|
October 26, 1992
Ms Jessica Johnson , Head of School
The Brooks Hill School
St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands
Re: The Brooks Hill School method of reading instruction
Dear Ms Johnson:
I enjoyed seeing you again at the Parent Association meeting
Wednesday night, October 21st. It is good of the School to allow the
Association to meet at the School library prior to the formalization
of the Association's organization, but let me turn to another subject.
I request that The Brooks Hill School reevaluate its policy regarding
the teaching of reading. By "reading" I mean reading and writing. I
request that the school consider the adoption of a "phonics-first"
policy and classroom methodology for the teaching of reading.
Currently, Brooks Hill uses the "look-and-say" method of teaching
reading, supplemented with phonics. There is all the difference in the
world between a phonics-first policy and a look-and-say policy
incorporating phonics.
I realize that you are charged with implementing policies set by
the Board of Trustees, rather than establishing or changing
established school policies. As the administrator of the school,
however, no doubt you would agree that an important part of your job
is to encourage thoughtful analysis of basic school policies so that
the need for important policy changes will be brought to the attention
of the Board of Trustees. Most Board members, as intelligent and
sensitive as they may be, are not generally involved in day-to-day
education of children. They need and expect the administration, on
behalf of the students, faculty, and staff, to bring important
educational policy issues to the attention of the Board and to assist
the Board in educating themselves so that informed decisions can be
made. Thus, I write this letter to you, with copies to the Board.
Others will be reading this letter and it is primarily for the benefit
of some of them that this structure and these functions are mentioned.
I have enclosed herewith for your review the books and other
materials listed as enclosures at the end of this letter. Please be
wary of the tendency to dismiss this plea with the reaction, "Our
school does teach phonics; it is an important part of the teaching of
reading in use at The Brooks Hill School." Dr. Flesch comments on this
understandable reaction by an official or teacher in a primarily
look-and-say institution, in his "Letter to Johnny's Teacher," the
last chapter in the enclosed seminal
book, Why Johnny Can't Read. Various
other common objections to a phonics-first reading program are
addressed by Dr. Flesch in that book and in his second work, Why
Johnny Still Can't Read, also enclosed.
Teaching children to read is the most important function of the
primary grades at any school. It is the most important classroom
teaching function of the school as a whole. Since there is
disagreement within the educational establishment over the best method
for teaching reading, the Board of Trustees must set a policy
establishing the method of teaching reading to be used at the school.
When one investigates this matter, it becomes clear that it is
important that the specific methodology for teaching reading be
consciously selected by the school and applied uniformly from class to
class and grade to grade. It is possible to change, with wonderful
results, from look-and-say to phonics-first as the City of Rochester
did. That story is recounted by Rochester's Reading Director Mary L.
Burkhardt in her foreword to Why Johnny Still Can't Read,
enclosed. A good reading program, of course, does not end in the
primary grades, but rather pervades all grade levels.
This letter does not set forth an exhaustive statement explaining
why I believe The Brooks Hill School should adopt a phonics-first
reading program. I will limit myself to a few remarks in this letter,
although I would be honored to assist in any way I can in a process of
reevaluating The Brooks Hill School teaching of reading policy. For
starters, I would be happy to arrange for the obtaining and
distribution of the books enclosed to those persons receiving copies
of this letter.
Our common goal, whether we be trustees, administrators, staff,
faculty, students, or parents, is to investigate, evaluate, and
discover the best methods of teaching our children, when they can be
identified with confidence, and to require the implementation of those
methods in the classroom. Please do not misunderstand: I cherish the
individuality of each of our teachers. Their enthusiasm, caring, love,
and other qualities are critically important to the success of the
School. I do not suggest that we stifle our teachers; rather, I
suggest that when a teaching methodology in the most critical subject
area is determined to be superior to the other choices, the teachers
be taught the methodology and be instructed to act in conformity with
that realization. This will promote the best education for our
students.
In look-and-say, sometimes called the whole word method, the child
is taught whole words, word by word. Although virtually every child in
modern look-and-say programs is also taught some phonics, that is, the
sounds of letters and combinations of letters; the primary emphasis in
look-and-say is upon learning each word as a whole. When encountering
an unfamiliar word, instead of breaking the word down into syllables,
pronouncing the word part by part, and then as a whole, look-and-say
students are encouraged to guess at the pronunciation of the word.
