure out what to do when they decode a word beautifully but don’t know it’s meaning, and haven’t been taught to use context to figure it out.

Learning to read involves the joining of at least three cueing systems: graphophonics, syntax, and meaning. Many would argue that pragmatics and background knowledge are also critical. Being able to comprehend what you read is the true test of reading.

bTW, the summary report does NOT represent the findings of the full report accurately regarding phonics.

Check out the following critiques:

REsisting Reading Mandates by Dr. Elaine Garan
In Defense of OUr Children by Dr. Elaine Garan
Big Brother and the National Reading Curriculum by Richard Allington
Misreading REading by Gerald Coles
The Naked Truth by Frank Smith
The Minority Report by Joanne Yatvin, the only NRP member who worked in an elementary school (she was a principal)

The summary report misrepresented the full report. Phonics was NOT determined necessary for every child. It had minimal value for almost every grade level and type of student. A small number of children with learning disabilities benefit from the inclusion of a phonics program. Most of the research analyzed for the report is connected in one way or another to the author of a phonics program, the publisher of a phonics program, and was analyzed for the NRP by someone connected with the phonics program or the actual research, leading to HUGE conflicts of interest. Also, most of the research analyzed by the panel didn’t study children in actual, day-to-day classrooms for any length of time. Most kids were studied in short-term tutorial programs, with no effort to see how things actually turned out in classrooms. Furthermore, children in control groups who were taught with balanced literacy or Whole Language (they are NOT the same) did as well as, or better than, kids limited to phonics programs.

If you just read the summary report or the watch the NRP video, you are being seriously mislead.

Thank you, I am a good reader, and I did learn by a phonics-based program. I have read many of the articles you mention, as well as large parts of the whole NRP study.

The more I read and the more I see, the more I am convinced that “whole-language” is not effective as a means to teach reading skills. Articles which make huge claims with little fact to back them up, and fear-mongering articles, merely convince me more that this is not fact-based.

Your attempt to discredit the NRP study by making all sorts of claims of bias and unfairness and even dishonesty reflects back on you; you seem to have a vested interest in making phonics proponents look bad — which to the educated reader, does *not* make you look good.

The NRP study, if you actually read it, was *not* based on single small studies of a few students being tutored as you say, but on a systematic survey of the reading research published over the last fifty years, massive amounts of data dfrom a huge variety of places and times and situations. Since you are falsifying that claim, why should I or anyone else believe anything else you say? You have lost all credibility.

You make a lot of claims about decoders not really being readers and about “whole language” being effective — can you show some proof? Some measurements and some data?

By the way, I am quoting from memory so may not have the exact wording, but yes, the NRP study very specifically that it is strongly recommended to have *systematic synthetic phonics in every classroom*. I’ll find the exact quote and place later, but I promise you this statement is there. Again you are falsifying and have lost all credibility.

>MOst of the poor readers I work with have wonderful decoding skills. They just can’t read. They can’t figure out what to do when they decode a word beautifully but don’t know it’s meaning, and haven’t been taught to use context to figure it out.

Then you don’t get the same calls I do! (I’m not only talking about children I eventually tutor). It also doesn’t consider the high failure rate of whole language which fails with kids who are not ld.

True comprehension is essential, in fact, in the final analysis the only thing about reading that matters but whole language advocates put the proverbial comprehension cart before the decoding horse. It depends how and when and how you teach reading for context clues.
Even in OG, at some point you have to teach that to figure out whether the word is “mist” or “missed” requires hearing the context.

Getting meaning from context is only valid if the student has some ability to decode to begin with. To teach first graders to look at the pictures and look over them before reading the story which includes phonetic complex words doesn’t teach anything BUT guessing despite what you say.
Now if you teach the same same skillls to a 4th-6th grader reading a social studies text (look at the pictures, maps, graphs, etc.) or even reading a novel (at least scanning the text and looking for names, etc.) is very valid instruction.

—des

No, the report does not claim that about phonics. The summary does, and does so inaccurately. The books I’ve cited all quote chapter and verse regarding the flaws of the panel’s research. They had over 100,000 studies to choose from and limited their analysis to just a few hundred.

I just posted the information so people can do their own research. I don’t like to see people misled by inaccurate information any more than you do. I’ve read all those books, many research articles on the topic, and the actual report and summary, plus I’ve seen the video. I do know what I am talking about.

