Today’s NYT continues to try and stoke the phonics versus whole language fight. (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/09/education/09reading.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ref=education) It’s sad that, even after everything we know about educational research, there are still those pushing WL, an unproven philosophy that has cost us a generation of readers in places like California.

The article starts off with a depiction of a whole language classroom, where we expect students to learn to read, as if by divine inspiration. Guess “pumpkin.” If that’s too long, and you recognize the first letter as “p” then maybe guess “pea.”

What parent wants to see her child learn through guessing games, in the hopes that they accidentally stumble across the right answer? No, we all want our kids learning through proven methods — knowing they are learning effectively, We don’t want them playing an educational game of Russian roulette, hoping the right answer may eventually appear in the chamber.

Why are we still having these debates, with the New York Times and WL researchers trying to justify whole language? There is no base of research to demonstrate its effectiveness. In fact, it isn’t even a teaching framework — it is merely a philosophy used to embody a “if it feels right, do it” approach, with no regard for whether it actually works.

Reading First is the law of the land. Reading First works. If implemented with fidelity, it effectively teaches virtually ALL children to read. Unfortunately, that message has gotten lost in panicked talks about IG reports, conflicts of interest, and who did what when.

Those involved in the initial passage of NCLB or the current reauthorization of the law should be proud of RF and its successes. If anything, we haven’t pushed RF and the research behind it hard enough — we’ve given schools and policymakers too many outs when it comes to implementing what the research demonstrates is effective.

The time has come to refocus the debate. Let’s talk about the impact of the law, not the administrative brawls that happen behind the scenes. How has RF impacted schools and classrooms throughout the nation?

Instead of responding to IG reports and playing defense on the law, Spellings and company should be focused on:
* Measurable data demonstrating that reading scores are starting to rise (as reported by journalists from Sol Stern to Kathleen Manzo)
* The effect those rising scores are having on real children, real families, and real classrooms
* Demonstrate, through real teachers and real schools, that RF is a key to increasing student achievement overall

Victory comes when we successfully demonstrate that RF works in cities like ours, in schools like ours, with students like ours. Focus on the positive, on the aspirational, and on the measurable benefits. Let the critics attack the personalities behind the fight. RF can win the day if we focus on those on the front lines, most affected by RF — the teachers and the students who benefit from a scientifically based curriculum each and every day.

(Originally posted March 9, 2007)

For years, I have said that No Child Left Behind could serve as President Bush’s legacy in terms of domestic policy. Love it or hate it, NCLB has changed the educational landscape. With the exception of some choice oppposition from groups like the NEA and AASA, most in the education community have supported (albeit quietly) a national call for research-proven instruction, greater accountability, and qualified and effective teachers in the classroom.

But the President’s words, delivered yesterday in Indiana, don’t quite match the rhetoric put forward by his Education Secretary. Last year, Spellings came out strong, stating that NCLB was 99.999% effective, leaving almost no room for improvement. Bush, however, is now saying while the law is working, “we can change parts of it for the better.”

The jury is still out as to whether NCLB will get reauthorized this year. Democratic congressional leaders voice support for the intent behind the law, but continue to call for additional funding (heck, a just-released study claims the state of Ohio needs to increase public education funding 30%). Meanwhile, Republicans are voicing greater concern with NCLB, claiming it is denying local control of the schools. Bush acknowledged that criticism in his remarks, using GOP grumblings as his justification for not having national testing standards.

So which is it? Are we 99.999% pure, or do need to change multiple parts of the law?

For the past five years, the U.S. Department of Education has been virtually all stick, no carrot when it comes to talking about NCLB. If they are serious about reauthorizing the law virtually intact, they need to shift their rhetorical focus.

NCLB is not about rules and regulations and unfunded mandates. NCLB is about ensuring that every child receives access to a high-quality, effective education. To do that, NCLB supporters need to put a human face on the law. Let’s hear from the kids and families and teachers who have benefited. When we hear NCLB, we need to see ourselves in the law. We need to know it is improving schools like ours and kids like ours.

The face of NCLB is academic achievement and student success. At the end of the day, who can oppose a law that says we need to teach what works in our classrooms, we need qualified teachers to teach it, and we need to make sure that every kid — not just those who can afford it — is given the academic tools to succeed?

(Originally published March 6, 2007)