The Reading Debate: Has Phonics Won?
>Substance (in press)
>
>Stephen Krashen
>
>
>There are two factions in the current reading debate.
>
>Those in the skill building or "phonics" camp believe that we learn 
>to read by first learning a large number of sound-spelling 
>correspondences, the rules relating letters and sounds. They believe, 
>in other words, that in order to learn to read, one first has to 
>learn to read outloud. These rules range from very simple ones (the 
>letter "b" is pronounced "bee") to complex rules (when there are two 
>vowels side by side, the long sound of the first vowel is heard and 
>the second vowel is silent, e.g. in the word "bead", the E-sound of 
>the first vowel is heard - this rule is quite famous and is often 
>referred to as "when two vowels go walking the first does the 
>talking."). These rules are learned consciously, and practiced until 
>they become "automatic."   Children first apply these rules to 
>individual words, and gradually work up to larger units. The faction 
>of the skills camp that is dominant at this time is systematic 
>phonics, a step-by-step approach in which children learn many rules 
>of phonics in a prescribed sequence.
>
>The primary opposition to the skill-building camp is the whole 
>language camp. Whole language advocates hold that literacy is 
>developed when we understand what we read. (I have referred to this 
>position as the "comprehension hypothesis.") For reading, this is the 
>view that we "learn to read by reading."  As we read, and as we 
>understand text, we subconsciously absorb (or "acquire") the 
>principles of phonics, as well as vocabulary and grammar. Thus, for 
>advocates of whole language,  "skills" are largely the result of 
>reading, not the cause.
>
>(It is important to mention that whole language supporters do not 
>dismiss the value of teaching some rules of phonics;  some conscious 
>knowledge of sound-spelling correspondences can occasionally help 
>children understand texts. For example, if a child is unable to read 
>the final word in "The man was riding on the h____,"  but knows how 
>"h" is pronounced, the combination of context and this phonics rule 
>will help the child determine what the unknown word is;  there are a 
>limited number of possibilities (horse, mule, donkey) and knowledge 
>of this phonics rule will eliminate all but one (this example is from 
>Frank Smith's book, Reading without Nonsense.)  Whole language 
>advocates have never advocated a strict "no phonics" approach. They 
>argue, however, that there are, severe limits on how much phonics can 
>be consciously learned  (see below) and that most of our knowledge of 
>phonics is a result of reading.  Whole language supporters also argue 
>that knowledge of phonics is only one of the ways we understand text. 
>Readers are also helped other means of assistance, such as their 
>background knowledge and pictures.)
>
>Evidence and Counterevidence
>
>Skill builders point to reports of panels such as the recent National 
>Reading Panel to support their view.  Members of these panels claim 
>that their approach is "scientific" and that whole language advocates 
>are unscientific. They claim that whole language advocates rely on 
>intuitions, ethnographic descriptions, and correlational studies. The 
>panels, it is asserted, have reviewed studies that follow scientific 
>guidelines, such as randomization or other methods of insuring that 
>subjects are equivalent before the treatment begins, a well described 
>treatment, a control group, and posttests. They claim that according 
>to the research children who learn to read with systematic 
>phonics-based methods do better on reading tests than do children who 
>learn to read with less intensive phonics-based methods and with 
>whole language methods.
>
>Whole language advocates respond to these criticisms by pointing out 
>that so-called non-scientific studies are very valuable and provide 
>insights not available in controlled studies.
>
>Also, whole language advocates argue that the panel reviews were done 
>incorrectly. The reviews omitted crucial studies and misinterpreted 
>the studies they did include. This is an important criticism, because 
>it accepts the same scientific principles that that skills advocates 
>accept. Specifically, many of the studies reviewed tested children 
>only on the ability to read phonetically regular words presented in 
>isolation. It is no surprise that children drilled on phonics do well 
>on such tests. When tests of reading comprehension  are used, tests 
>that ask children to read meaningful passages in which not all the 
>words are phonetically regular, the impact of phonics training is 
>much less impressive (see especially Garan's recent article in the 
>Kappan, reference below).
>.
>In addition, I have argued that when whole language appears to fail 
>in the studies, very often the group labeled "whole language" did not 
>really do whole language. When whole language is defined correctly, 
>as involving a great deal of real reading for meaning, children in 
>whole language classes actually do better on tests of reading 
>comprehension, and do just as well on tests of skills.
>
>The complexity argument
>
>Whole language supporters advocate some instruction in basic phonics, 
>but argue that there are severe limitations on how much phonics can 
>be consciously learned.  Many phonics rules are extremely complicated 
>and have numerous exceptions. Consider the example given above, "when 
>two vowels go walking the first does the talking," In 1963, Clymer 
>reported that nearly 50% of the words in basal stories with two 
>vowels back to back were exceptions to this rule.
>
>Frank Smith provides an excellent example of the complexity of 
>phonics, pointing out that the "ho" spelling combination has many 
>different pronunciations, including hope, hoot, hook, hour, honest, 