They are encouraged to look for sound and sight cues, such as the
sound of the first letter or letter blend, a familiar ending, a
familiar shorter word in the middle, the shape of the word, and its
context (whether it be the sentence, the paragraph, the chapter, or
the pictures).
This method of approaching unfamiliar words is strongly discouraged
in a phonics-first reading program. Instead the emphasis is placed,
and significant classroom time is spent, upon the child learning well
the sounds of the letters and combinations of letters, and the other
rules of phonics, so that the child can decipher and correctly
pronounce any word he or she encounters on the page whether or not
previously seen. The meaning is garnered from previous familiarity
with the word in our spoken language and from the context, if one
decides not to consult outside sources such as a dictionary.
Look-and-say proponents put great emphasis in justifying its use on
the presence of non-phonetically pronounced "irregular" words in the
English language. Over 97% of English words are phonetically
pronounced "regular" words. I believe that a good phonics-first
reading program greatly assists students in their learning of
irregular words as well. They are given a frame of reference, the
phonetic pronunciation of the word, to compare against the actual
pronunciation of the word. This makes the learning of irregular words
a fascinating study in variance, unlike the look-and-say method, which
emphasizes raw memorization. In a phonics-first program, the student
is first exposed to the fabric of our largely phonetic language,
within which to view the individualized design of the irregular word.
One of the great tragedies (and I use that term advisedly) of the
look-and-say method of reading instruction is that it is based upon
the conviction on the part of those setting educational policy that
our children are not intelligent enough to learn and understand the
basic principles for the encoding of our spoken language into the
symbols of the written word. In the face of our phonetic language, it
is the equivalent of the educator throwing up his or her hands and
saying "Our children will never get it; it's too hard." This is simply
not true. Dr. Flesch analyzes extensively studies comparing the
results of look-and-say teaching instruction versus phonics-first
teaching in his writings submitted to you. Study results demonstrate
that phonics-first is superior to look-and-say. I have provided you
with a more recent reporting on comparison studies in the Science
News article I have enclosed.
I do not maintain that proponents of look-and-say reading
instruction are lacking in intelligence; or are uninformed, when
compared to other educators. After all, The Brooks Hill School is not
unique. Most schools in the United States do not teach reading through
a phonics-first program. As a result of the entrenchment of
look-and-say reading instruction, the United States faces an
educational crisis whose proportions are difficult to exaggerate
caused by the prevalence of poor readers. Please see the article
"Teaching for Millions," enclosed, as well as the other enclosed
materials.
The look-and-say program is seductive. Little children are
generally able to memorize words, whole word by whole word, through
repetition. Since in look-and-say, frequently occurring irregular
words are taught right off the bat, students are often able to read
simple books with carefully limited word selections early on in the
instructional program. Teachers can see this and conclude that
look-and-say is an efficacious reading program. Brooks Hill uses the
look-and-say Ladybird series in kindergarten. Although at first
the results of this method can appear good, it establishes insidious
reading habits difficult to erase.
Since look-and-say students are primarily taught words as whole
units, rather than taught to read every word by putting together its
sounds, when an unfamiliar word is encountered, the children are often
unprepared for the task of correctly and exactly reading the word. To
learn to read well, students should be taught from the beginning as
their primary reading instruction, and throughout their education, the
rules of phonics, and should be encouraged to use these rules
consistently to decode the written word. They should be taught the
opposite of the look-and-say basic principle, that is, they should be
taught never to guess at unfamiliar words; rather, they should be
taught the skills to actually figure out by themselves the
pronunciation of each written word. The correct pronunciation of an
irregular word is then a relatively easy task for the reader to
divine. It becomes fascinating, subtle detective work for that 3% or
fewer of the words that are irregular.
Whether a student is perceived as being a "visual" learner or an
"auditory" learner, the student should be taught reading in a
phonics-first program. Dr. Adams, the author of Beginning to Read
(enclosed), points out while many studies have been conducted on this
issue, the data do not support the use of different instructional
methods with children classified as "auditory" and those classified as
"visual." This issue is also addressed by Dr. Flesch in Why Johnny
Still Can't Read.