And, if you’ll read my post carefully, I DID say that the research showed that SOME phonics instruction is appropriate for a LIMITED number of students who have learning disabilities. It also said that approximately 18-20 hours of instruction in kindergarten/first grade was sufficient for MOST children.

I don’t like to see researchers, who have programs to sell, cite their own research as the scientific proof that their program is a good one. That is not an unbiased analysis.

I also don’t like to see whole schools adopt a program because it is “scientifcally-based” when NO research in the NRP report suggests that ALL children in ALL schools should be taught with that type of program.

From IN Defense of OUr Children (p. 72): “According to the government’s own “comprehensive” research on reading methods, the Report of the National REading Panel (NRP), there is not enough research on decodable text to support a recommendation for its use.” (from the NRP report, 2-90–although, since there are three versions of this report, you may have to search for the exact page).

Conflict of INterest (same book, same page): “Louisa MOats is the project director for our government research agency, the National INstitute of Child Health and Development. She is also Literacy Research and Professional Development Director for the commercial program Language! It is distributed by McGraw-Hill Publishing, which also publishes another approved program, Open Court Reading. ….Moats is also the project director for the government agency…that appointed the National Reading Panel, which reviewed and now recommends programs that are deemed to be ‘scientific’ and acceptable to the federal government.”

BTW, the public relations firm that produced the summary report and video of the NRP full report is an arm of McGraw-Hill, which benefits handsomely for having its program “approved” by that same group.

McGraw-Hill actually threatened Dr. Garan and a teacher in Fresno, Ca. because the teacher wrote a letter to the Fresno Bee saying similar things to what I wrote here. They tried to intimidate them into retracting their truthful statements. McGraw-Hill accused the teacher (who was citing Dr. Garan. Dr. Garan was unaware of the letter the teacher wrote to the newspaper) of lying about the contributions of Marilyn Adams and Michael Pressley to the NRP report. Yet, they are listed on the title page as being contributors. Adams and Barbara Foorman were involved in doing the meta-analysis of the phonics studies (only 38, by the way), some of which were their own work on their own programs, which are now sold commercially by McGraw-Hill.

How about this: (p. 87 of Dr. Garan’s book): In one study reviewed in the NRP report, “the children who were trained with Open Court for an entire year dropped from first to second grade in EVERY SKILL that was tested. Every single one.” AND there scores in reading comprehension and spelling dropped significantly.

p. 88: ” …DISTAR or Reading Mastery [also show] a downward spiral that is similar to the drop we see in Open Court.” They couldn’t transfer the skills to authentic text, which is the ultimate goal of reading instruction.
(NRP report Study 11, Table G).

p. 88: “Other programs showing negative findings in the NRP research are Orton-Gillinghan and Jolly Phonics.” (remember, this is for children in general. Some older children showed some benefit).

p. 89: “In the phonics section, the NRP included the findings of a total of thirty-eight studies to draw its conclusions. Of those thirty-eight studies, twenty-eight involved commercial reading programs, including McGraw-Hill’s programs Open Court and Direct Instruction (also called DISTAR or Reading Mastery). Based on its research findings, the NRP did not recommend any commercial reading program—none.”

p. 90: “As a matter of fact, not only did the NRP NOT recommend any commercial reading program, [but] it actually warned against the boring skill and drill of scripted programs and called for balanced reading. The report states that scripted phonics programs may interfere not only with the learner’s motivation to learn, but with the teacher’s motivation as well. The NRP report states, ‘It seems self-evident that teachers will be most effective when they are enthusiastic in their teaching and enjoy what they are doing in their classroom.” (NRP, 2-7)”

P. 93: ” Nearly 74% of the studies looked at ONLY bottom-up skills without considering comprehension….the majority of studies did not look at reading growth at all, but only at pieces of skills such as sounding out nonwords or identifying words on lists, which, as any teacher knows, is very different than actually reading a book….only 16% of those results…even looked at comprehension. Most teachers and parents agree that comprehension is the ultimate goal of reading.”

p. 94: “According to the NRP’s findings, bottom-up phonics instruction did not significantly benefit children’s comprehension of real or ‘connected text’ or their conventional spelling AT ANY GRADE LEVEL.”

