[Reading-hall-of-fame] Proposal

[Brian Cambourne]

Ken,
It's a great idea.

  If we could get some agreement on what constitutes "effective"  
reading behaviour, effective learning behaviour, and "good" science/ 
research is, it might be a good place start.

In Australia we let the neo cons define effective reading behaviour  
as decoding to sound, then we let them get away with defining  good  
research/science as only those studies which measured decoding to  
sound . By default "effective" learning then  becomes defined as a  
score on a test that measures decoding.

Once we let them get away with that they conned the politicians, the  
press and the general public, and created a whole way of thinking  
about "effective" reading  learning,  and educational science which  
is almost impossible to change.

I also think it  would be good if we could stop thinking of "reading"  
as somehow separate from "literacy" .
I'll help if I can.
  Brian C
On 06/06/2008, at 3:50 AM, Ken Goodman wrote:

> I've sent the following letter to Education Week in response to  
> Kathleen Kennedy Manzo article on the lack of research support for  
> Reading First.
> In my letter a Ask "What If .What if even half f this enormous sum  
> of money ($6 BILLION) misused by the Reading First profiteers had  
> been used to fund a full range of programs evaluated by unbiased  
> third parties?
>
> In the spirit of the on-going discussion in the Reading Hall of  
> Fame of our role in advancing progress in literacy education, what  
> if the Reading Hall of Fame proposed such a large scale comparitive  
> study of the full range or reading methodologies? It would, of  
> course, replicate the First grade studies but on a much larger  
> scale. A lot has been learned since that study about reading,  
> reading development and reading instruction so it would not be hard  
> for us to identify several alternate methodologies. And a lot is  
> known about better and fairer ways of evaluating and comparing the  
> effectiveness of alternate methodologies. Certainly we could get  
> far more useful and unbiased information than the Reading First  
> evaluations provided.
>
> If there is enough interest in this idea, I would make a proposal  
> that our President, Jim Hoffman appoint a committee to write a  
> proposal. That could be then be circulated to other professional  
> and research organizations for support and then submitted to the  
> relevant Congressional committees and the Department of Education.  
> I believe, with a change in administations coming there is a  
> possibility that there would be support for this kind of research.
>
>
> My letter to Education Week
> Thanks to Kathleen Kennedy Manzo for her attempt to
> make sense of the research on Reading First
>
> It took seven years, billions of dollars, and a few
> million victims as young as five for the press and the
> politicians  to realize that far from being the
> fool-press scientific answer to the nation's literacy
> crisis, Reading First is an absurd unworkable
> program,. Ironically, when the Bush administration
> finally sponsored a study to see if Reading First
> improved reading comprehension, as Congress had
> required, the study showed no benefit. Yes, it was a
> flawed study. But it was designed to prove Reading
> First successful and it failed to do so.
>
> One basic flaw in the study is that it compared the
> comprehension of  reading first students to a control
> group that didn't have Reading First. But there was no
> attempt to examine what they did have. That has led
> many of us to play the "What if" game.
>
> Congress mandated, in the Reading First law, a single
> methodology and put the power to interpret and
> implement that methodology through control of the
> funding process in the hands of a small group of
> reading ideologues, centered at the University of
> Oregon, who trusted no one but themselves and who
> forced their own tests and texts on states and
> districts.
>
> What if instead of that the law had permitted states
> and districts to choose from a variety of clear
> alternative reading methodologies with a history of
> support by educational researchers and professionals, including the  
> much maligned whole language.  What we
> know now is that the Reading First methodology with
> its extreme focus on drill on phonics didn't produce
> comprehension. If there had been a variety of methods
> supported we could have compared them to each other
> regularly throughout the years of Reading First
> implementation.  Instead we had claims, made on the basis of DIBELS  
> scores which
> include no measure of the quality of comprehension,
> that reading first was successful. Yes it was
> successful at teaching kids to respond to nonsense
> items in three seconds and to rush through incoherent
> texts calling the names of words. But it wasn't
> successful in helping learners make sense of print.
>
> Throughout the implementation of reading first there
> has been an atmosphere of coercion and intimidation.
> Teachers have been punished for raising questions
> during their "training" to use the mandated tests,
> texts and methodology. What if teachers had the option
> to teach in a school that used a methodology they
> believed in as professionals? What if the tests and
> texts mandated by Reading First had gone through the
> usual review process that each state and district had
> been using prior to Reading First? Could any of the
> poorly constructed and absurd materials forced into
> the schools under Reading First have passed such
> professional review?
>
> What if even half f this enormous sum of money misused
> by the Reading First profiteers had been used to fund
> a full range of programs evaluated by unbiased third
> parties?
>
> To me the answer to these "what ifs" is clear. We
> would know much more about effective reading
> instruction. We would have much happier students,
> teachers and parents. We would not be losing
> dedicated, professional teachers who can't stay in
> teaching if they are forced to teach in ways they
> believe hurt kids. We would not have urban districts
> forced to close schools because they failed to meet
> unachievable goals.
> And we would have far fewer kids labeled as failures
> in their first week of kindergarten.
>
> Ken Goodman
> Professor Emeritus
> Language, Reading and Culture
> University of Arizona
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Reading-hall-of-fame mailing list
> Reading-hall-of-fame at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
> http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/reading-hall-of-fame

  Assoc. Prof. ( Dr) Brian Cambourne
Principal Fellow
  Faculty of Education
University of Wollongong
Northfields Rd Wollongong
AUSTRALIA
Phone: Overseas callers
Home 61-244-416182
email<brian_cambourne at uow.edu.au
  Mobile/Cell phone: 0408684368



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/private/reading-hall-of-fame/attachments/20080606/37f0b162/attachment-0001.html