Although The Brooks Hill School has produced many outstanding
graduates, one cannot conclude, from that fact alone, that the reading
methodology used at the school is the best. No matter what method of
reading is used, some students will understand the phonetic nature of
our language and will, despite their instruction, learn never to
guess, and always to use the rules of the code of our written language
to read well. Other parents besides me, no doubt, in discovering with
a shock that their child is doing what the teacher instructed in
guessing at words not yet specifically taught, instead of sounding
them out, embark upon their own phonics-first program, pleading with
their child to ignore the teacher's advice, and instead syllabicate
(when needed) and sound-out unfamiliar words. This is the proverbial
swim up stream. Although the last statistics imparted to me, from two
years ago, were that Brooks Hill combined verbal/math SAT scores were
about fifty points above the national average, and far above the rock
bottom overall Virgin Islands scores, the Brooks Hill combined score
average of under 1,000 (out of a maximum possible of 1,600) leaves
room for improvement I suspect.
The question is: can we improve the overall ability of our students
to read well and to think clearly by changing our method of teaching
reading? As Dr. Adams points out in her book, skillful readers
visually process virtually every individual letter of every word as
they read, and this is true whether they are reading isolated words or
meaningful, connected text. Good readers decode rapidly and
automatically. Weaknesses in basic decoding skills may be the most
common and can be the most serious source of reading difficulties, Dr.
Adams reports. A good history of methods used to teach reading can be
found in the Mitford M. Mathews (one "t") book, Teaching to Read,
Historically Considered (The University of Chicago Press, 1966).
I have heard, although I have not confirmed, that perhaps as many
as twelve of the Brooks Hill first grade students this year have been
referred to a resource teacher to give them supplemental reading
instruction because they are not sufficiently familiar with a number
of the common words that other students who have had a look-and-say
kindergarten system already know. It would be wrong to conclude, from
this information alone, that the students referred to the resource
teacher come from an inferior pre-school program. A phonics-first
program does not emphasize early on the learning of the commonly used
irregular words; rather, the phonics-first program limits the
student's initial exposure to regular, phonetically pronounced words,
and leaves the learning of the most common irregular words until a
little later. Our goals for our children are long-term. We want them
to develop into excellent readers for life. Students can even become
interested in the richness of the variations in English language
pronunciations and spellings. The origins of most of our encoding
variations (coming from several feeder languages) are well known and
make an engrossing subject of study.
I suspect that in many cases look-and-say instruction results in
far more problems than simply the individual human tragedies of
children who could have been great, enthusiastic readers, and who
instead are halting, uncertain readers with little interest in
reading. Phonics-first instruction is based upon the premise that
children can learn and truly understand the structure of their
language and can decode words and read without errors confidently,
freeing the students to concentrate on the meaning of the written
material, which is the goal of the act of reading. Look-and-say
instruction is based upon the premises that our children are not
capable of truly understanding the structure of our language. They are
taught, tragically (forgive the repeated use of this apt word) each
word, word by word because of the variability of the spelling of
English language sounds. The children are taught, in essence, that
reading is a guessing game; that it is too difficult for them to make
consistent use of our written language's encoding principles. This
basic flaw lessens the likelihood of our students developing an
awareness of the magnificent and surprising extent of their own
intelligence. Students may then underrate their ability to analyze
with confidence and to discover answers to the problems they confront
not only in decoding words, but in all other subjects taught at
school, and in the larger problems of life itself. I know that I hold
myself up to ridicule for commenting in this context on the deeper
issues in the philosophy of reading, but to promote effectively the
development of our children's confidence and abilities, and their
competence as human beings, we must understand the full effect of our
policy choices. We would be ill advised to allow ourselves to be
seduced by the thrill of kindergarten reading of vocabulary-controlled
look-and-say books, mastered through the development of habits
(memorizing whole words through repetition rather than mastering the
codes for the deciphering of 97% of our written words) that will
impair reading ability in the long run.