p. 94: For older children, “directly from the NRP report: ‘The comprehension of text was NOT SIGNIFICANTLY IMPROVED by ststematic phonics instruction.’ (summary booklet, 9) ‘Systematic phonics instruction failed to exert a SIGNIFICANT IMPACT on the reading performance [of the students the studies assessed] in 2nd through 6th grade ‘(NRP report,
2-88).”

p. 94: “The NRP report continues, ‘phonics instruction appears to contribute only WEAKLY, IF AT ALL, in helping [the students the studies assessed] apply these [decoding skills] to read text and to spell words.’ (NRP report, 2-108).”

p. 94-95 “The affect size for spelling [for children in 2nd through 6th grade] was not statistically different from zero (.09)…[phonics was] not more effective than other forms of instruction in producing growth in spelling.” (NRP 2-108).

p. 95: “A team of researchers led by Gregory Camilli did an independent research reanalysis of the NRP report on phonics.” They found that, “The NRP used an incorrect statistical measure that overestimated the effect of phonics.” (remember, the NRP reported that phonics had little effect, and this reanalysis found that even THAT effect was overestimated).

p. 95: “When the Camilli group correctly reanalyzed the data, the NRP studies showed that when whole language activities were combined with phonics, the effect size tripled that of phonics alone.”

p. 97: “The conclusions in the NRP summary do not match the data in the actual report!”

p.97: “So, the report itself says phonics does NOT significantly affect comprehension and spelling. It also says that the findings apply ONLY to children with reading problems for kindergarten, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth grades—not normally progressing readers, not children for whom English is a second language, not low-achieving readers, not gifted children.NRP 2-84) “In fact, the findings, dismal as they are, do not apply to the majority of the school population.” (this is exactly what I said in my previous post about students with learning disabilities).

BUT, here’s what the summary report claims (remember, it was written by the publicist for McGraw-Hill). P. 97: “And yet, the neat little summary booklet states, ‘The meta-analysis revealed that systematic phonics instruction produces benefits for students in kindergarten through sixth grade AND for children having difficulty learning to read.’ NOW, here again is the quote from the big, thick report of the subgroups: ‘Phonics instruction appears to contribute only weakly, if at all in helping [the students the studies assessed] apply these [decoding skills] to read text and to spell words.’” (NRP 2-108).

p. 98: “To date five [of the 14] panel members or contributors have admitted that the summary (on which our legislation is based) doesn’t match the findings. For example, panel contributor Barbara Foorman state, ‘The National Reading Panel Summary is intended for a general audience and anyone who reads only the Summary is likely to be misinformed.” Yet, the website for the NRP still claimed, as of 8/03 that the Summary Report is an “ideal resource.”

Read pages 102-110 to see the incestuous connections between panel contributors, researchers, reading programs, publishing companies, the federal government, reviewers of states’ Reading First plans, etc., etc.,etc.

p. 108: “It’s like the house that Jack built: They do the research that supports their programs that match the assessments that they designed that support their own programs that align with government mandates that are based on their scientific research.”

p. 131: “IN point of fact, the NRP makes two clear recommendations (in the report itself but not in the summary that drives legislation). It calls for balanced reading. It states that phonics is but a tool, a means to an end (NRP 2-96). And it warns against heavy phonics instruction with children and teachers with differing dialects. In addition, the NRP also states that children DO learn phonics and phonemic awareness implicitly through reading and exposure to print.

p. 134: “If we drill kids to read letter by letter, we may well be interfering with their fluency–their ability to read smoothly and accurately and with proper intonation.. Furthermore, a lot of mental energy goes into thinking about every piece of the text, so kids may not get to actually figuring out that print needs to make sense.” (Boy, do I see that in some of my students who have only had phonics instruction).

p. 136: The NRP report said that “there were literally hundreds of studies showing that kids read more read better.” Access to books and plenty of time to read them is essential. Kids who have learning disabilities need a coach to read along with them, to give explicit instruction in the different cueing systems as needed, in context. A very few MAY need a systematic approach to phonics, but they need early and frequent access to well-written texts, too.

p. 139: Quoting Allington: “Given that direct instruction programs for children identified as learning disabled have been just about the most disastrously unsuccessful educational efforts offered in American schools, it seems almost lunacy that so many of the entrepreneurs of that approach are now offering advice on improving classroom instruction..”

