[Reading-hall-of-fame] Re: First of three messages from NCTQ (0

[Alan Farstrup]

I find the message compelling but there are too many confusing quotes, misused asterisks and other formatting issues that may have the unfortunate effect of rendering the statement to be not credible. I recommend at least fixing those problems before going public. Also, I fear that in spite of the footnote emphasizing that the statement "should not be construed as an official position of the Reading Hall of Fame" it will likely be seen as such by many readers.  Should it receive a vote by all members of the members of the RHoF?  Just a few thoughts of my own. This is clearly an important set of issues and I recognize that a lot of careful thought has gone into the draft statement. For me the bottom line is that NCTQ is politically motivated, unprofessional and highly biased. It's more of the "same old, same old" from the same old control oriented crowd that wants to dumb down and negatively politicize educational processes, research and programs. 

Alan
______________________
Sent from my iPad2
Alan E. Farstrup
afarstrup at me.com

On Aug 1, 2013, at 12:47 PM, Ken Goodman <kgoodman at u.arizona.edu> wrote:

> *A statement from members of the Reading Hall of Fame on the report of the *
> *National Council on Teacher Quality**
> 
> As elected members of the Reading Hall of Fame with broad and diverse
> perspectives on reading and reading instruction we want to raise strong
> objections to key aspects of the NCTQ report on teacher preparation
> programs.*
> 
> 1.     The purpose of NCTQ is to *“**provide an alternative national voice
> to existing teacher organizations and to build the case for a comprehensive
> reform agenda that would challenge the current structure and regulation of
> the profession.”* . NCTQ ‘s would control educatlon by limiting teaching to
> set program, limiting teacher education to training teachers in that
> program and eliminating the professional organizations which provide a
> forum and a voice for teachers.
> 
> 2.     NCTQ asserts that the National Reading Panel provided the answers to
> , “*many fundamental **edu**cational questions*” and closed any open
> questions about reading instruction.  We cannot accept that the fundamental
> questions are answered. There still is need for research and debate within
> the profession. Knowledge itself is being marginalized and those who pursue
> knowledge declared irelevent.
> 
> 3.     NCTQ reduced the NRP report to “five components of effective reading
> instruction”. They then use teaching of these five to assess teacher
> education program.  This would prepare teachers to be technicians with
> limited knowledge and authority to provide appropriate instruction for
> children with a wide range of abilities.
> 
> 4.     The report of NCTQ repeats the misrepresentation in NCLB
> characterizing current reading instruction as a war between two- and only
> two- views of how reading should be taught: “Whole Language” and phonics
> framed as  *scientifically-based reading instruction*.
> 
> 5.
> 
> Robert Calfee* summarized the official Reading First evaluation: “ The
> Report concludes,  ‘*Reading First* *did not produce a statistically
> significant impact* on *student reading comprehension test scores*’ (
> Gamse, et al., 2008. )An enormous investment of time and money demonstrated
> the ineffectiveness of ideas and practices that many had challenged from
> the beginning – *but nothing useful*
>     NCTQ wants to limit reading education courses to training teachers in
> the same methodology that was imposed through Reading First,  the reading
> part of NCLB,  which failed to produce any significant results after
> spending over six billion dolllars.* *
> 
> 6.     Asserting that “*teacher educators choose **to train candidates in
> “whole language” methods rather than scientifically-based reading
> instruction*” indicates that NCTQ’s evaluators had so broad a definition of
> whole language that it is anything other than what NCTQ would mandate.
> 
> 7.      The texts authored by over 60 members of the Reading Hall of Fame
> were listed as unacceptable by NCTQ. Few were rated acceptable. The issue
> is not our texts. It is that anyone or any group can impose their judgment
> and become arbiters of books or methods.
> 
> 8.      NCTQ ridicules the view that prospective teachers should confront
> their attitudes toward race, class, language and culture in their teacher
> education programs. This is but one example of  NCTQ view that reading is
> an autonomous skill that can be taught out of context without regard for
> who the learners are and what they are asked to read.
> 
> 9.     NCTQ sees “Academic Freedom run amok” in teacher education. Yet the
> concept was created to protect teachers and other academics from just the
> sort of political interference in their teaching and research NCTQ is
> attempting.
> 
> *This statement represents those members signed below and should not be
> construed as an official position of the Reading Hall of Fame
> 
> *Calfee R. *Knowledge, Evidence, and Faith: How the Federal Government
> Used Science to Take Over Public Schools in Goodman K, R.Calfee and Y.
> Goodman (eds)  Whose Knowledge Counts in Government Literacy Policies?
> Routledge 2014)**
> 
> Please respond to Kgoodman at .arizona.edu by August 7, 2013.
> 
> Members signing this statement (to date)
> 
> Kenneth S Goodman     Professor emeritus University of Arizona
> 
> James Hoffman             Professor University of Texas
> 
> Jane Hanson                 Professor Emerita University of Virginia, Team
> member, Central Virginia Writing Project
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Ken Goodman
> 7814 South Galileo Lane
> Tucson, Az 85747
> 520-745-6895
> 
> Use Google to see :
> Ken Goodman's Morning post
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to me, and immediately delete it.   Please do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment.  Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham.
> 
> This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment
> may still contain software viruses which could damage your computer system, you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation.
> 
> 
> 
>