I believe it is appropriate for me to comment briefly upon the
"whole language" so-called method of teaching reading, which is used
in some classrooms at Brooks Hill. The whole language system rejects the
use of basal readers (reading textbooks) in favor of a non-textbook
approach that teaches reading (and writing, of course) primarily
through reading and writing about subjects that interest the child,
his family, the class, the school, and the community in general.
Initially, correct spelling is de-emphasized. The theory behind the
whole language method is that using student-based subjects of reading
and writing and unusual and individualized reading programs will
encourage enthusiasm for reading (and writing). It is seen as an
alternative to perceived drudgery, sterility, and "non-relevancy" of
textbook learning.
The reason I refer to the whole language approach as a "so-called"
method of teaching reading is that within the context of the whole
language approach, the teacher must still teach the child how
to read. The teacher must choose a non-phonics-first method or the
phonics-first method. The whole language approach, therefore, is not a
third alternative to look-and-say (with or without supplemental
phonics) and phonics-first instruction. It is, in essence, simply an
attempt to make the subject matter of reading and writing stimulating
and interesting to the student, and gradually to introduce the child
to correct spelling in his or her own writing.
An asterisk has been placed in front of each item listed below
which has been delivered to the other recipients of this letter.
Please accept my enthusiastic good wishes for you as Head of School. I
look forward to seeing you again soon, and to an exciting school year.
Cordially,
Edward Haskins Jacobs
EHJ:dmd
Enc: 1. Rudolf Flesch, Ph.D., Why Johnny Can't Read (Harper
Collins, 1955)
2. Rudolf Flesch, Ph.D., Why Johnny Still Can't Read
(Harper Collins, 1981)
3. Marilyn Jager Adams, Ph.D., Beginning to Read: Thinking and
Learning About Print, A Summary (Center for the Study of Reading,
The Reading Research and Education Center, University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign, 1990)
*4. "A Letter to Johnny's Teacher" (Chapter XI - Why Johnny
Can't Read)
*5. Bruce Bower, "Reading the Code, Reading the Whole" (Science
News, Vol. 141, No. 9, pp. 138-140, February 29, 1992)
*6. Mary L. Burkhardt, "Foreword" (from Why Johnny Still
Can't Read).
*7. "Teaching for Millions" (Success magazine, pg. 10,
October, 1992) (courtesy of American Airlines).
*8. My letter to the Honorable Lamar Alexander, United States
Secretary of Education, of December 24, 1991, without enclosures.
cc: James Savage, Chairman, Board of Trustees
Carol L. Battuello, President, The Good Hope School Parent
Association
Sarah Otis, Director of Lower School
Karl W. Bauknight, Vice-President of the Board of Trustees
Douglas A. Brady, Secretary of the Board
Honorable Maria M. Cabret (Resident Trustee)
Christine A. Christle (Resident Trustee)
Jerri Farrante (Resident Trustee)
Richard Grant (Resident Trustee)
David Hamilton (Resident Trustee)
Patrick Hensley (Resident Trustee)
Jodie Lawaetz Mays (Alumna - Resident Trustee)
Nancy Marohn, Former Lower School Director
Pablo O'Neill, Treasurer of the Board
Warren Pedersen (Resident Trustee)
David Ridgway, President of the Board
Robert Schierloh (Resident Trustee)
Patricia Sullivan (Resident Trustee)
Anthony J. Ayer (Honorary Trustee)
Dr. Richard Barter (Honorary Trustee)
Peter Behringer (Honorary Trustee)
Jose Bou (Honorary Trustee)
Douglas Burns (Honorary Trustee)
Leonard Chasen (Honorary Trustee)
Betty Dale, Founding Chmn. (Honorary Trustee)
Earl Harrison (Honorary Trustee)
Oscar E. Henry (Honorary Trustee)
Hans Lawaetz (Honorary Trustee)
Sam Pivar (Honorary Trustee)
Cornelia Schierloh (Honorary Trustee)
Ed Weinman (Honorary Trustee)
Joyce McCray, Executive Director, CAPE (Non-resident Trustee)
Ruth Young, Pivar Realtors (Non-resident Trustee)
Click here for
Printer Friendly Version
|