P. 139, regarding Sally Shaywitz’s recent research: A letter from a Senior Fellow for the Vermont Study of Education wrote in the Rutland Herald, 8/03: “The MRI is being promoted as the newest tool in combatting dyslexia…[the research claims] to finally provide evidence that teaching discrete elements of text will help dyslexics read. The science is flawed, and the article [in Time] is misleading as it contradicts itself over and over. The science is flawed because technology is not as effective as researchers like Sally Shaywitz would have us believe. What readers need to know is that the MRI can only be used to examine very small isolated bits of text and that there is a 20-second delay between the time the stimulus is given and the blood actually flows to a measurable part of the brain…..It ignores the fact that all readers depend on the context of print to assist them in decoding words. …The research in question only looks at the use of phonemic awareness…Dyslexics, the article claims, are better at problem-solving than using ‘tunnel-visioned, step-by-step sequential’ thinking. Why does it then insist that these students use their weakest areas of perception instead of their strongest?…There is an assumption that children must analyze words before they can construct meaning.This just isn’t so. …When text is meaningful, it is easier to read. There is no new evidence to support the notion that dyslexics or any other readers are better off with programs that limit their reading strategies. Supporters of No Child Left Behind…don’t want to admit that there is research supporting holistic approaches to the teaching of reading that needs to be examined. ”

p. 141: Sally Shaywitz “notes that dyslexic children often have other gifts. They tend to be artistic and creative and to see the ‘big picture.’ So we need to ask, if we can indeed ‘rewire’ kids’ brains so they see the little bitsy pieces (recall the research doesn’t show this method works for the big picture of reading comprehension of connected text), then what part of a child’s personality have we sacrificed so she can read letters in isolation and pronounce words on lists?Also, if these kids can see the big picture and this is their strength, then why don’t we use that to help them fill in the word blanks? Why rewire them to look at the little picture if that sacrifices their gift for seeing the whole?”

I hope you’ve read all the way to the end. I hope you’ll get this book. I hope you’ll read at least one of the other ones. I hope you’ll get to know a true Whole Language teacher (you, too, Des) and spend time with the students in his/her classroom before you pass judgment on a holistic philosophy that has at its heart the INDIVIDUALIZED NEEDS OF EVERY CHILD.

What is a recommended series to use in the regular classroom?

These are all passionate responses to the whole concept of “Teaching Reading.” Since I am not a reading teacher or a tutor I can not really comment on the methods of instruction.
What I always found interesting was watching how my own three children learned to read. My oldest daughter taught herself to read by the beginning of kindergarten (She loved George and Martha books back then!). She is now 20 and a voracious reader.
My second daughter learned how to read in first grade when her teacher was using a “whole language” approach. She is now 15 and a voracious reader as well.
My son had a teacher who used the whole language approach in first grade and she called him immature and lazy because he wasn’t getting it. She didn’t see that during dictation, he put down random letters because he had no clue how to encode (or decode). At my insistence, he was tested and found to have language based learning disabilities, and the Wilson approach was used starting in second grade. He is now in eighth grade, avoids reading whenever possible but does seem to comprehend what he does read although he often misses inferences. (his approach to reading is very much like his dad who has never read a book for pleasure ever or a book for business from cover to cover in all the years we have been together.)
My point is, we have to be willing to use a variety of approaches especially with the struggling readers who Shaywitz says we can identify in kindergarten. Many readers will learn to read no matter what method we use. The trick is to identify the struggling reader or the print disabled reader early in their school life and modify the curriculum for them.
Even then, not all print disabled readers will read with fluency, automaticity or success.

If you want to say, and not that it proves anything one way or the other, how old were each of your children when they learned to talk? to walk? got their first teeth? lost their first teeth? Did any have ear infections?

It’s sad that your son’s teacher called him immature and lazy. I don’t personally know any Whole Language teacher who would say that. But then, I don’t know them all! It sounds very unlike what I would expect from one who believes iin a holistic approach to teaching.

In Finland, children don’t start formal reading instruction until they are 7 or 8 years old. They supposedly have virtually no learning disabilities.

Ilg and Ames felt that children aren’t physically mature enough for reading until they’ve lost their first tooth.

Just some thoughts to ponder–not trying to discount your experience in any way whatsoever.

