Reading pedagogy will never be sufficient for overcoming the material effects of poverty

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.