>house, honey, hoist, horse and horizon. A child dependent on the 
>rules of phonics not only needs to learn this complex rule but must 
>also look at the entire word, at what comes after "ho" in order to 
>pronounce it correctly. In addition, it has been documented that 
>different phonics programs teach different rules.
>
>
>The Assault on Alternative Views
>
>The skills camp is clearly dominant today. The report of the National 
>Reading Panel is the basis for the Bush plan for reading. What is odd 
>is that the skills faction continues what can only be described as an 
>all-out assault on alternative views:
>- Panels of experts have been assembled several times to proclaim the 
>superiority  of phonics and skills instruction, repeating the claims 
>of previous panels.
>- The results of the National Reading Panel have been widely 
>distributed, parts have been republished in a major journal (although 
>the original is easily available free of charge), a video tape 
>version has been made and distributed, and the NRP has even hired a 
>public relations firm to publicize its results.
>- Eligibility for grants have been made contingent on accepting the 
>skills position. In effect, other approaches have been outlawed.
>
>The skills camp has not only won, it is killing the prisoners of war. 
>One wonders why. There are several possibilities:
>(1) Secure in their knowledge that they are right, they are simply 
>making sure that children are given what they believe is the best 
>possible instruction.
>(2) They are insecure in their position, because of negative 
>reactions from teachers and damaging counterarguments to their 
>position from academia.  There is little doubt that many 
>practitioners are not happy with an extreme skills approach; 
>attendance at whole language workshops and presentations is still 
>very high, and strong counterarguments and criticisms of the skills 
>view of the NRP and previous panels have appeared in several books 
>and articles (see below).
>
>Regardless of whether (1) or (2) is correct, the heavy and aggressive 
>PR campaign for skills and the demonization of critics is 
>unprecedented. Skills supporters are making sure that this is not a 
>swing of the pendulum. The pendulum is being nailed to the wall.
>
>A Decline in California?
>
>Proponents of skills claim that after whole language was introduced 
>in California in 1987 test scores immediately "plummeted" to the 
>point where California fourth graders came in last in the country in 
>1992 on the NAEP reading test (National Assessment of Educational 
>Progress).
>
>Before 1992, however, NAEP scores for individual states were not 
>calculated. There was no previous score to compare to.  In addition, 
>there is no evidence that reading scores have declined in California. 
>McQuillan, in his book The Literacy Crisis: False Claims and Real 
>Solutions, examined CAP (California Achievement Program) reading 
>scores in California from 1984 to 1990 and found no significant drops 
>or increases.
>
>To be sure, California did poorly on the NAEP test, but as McQuillan 
>has pointed out, performing poorly is not the same thing as 
>declining. There is strong evidence that California's poor 
>performance is related to its print-poor environment.  Multivariate 
>statistical analyses have revealed a clear relationship between 
>access to print and scores on the NAEP test. McQuillan, for example, 
>reported that for the 42 states taking the NAEP in 1992, rankings in 
>access to print (composite of school library, public library, and 
>print at home) and fourth grade NAEP reading scores were strongly 
>correlated (r = .85).
>
>McQuillan calculated that California ranked 40th out of 42 states in 
>access to print. California ranked last in the country in the quality 
>of its public libraries, and ranked near the bottom in public 
>libraries. In addition, its children do not have reading material at 
>home: California ranked ninth in the country in the number of 
>children ages 5-17 living in poverty in 1995, and near the bottom of 
>the country in the percentage of homes containing more than 25 books. 
>This data, and the clear relationship between access to print and 
>NAEP scores,  points to the conclusion that California's problem is 
>not whole language but a lack of reading material.  In addition, 
>there has been no significant increase in fourth grade NAEP reading 
>scores since 1992, no evidence that the increased emphasis on phonics 
>has done any good.
>
>Conclusions
>
>The skills camp has the upper hand politically, but there is serious 
>counterevidence to their position. In addition, the unprecedented 
>attack on opponents and the aggressive public relations campaign 
>mounted by the skills group makes one suspect that they are not fully 
>confident of their position.
>
>Some Bibliography: Critics of the Skills Position
>
>Coles, G. 2000.Misreading Reading: The Bad Science that Hurts 
>Children. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
>Garan, E.  2001. Beyond the smoke and mirrors: A critique of the 
>National Reading Panel report on phonics. Phi Delta Kappan, 82: 
>500-506.
>Goodman, K. (ed.) 1998. In Defense of Good Teaching. York, Maine: Stenhouse.
>Krashen, S. 1999. Three Arguments Against Whole Language and Why They 
>are Wrong. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
>McQuillan, J. 1998. The Literacy Crisis: False Claims and Real 
>Solutions. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
>Smith, F. 1994. Understanding Reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
>Taylor, D. 1998. Beginning to Read and the Spin Doctors of Science: 
>The Political Campaign to Change America's Mind about How Children 
>Learn to Read. Urbana: National Council of Teachers of English.
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
 
 
 
 

Rich Gibson's Home Page