Calma,
She didn’t actually use the words lazy, now that I recall, but said he wasn’t trying hard enough (same thing to me). He clearly has a language based reading disability and on his recent GORT, his scores ranged from <1% to 10%. His highest score was for comprehension surprisingly enough.
Anyway, interesting that you asked about the teeth because he wasn’t losing any by age 7 or 8 and had to have them extracted instead as his mouth was crowding. (I’m not a good mother - don’t remember when he started walking or talking - seemed to meet the developmental milestones within the average ranges.)
My point in my previous post was that one size does not fit all but reading instruction has to take into account the individual learner. Foisting phonics instruction on my oldest daughter who taught herself to read by early kindergarten would have bored her to tears. But my son desperated needed it at that same time. My middle daughter thrived no matter what intervention was given.

also, my son did have several ear infections. More than my daughters anyway.

As you point out, one size definitely does not fit all. For whatever reason, your son didn’t “get” reading without intervention. It is still difficult for him. I’m glad his comprehension is good. That often happens with kids who have low oral reading scores.

Something you might consider trying is tape recording him reading a page of text that is 200 or so words long, just above his current independent oral reading level. Then, give him a copy of the text triple-spaced. Have him listen to his reading of the information, and stop the tape recorder to mark the words he miscued on, or added in, or omitted. (I don’t remember his age–you might have to do this for him a couple of times and then have him listen as he re-reads the marked text). At each miscue, see if he can describe what was going through his head as he read. This might give you extra insight into what is causiing him specific trouble at this time in reading connected text orally.

I am so passionate about how kids are taught to read because the current guidelines from the federal government, based on faulty information from the NRP Summary Report, are pushing a one-size fits all approach. I totally agree with you that each child needs the approach that works best for him/her. I have found that the Whole Language teachers I know personally do that.

Thanks for your feedback.

Calma, I would be interested in how you have determined that the students you work with have good decoding skills. Assuming it is the case, you are simply working with a different population than the ones most of us work with. Once a student *already* has good decoding skills, then whole language principles are valuable. However, the students *we’re* talking about — and they are legion — don’t have that foundation yet and whole language has not done the job of teaching it.

Gee, I’d also like to see some scientific studies which relate to the age of losing the first tooth to phonological processing. That is certainly a new one.

Janis

Miscue Analysis
Brigance Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills
Linguisystems Phonological Awareness Test
Woodcock-Johnson III
Classroom teacher assessments for grapheme/phoneme relationships
DIBLES
KTEA
Observation
Writing samples

And yes, kids are explicitly taught phonics in Whole Language classrooms. Check out Whole to Part Phonic by Margaret Moustafa.

And, as I’ve said, not all children will learn to read with that explicit, Whole Language instruction and may need something more systematic.

However, most children, in my experience of 30 years of teaching, who have that specific need have not been taught by teachers with a holistic teaching approach.

Actually, the studies are quite old. It’s a correlation, not a causation. The Gesell Institute for Children reported on this.

http://www.gesellinstitute.org/dsp.asp?page=2

There’s a letter on this page that discusses “behavior age” as opposed to chronological age.

One thing that later tooth loss is one indicator that the child’s body is not developing physically/neurologically at the rate his chronological age would indicate. Of course, there are many more indicators that can support or refute that. BUT, children who are not physically/neurologically ready for school (regardless of their chronological age) may end up with reading difficulties if formal reading instruction is introduced too early, for that PARTICULAR child.

Most schools have a one-size fits all approach to teaching reading. Most Whole Language teachers begin with the individual child’s needs and go from there. And any school that claims to teach Whole Language using a basal series is not doing so. Please keep that in mind when determining whether a student has had Whole Language instruction or not.

In my experience, many, many, many teachers applying whole language methods do not, in fact, explicitly teach phonics. I’ve read Moustafa and an awful lot of articles on whole language; the reality doesn’t match the theory. As Moats’ research pointed out, many of the teachers don’t *know* the phonics they are purportedly “teaching.”
SO again, we’re simply talking about different populations. & very different applicatoins of the methods; If students can already decode and have comprehension problems, then yup, that’s what they need to work on. If the program has phonics — explicitly *and* systematcally [as opposed to ‘as it comes up in reading’] included, then it deserves the title “balanced.”
The late Priscilla Vail wrote a great little essay on it: see
http://www.cdl.org/resources/reading_room/whole_language.html
THE WHOLE LANGUAGE & PHONICS FEUD—REDUX AND FINIS

From the research page, in the annotated bibliography.

