I feel very disappointed by Daniel Willingham's response to the issues raised in the Emily Hanford article and have left a reader's comment:
http://www.danielwillingham.com/daniel- ... n#comments
Just how polarized are we about reading instruction?
10/29/2018
Last Friday Emily Hanford published an op-ed in the New York Times. It argued that there are errors of omission and of commission in the education of future teachers concerning how most children learn to read.
Curiously, but not unexpectedly, most of the comments on the New York Times website and on social media did not concern teacher education, but student learning, specifically whether or not phonics instruction is effective.
These comments put me in mind of the polarization of American politics, and this recent survey showing that relatively small percentages of those on the left and right are really far from the mainstream. In other words, we are not as polarized as the media and social media make it seem. Also, the people closer to the center are sick of the yammering anger of those on the far left and right.
I think that may be true of the controversy regarding the teaching of reading.
So have a look at these six statements about children learning to read.
By using descriptions such as this quote below, I feel that Dan is in danger of belittling those involved in the reading debate as he compares politics with arguments to and against various features of reading instruction:
Also, the people closer to the center are sick of the yammering anger of those on the far left and right.
So, is Dan implying that centre-ground people are more reasonable and sick of those arguing on either side, or the sides, of the reading debate?
I left this comment because that is how I perceived Dan's post:
Sadly, the heart of the conflict is about the provision for children and the unnecessary and sometimes devastating 'special needs' caused by flawed teaching (according to the research evidence on reading instruction) and/or weak teaching. This is a moral issue and thus the conflict will remain necessary until such time as all children are well-served - and this will not happen until all teachers are well-served by their initial teaching-training and continued professional development. The conflict is because many trainers and teachers are defending the indefensible in that we have the research evidence and the internet through which to access it, we have test results showing the effects of different types of teaching and quality of teaching. The conflict is also because of deep misunderstanding about the nature of the complex English alphabetic code (and this includes teachers and the general public) - the most complex alphabetic code in the world. The conflict is also because whilst people fight vociferously to defend their current understanding and beliefs - others, by necessity, feel obligated to fight the corner for the children who are not taught - for whom the clock ticks and opportunities are lost at an early age for the children. We must never make light of this state of affairs (the conflict) because it is real and it is virtually impossible to hold those to account who are in the strongest positions to do more about changing the status quo.
Dan concludes:
I’m sure that as you read these six statements you disagreed with the way one or another is phrased, or you thought it went a little too far. I won’t defend any of them vigorously—I didn’t spend that much time writing them, to be honest. The larger point is that the conflict is a waste of time and I suspect most people know it.
There's plenty of other work to be done .
Well - the conflict is a result of intransigence, ignorance (outdated ideas, methods and materials) and adherence to beliefs and philosophies at the expense of commonly-shared knowledge and understanding about the findings of a body of research and leading-edge practice - with the LIFE CHANCES of untold numbers of children (across the world) in the hands of their adult educators.
So, tragically, the conflict will continue to be inevitable, and have to continue, until such time as all children are taught with good quality, evidence-formed provision.
Did Daniel Willingham watch the infamous 'Phonics Debate' held in Australia? That debate exemplifies why fighting the fight for the children (and teachers) simply has to continue.
What 'other work', I wonder, is Dan thinking of?