We are a contentious lot – people in general, that is. It is not that people like to fight, I hope, but that they will rise to the occasion. There are many arguments in the realm of public education and the pandemic fueled these and bred even more. I write this morning about one that has history, many bouts, and still rages. It is a good and worthy engagement in public education measured by the distance between the opposing forces and the significant differences in outcomes should one side prevail. This is the Reading Wars Saga Redux.
A reader may snub this this post believing that the Reading Wars are old news, a story that is put to rest. But, it is not. Three key points make the Reading Wars more than relevant today. They are:
- In the absence of daily in-person reading instruction during the pandemic, we need the most effective and efficient reading strategy to cause all children to be proficient readers. This is more that compensatory, because children in K-3 who missed 30 months of direct reading instruction are in danger of a lifetime of ineffective language acquisition skills and reading behavior.
- Public education sermonizes the need for all children to be well-educated, yet categorizes a percentage of children as learning challenged. The achievement gap between non-categorized and categorized children is clearly demonstrated in their reading proficiency. A strategy that will cause categorized children to acquire language and read and write with equivalency to non-categorized children compels us to consider that strategy for all children.
- The status quo in the Reading Wars is not based upon the merits of an argument but upon the politics of state legislation. Once again, money plus lobbying causes legislation and policy decisions not the righteousness of an argument.
Two sides stand in opposition regarding the teaching of reading, the Reading Wars Saga redux in Wisconsin, and it is important for any person concerned with educating children to understand the battle line. I use the singular battle line, because I find the arguments boil down to a single question. Shall educators use the understandings and instructional strategies of the Science of Reading (SoR) to teach reading and language acquisition to children or not? There is not an argument for other strategies for the teaching of reading. Those strategies are an amalgamation of ideas and approaches for the teaching of reading, usually encompassed as whole language or blended reading. No, the issue is whether we will use the phonics-based strategies of SoR. It is the same argument of the 1980s and 1990s Reading Wars grown up, because we know much more about reading and language acquisition today than we knew in the last century.
I point to the Institute for Multi-Sensory Education (IMSE) for an example of SoR. This document summarizes the approaches of SoR that are pertinent to the argument. There are many others – I picked this.
At the heart of SoR are a child’s abilities to encode sounds into words and decode words into sounds and from these abilities acquire vocabulary, learn to spell, learn to read complex and complicated text, and to write with fluency. Children who cannot encode and decode reading and language are exiled to a life of frustration and low achievement in a world that requires literacy.
When I ask someone who opposes SoR why they do so, two statements invariably are heard. Phonics-based instruction requires drilling in the sounds and spellings of phonemes and morphemes and some children are put off by this repetition. They are bored. And, some children can learn to read naturally – just let them read and guide their reading as it grows. Schools have adopted complete reading programs based upon not boring children and the belief that with minimal foundational skills and maximal reading opportunities children will become successful readers.
Is that it? Yep, that is the long and short of an argument.
On the other hand, SoR speaks of foundational encoding and decoding skills for all children, especially those who have learning challenges or whose early home life does not present much reading encouragement or whose natural abilities satisfy primary grade reading material but struggle with more complex vocabulary and language in the secondary grades.
In simple terms, SoR teaches children phonemic awareness of sound-letter correlations, to use phonetic patterns to understand and use regular and irregular words, to read and pronounce words with fluency, to build complex and technical vocabulary based upon phonetic patterns, and the comprehend the meaning of words and word families. This is a structured approach that is individualized to a child’s learning needs.
Therein lies a compelling difference in the argument about reading instruction. Shall we leave success to each child’s native abilities and opportunities presented at home and school when then are young or shall we instruct every child with the skills to read and understand language for a lifetime?
In the 1990s the forces in Wisconsin for blended and whole language moved the state legislature to adopt language favoring non-phonics-based reading instruction. A simple phrase in the WI Stat 18.19 says that teacher preparation shall include phonics-based reading, but that a course is phonics-based reading is not required. Over the past 30 years teachers in our state’s teacher prep programs have received such nominal instruction in phonics-based reading that when asked to describe encoding and decoding skills, phonemic awareness, and linguistics, most cannot. Elementary teachers today are illiterate regarding the SoR. Sadly, legislation and lobbying efforts against SoR stymy teacher education.
Educational data, especially data that is disaggregated, describes a flattening of reading achievement in Wisconsin over the past fifteen years. Whole language and blended reading instruction cause some children to succeed as readers, but less than half of all children can achieve proficiency in reading or language assessments on state assessments. And, children with learning disabilities invariably achieve at a basic or minimal level. When we disaggregate the data, we find that children with dyslexia not only do not achieve, they decline in achievement over time and educationally “die” in frustration. Our systems are not working for all children.
This is a good fight in the non-combative and non-life-threatening struggles of the public education Wisconsin provides to all enrolled children. Shall all children learn to read? All children not just those who can read without explicit instruction. Shall state legislation and teacher preparation programs be reformed to endorse SoR or will they continue with a status quo of minimal and selective achievement? It is fight for the future of our children.