I find it pretty hard to argue against this:

Ogletree, E.J. (1988). The developmental approach to school readiness. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 315 156).

In the U.S., a psychometric psychology dominates the thinking of educators. For traditional, political, and social reasons, developmental psychology rarely informs educational practices. This is the case even though studies show that the inducing of cognitive learning before a child is ready will reduce the child’s learning potential and may result in the child’s being erroneously diagnosed as disabled. Chronological age is not always a reliable index of school readiness. Recent findings support the importance of maturity as a key predictor of school readiness. A national study of 300 children who entered school 2-5 years later than the normal entrance age of 6 years had no difficulty completing elementary school at the same age as those who entered earlier. Expert opinion recognizes that forced learning can cause frustration, anxiety, alienation, and loss of interest in learning. Whatever gains may result from psychometrically determined educational practices are outweighed by harm done to children’s self-concept, health, and emotional and intellectual development. The psychometric, traditional approach must be replaced with a developmental approach that examines the needs of the child and the process of the child’s development.

and this:

Uphoff, J.K. (1990). Real facts from real schools: School readiness and transition programs. Rosemont, NJ: Modern Learning Press.

This book gives a rationale for developmental programs, responses to the push-down curriculum, a critical analysis of the attack on readiness and transition, and research findings from schools where developmental programs have proven successful. A case is made for educators to move beyond the divisive, counter-productive debate about readiness and transition in order to work together on constructive changes needed by all young children. Research summaries include (a.) data on chronological age at school entrance, verifying the chronologically and/or developmentally younger children experience many problems, and (b.) program evaluations from schools which have effective extra year programs—i.e., developmental kindergarten, or transitional first grade. Such program results repeatedly include (1) parental support after completion of the extra year program (94%), (2) academic achievement up to or above grade level, (3) peer acceptance for extra year participants but not for recommended but not-participating students, (4) predictive validity of Gesell assessment rating on developmental maturity when added to academic readiness tests, (5) recommended but non-participating students are more likely to repeat a later grade, to be referred or placed in learning disabilities programs, or to experience more behavioral problems than those who had an extra year.

Children identified with specific learning disabilities, the majority from lower socio-economic backgrounds, but not all.

I’m really not interested in a debate on Whole Language vs. Phonics.

Yes, phonics is explicitly taught in the Whole Language classrooms that I am personally acquainted with–well over 40 of those.

Yes, there are children who need more systematic instruction.

I’m still waiting for someone to address the fallacies in the NRP report, which is being used as the basis for reading instruction for ALL children, when it was specifically noted in the report itself that MOST children do not need systematic instruction in phonics.

Well, since this is LD OnLine, you’re visiting a skewed segment of the population — so many of the students in quesiton *do* need that intensive stuff.
The one site where I did find those issues “addressed” did so in a rather less than logical way. (One issue was that in the writer’s opinion, it was a mistake to call a program “whole language” on the basis that that’s what it was called… he declared that the definition of a whole language programs should have been determined on the basis of how much independent reading was included. That’s an interesting interpretation that made me question his other points which may have merit.)

Since the NRP report only supports systematic intensive phonics for SOME kids with reading difficulties, that’s how it should be presented.

If people make blanket statements saying the NRP report determined that sytematic, intensive phonics is THE way to teach reading, I correct that inaccuracy when I come across it. No matter what the forum I’m visiting.

So, really, that is what I’m hoping to get across.

Well, what we do know was that the great Whole Language experiment in California (and elsewhere) resulted in something like 60% of the kids not reading adequately, so I’d just as soon see 100% get the systematic phonics, just in case.

Janis

The NRP said systematic phonics works no better than other reading approaches.

As a special education teacher, I believe each child should get what he/she needs.

In general education classrooms, more children are more likely to get an individualized curriculum if they are being taught by Whole Language teachers.

BTW, Whole Language did not cause any great reading failure in CAlifornia. Check out Stephen Krashen’s website and his article on the Great Myth.

And in fact, the NRP meta-analysis showed that kids’ reading ability DECLINED when taught with only phonics. The NRP RECOMMENDED a balanced approach, which does not mean only systematic phonics for MOST children.

