NCTQ’s attacks on teacher education are animated, in part,
by the belief that university-based reading educators are mostly whole language
advocates who eschew the teaching of the fundamentals of reading (i.e.,
phonics). NCTQ shares this belief with many critics of American education who
seem convinced that the emphasis on literature and meaning making in schools of
education represents an outright rejection of phonics instruction. This
“anti-phonics” stance is seen to be responsible for the poor literacy achievement
of American school children compared to children in other countries around the
globe. To put the argument more simply, American students are not learning to
read as effectively as their peers in other parts of the world and, ultimately,
the blame for this situation lies with university-based reading educators who,
because of their rejection of explicit phonics instruction, do not adequately
prepare teachers to teach reading. However,
·
There is no evidence that phonics has been
deemphasized in schools and classrooms across the county. Indeed, spurred by
Reading First grants there has been an increased emphasis on the so-called
fundamentals of reading, especially in low-achieving, high-poverty schools.
·
There is no evidence that reading education in schools
of education is dominated by holistic approaches to reading as many critics
have claimed.
·
Meaning-centered approaches (like “whole
language”) are not anti-phonics. Letter-sound information is always part of the
data readers use to bring sense to texts. After all, no one reads with her/his
eyes closed. Meaning-centered reading educators believe, however, that phonics
is best learned in contexts where readers use phonetic cues simultaneously with
other contextual information to make sense of what they’re reading. These
educators don’t reject phonics but do reject isolated skill instruction removed
from the context of reading authentic, whole texts. Even the report of the
National Reading Panel that the NCTQ has valorized suggests that phonics
instruction must be part of a rich and varied program of reading real texts.
·
American schools are not failing compared to
schools in other countries. David Berliner’s analysis of international
comparisons clearly shows that American students in relatively affluent schools
do very well compared to their peers in other countries. The problem is that
students attending schools with higher proportions of students living in
poverty do much less well compared both to students in other countries and
their peers in more affluent schools in this country.
The arguments about reading instruction in the US have
focused mainly on pedagogy but the evidence indicates that, while pedagogy
matters, it will always be insufficient for overcoming the material effects of
poverty. If we are serious about “leaving no child behind,” we must give
serious attention to the high levels of poverty among American school children.
