Bob contributed this message:
This is Bob's bio so you can see he is more than qualified to relate the political history of reading instruction in America:There has been some discussion about the 40 Linguists who published a letter in support of this approach in the State of Massachusetts in the 1990s. The thought now is whether we could replicate that on a world wide basis, and I am for that too. But, a bit of history in the U.S. might also be of value on where to, as Jim said, “take a bite of the elephant” in 2018!
The election of George W. Bush as President of the United states in 2000 offered a unique opportunity to, as President Elect Bush said, “change the paradigm” in how reading is taught in U.S. Schools. The genesis of his decision to make “changing the paradigm in how reading is taught” a national priority was the “flat” reading scores of several decades no matter the research findings, or the increasing federal financial resources spent to remedy this problem.
The President-elect met with Dr. Reid Lyon to discuss the findings of research in reading instruction presented in the report of the National Reading Panel in 2000, the “Snow Report” in 1998. Dr. Lyon oversaw the research conducted by the National Institutes of Child Health and Human Development over a period of more than a decade. The consensus of these findings, coupled with similar findings elsewhere in the world convinced the President that there really was an answer to the persistent and consistent findings of poor reading ability and he was determined to use the power of his office to address this matter of national concern.
There were many steps taken in this effort that I will chronicle here:
Election of George W. Bush President of the United States (2000)
The appointment of NICHD Associate Director Dr. Reid Lyon as “Reading Czar”
The charge to the U.S. Congress to come up with legislation that would transfer the findings of reading research into a federal funded incentive for states and local communities to “change the paradigm” of how reading was being taught to ALL children. NOT just those labeled as “dyslexic” or “struggling readers.”
The preparation of Reading First and Early Reading First authorizing language as part of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) bill.
The passage of NCLB by both the House and Senate that was signed into law January 8, 2002
The distribution of the Report of the National Reading Panel to every school in the U.S. (how many read it is a question no one can answer)
The appropriation of nearly $6 billion for RF and ERF that offered an incentive to states to re-train their teachers in the findings of reading research that were consistent with at least two decades of NICHD funded research studies.
Dr. Lyon and his colleagues were tireless in speaking to most of the large teachers organizations in the U.S., including the schools of education, and to the U.S. Congress from 2000 to 2006.
I think this is likely the largest and most comprehensive campaign for improving reading instruction in the history of the U.S.
However, the result was marginalized because the USDOE did not follow through with the intent of the RF legislation, and did not hold states accountable for changing the way reading was being taught in the local schools. As is often the case, the power of “money” superseded the desire to really help improve reading instruction. The RF law was dependent on states and local communities wanting to change the paradigm of how reading was taught, and that did not occur in most instances. There were some states where it did work, and there were thousands of teachers who were presented with the findings of reading science.
It is difficult to maintain momentum on changing deeply held beliefs. The whole word juggernaut that had been underway for more than a half century since the days of John Dewey was not easily deterred….then came a change in the U.S. President. For a variety of reasons, NCLB was not reauthorized and thus went the way of so many other national initiatives of merit.
Was it worth the effort? I would say it was, because the reverberations continue to resonate with many because the job remains undone.
Now we are nearly two decades away from this initiative, the test scores remain abysmally bad, especially for our minority students…84% of African Americans students still graduate from High school unable to read proficiently, and the situation is the same for Hispanic students. More than 60% of ALL students still cannot read proficiently. A tragedy for them for sure, and that is why we all continue to try and think through ways to address this issue as best we can.
I think that we are developing a world wide consensus now that was not there in 2000.
I am in favor of having a letter drafted that is consistent with what the 40 linguists did in the 1990s in MA. It needs to be updated to reflect the significant findings over the past two decades, and then signed by as many organization, and eminent linguists, teachers, producers of good “SSP” reading programs and then publicized as widely as possible.
The NRRF (National Right to Read Foundation) has collected many of the reading programs in the U.S. that we consider to be consistent with reading science today. We realize that some are more complete than others, but all of those we list are providing instruction in the sound/symbol approach to reading instruction.
Seems to me that with the wisdom that exists in the DDOLL network, IFERI and perhaps other such organizations, a letter could be drafted and circulated and collectively “word smithed” that could be of great value.
It seems to me that somehow we need to reach the “people” with this message. Governments can certainly play a part of this, but until there is an “uprising” among the people when they realize their children are NOT being well served with the decades old pedagogy of reading instruction that has been proven to be harmful, not much will change.
Respectfully submitted,
Bob Sweet
http://www.iferi.org/members/robert-w-sweet-jr/#more-42