Please don’t use the NRP report to promote phonics for all kids. That’s not what it said.

http://www.azusausd.k12.ca.us/bilingual/pdf%5CKrashen8.pdf[url][/url]

http://www.azusausd.k12.ca.us/bilingual/pdf%5CKrashen8.pdf

Who promotes phonics only and no other reading instruction? If you want a true balanced curriculum, look at Open Court…systematic phonics and good literature, too.

I’ve taught special ed. for 20 years, and I simply haven’t seen a child yet who didn’t need and benefit from systematic phonics in addition to a comprehensive language arts program.

Janis

Open Court was one of the programs studied by the NRP that showed a decline in performance for children who were taught using it.

Oh, brother. I only hope parents rely on the excellent information which LD Online provides regarding reading and not in such misleading information.

The misleading information is that the NRP advocates phonics for all children. In fact, it states the opposite, that a balanced literacy program is most helpful for most children.

As I stated more than once, some children need a systematic intensive phonics program.

If you have something to post that can refute the direct quotes from the NRP report, please do so.

I have not posted anything misleading. I have posted factual information, as well as personal experience. What have you posted that is backed by research, not just your opinion?

Calma, you are using a whole bunch of reprehensible tactics of misleading rhetoric instead of discussing facts.

Setting up a straw man: Nobody here is silly enough to recommend *only* phonics.
We just want to make sure that phonics DOES get taught, *along with* all the other things that go into reading.

Argument from authority: You make a whole bunch of very long quotes from some book which you have and apparently consider to be the last word.
Who wrote this book? What are the author’s qualifications? What *scientific* research has the author done? (scientific means observable, measurable, and reproducible, among other things.) What biases and conflicts of interest does *this* author have? Why is the reader to take this author’s word as gospel, in direct contradiction to the entire National Reading Panel AND Jeanne Chall AND Patrick Goff AND multiple other researchers?

Argument from superior, recondite, or mystery knowledge: You repeatedly claim that you have spent thirty years in the classroom and therefore you know exactly the right way reading is to be taught.
You may be able to use that to impress people in some other places, but it won’t wash here. For myself, I have been in the education field at all levels since 1974; if you want to get to degrees and qualifications, I have a nice collection. Several other people, notably Sue, Des, and Janis (and Shay if she comes backm and others), some of whom have already expressed doubts about your claims, also have been in this field for a good long time, are highly qualified, and know what is going on.

Fear-mongering: You go on to make all sorts of claims that early academic teaching will in some way irreparably damage children, and that using a program with systematic phonics as *part* of it will harm the children’s reading and make them actually worse.
Janis and others have expressed healthy skepticism with regard to these claims. Many others of us here have also been in the teaching field for many many years and we have *not* observed these things, quite the contrary.
Really, fear-mongering is a dreadful form of argument and is not suitable to a professional discussion.

Filibustering: instead of making a few concise statements of fact and references, you post multiple huge long articles going over and over the same points above.
(I personally make long posts, but not up to that level, and I sincerely hope more to the point.)
Perhaps you intend to drive your version of the facts into us by repetition. For me personally, this is a warning sign, one that raises my suspicions that someone is trying a hard sell on me and that I’m being pressured into buying a lemon.

Statements which contradict generally accepted facts: You claim, just for one example, that Open Court *reduces* reading levels.
Well, this is a measurable and verifiable fact — where do you get your data from, and what are the data, and measured how and on what students and where and when?
Janis expresses strong disbelief of this statement above, and I also question it rather strongly. In fact, I am not a supporter of Open Court in particular, but I have read that it is at least an acceptable program. Failures at the level you are claiming shouldn’t be hard to verify.
In science, it is sometimes necessary to disprove generally accepted ideas — but in order to do this you are expected to have strong proof on hand, real hard data. I am still waiting to see that.

Distractors, changing the subject, false leads, and blind alleys: The teeth thing?
Really, we are not in the nineteenth century here!! By the way, my daughter and I both read perfectly fluently three or four years before our adult teeth came in. I’m sure you have something to say to belittle that, but it is a fact. I seem to be able to read and write fairly well.
There is a truism in statistics — Correlation is NOT Causation. Or, to quote an old English proverb, if the cat has kittens in the oven that doesn’t make them biscuits. Please, let us stay on topic.

There are more, but these are the ones that stick in my memory on this board where it is difficult to refer back to the article you are answering.

If you want to have a real discussion on effective methods of reading, well, I’m always willing to talk.

The quotes about Open Court are directly from the NRP report on their meta-analysis of the research on phonics.

As are the other ones about phonics.

The author of the book is an award-winning PhD reading researcher.

Before you slam another person’s motives, you might actually read what that person has posted. Print it out if you need to refer back to it.

As I said NUMEROUS times, the only group for whom sytematic intensive phonics was shown to have SOME positive effect on was children with learning disabilities. (in the meta-analysis of the research studies on phonics performed by the NRP panel–the research which I referred to—the meager 38 studies out of 100,000 overall in all areas of reading). There are probably studies out there that show other results. These are just the studies cited by the NRP. These are the studies being inappropriately used by Reading First to coerce school districts into using Phonics for All.

It’s a common tactic to attack the person who presents a different point of view, rather than evidence. I posted evidence.

The “teeth” thing was just for illustration. It is a visible indicator of a child’s development. I stated clearly that it was a correlation, not a causation, in my second post.

If you choose not to read my citations, that is your privilege. Just don’t disparage me personally if you haven’t read my complete posts and thought them over a little.

There ARE other successful ways to teach children with learning disabilities, and I’m tired of people trashing Whole Language when it has been shown to be every bit as effective, if not more so, by the research analyed for the NRP.

I would appreciate it if you would refrain from personal attacks and stick to the facts. You have posted none. Your “factual” experience is no more, or less, valid than mine. Cite your research if you don’t like that of the NRP.

It was about losing the first tooth, not the timing of the arrival of any adult teeth.

“using a whole bunch of reprehensible tactics of misleading rhetoric instead of discussing facts.” I could take lessons from you.

Oh, good, the one bad rhetoric trick that you previously missed. It’s called an ad hominem attack. Or other things in less polite circles.

Still waiting for some facts here, and you haven’t given any yet.

PS: since losing the first tooth is *caused* by the eruption of the adult teeth which will come along within a week to a month in normal progress, this is a meaningless and silly distinction. As far as the topic of reading goes, it also is a perfect example of correlation NOT causation, still.

http://www.ldonline.org/ld_indepth/reading/ncld_summit99.html

NICHD outline which states clearly and in detail many of the facts to which I have alluded above.

The ad hominem attack was what YOU did to me. You have, from the beginning, insulted my opinions, derided the facts I’ve presented, and made false statements about my intentions. You have yet to present any fact-based research.

I presented plenty of facts. You choose not to look them up in your copy of the NRP report. I can’t help that. If it weren’t an ad hominem attack, I would say that perhaps you have learned to decode but not to comprehend.

I presented citations from many, many research articles, as well as websites where you can read the full articles that will refute your slams against me and against Whole Language.

I also wrote, twice, that the tooth thing is a CORRELATION, not a causation, and you choose to ignore that. It is an indication of physical maturity, which CORRELATES with neurological maturity, which CORRELATES with developing academic skills. That doesn’t mean that a kid won’t learn to read until they lose their first tooth!! I didn’t say that, and I didn’t imply that.

I also wrote, oh, at least four times, that systematic intensive phonics instruction is appropriate for a small number of children with reading difficulties. You choose to ignore that.

Now, as for the author of In Defense of Our Children and Resisting Reading Mandates, Dr. Elaine Garan won the California Professors of Reading Language Arts Excellence Award for her reading research.

BTW, the official position of the California State Education Department, on Whole Language, for years, has been to ban any state-sponsored workshops or staff development on the approach. Their is a blacklist of speakers who are not allowed to present to teachers at state or district or school-sponsored inservices.

Not one member of the NRP, save Principal Joanne Yatvin, EVER taught reading to a classroom full of children—they included a CPA, a physicist, and some behavioral psychologists.

True scientific research welcomes critique and corrects inaccuracies. While panel members have admitted there are inaccuracies in the NRP summary report and on its website, those inaccuracies remain.

I made my original post to put forth those inaccuracies. You have yet to show me any evidence that the full report of the subgroups of the NRP recommends phonics first for all kids. I am so adamant about that position because all schools applying for REading First grants HAVE to adopt programs that subscribe to phonics first for all kids. REading First grants follow guidelines based on the NRP summary report, not the full report of the subgroups. Schools are not allowed any options, and that is wrong.

Persist with your attacks on me, if you must. I have a thick skin. I also have the facts to back up what I say. Where are yours?