June 10, 1993
Mr. Robert Roe, Chairman
Board of Trustees
The Brooks Hill School
Frederiksted, St. Croix, Virgin Islands
Dear Bob,
Thank you for taking the time to write your letter of November 4,
1992. No doubt you are aware that the Director of Lower School has
also responded to my October 26, 1992 letter with her letter of
November 2, 1992. That letter (for the benefit of those receiving
copies of this letter) and my reply to it are enclosed.
With all due respect, Bob, I do not deserve the negative and
accusatorial tone of your letter. The Brooks Hill School has a serious
problem that needs to be addressed. I did not create the problem, I am
working on the solution. There is no need to make this discussion
about teaching reading a "personal" issue by attacking the bearer of
the bad news. My crime is that I have paid attention to the Brooks
Hill children's education. I want all of the children of Brooks Hill
to learn to read with pleasure, feel smart, and love to think with
precision.
Bob, I am not attempting to impose my views on Brooks Hill;
rather, I am doing what I can to heighten the awareness of the school
community on this most important matter. I first made my views known
to Lower School administration almost a year and a half ago. Last
school year I distributed the Science News article to Lower
School administration, and the "Letter to Johnny's Teacher" since I
was assured Why Johnny Can't Read was in the library and
another copy was not wanted. I distributed Dr. Flesch's books and the
Science News article to several Lower School teachers. The
response of the Lower School administration was consistent with the
Lower School Director's letter of November 2nd. After a year of
quietly using gentle persuasion through "regular channels" I finally
wrote my letter of October 26th. My letter deserves a respectful
hearing, not invective, does it not? Certainly a parent has the right
to bring an important School-wide problem to the attention of the
Board when the parent has been rebuffed by the School administration,
especially if it concerns the proper method of teaching reading, which
is of fundamental importance
to our children. As the Lower School
Director emphasized at this year's meeting with Lower School parents,
it is the responsibility of parents to act as their children's
advocates with the School. It has been observed that the opposite of
love is not hate, but apathy.
My letter is about educational policy, not personnel, who can be
educated and trained to teach in a phonics-first program. Please see
the Forward to Why Johnny Still Can't Read by the Director of
Reading of the City of Rochester, Mary Burkhardt, previously provided.
You criticize my statement of our common goal, presumably because
you rely upon the School administration, possibly with the help of
faculty (but certainly not Trustees, students, or parents) to
"investigate, evaluate, and discover the best methods of teaching our
children." Is not this exclusive reliance upon school administration a
bit nonreflective of reality? School administrators and faculty
members will confirm that parents must be active
participants in their children's education, especially reading.
Would not parents be neglecting their parental obligations if they
reasonably believed that a basic educational policy change in teaching
reading was vitally needed, but then did nothing about it (or gave up
after being turned down by school administration)? Is it appropriate
to have the school administration alone evaluate its own policies in
this most important area; that is, if any true evaluation at all is to
be conducted? I agree "we need parents to help make our teaching
efforts a success in every way."
I beg to differ with you on the proper role of parents in the
teaching of their children to read. As you know, I believe it is
important for parents to encourage their children to develop the habit
of sounding out unfamiliar words, not guessing at them. This is true
no matter what the school is teaching the child. This can be
accomplished in the context of encouraging the child to love and
respect the teacher, which is very important at our home. If a bad
habit is being taught at school, the parent, in the context, always,
of love and respect for the teacher, should attempt to supplant the
bad habit with a good one. Believe me, it is very hard to sit idly by
while a child guesses at an unfamiliar word, instead of using the
tools available to figure it out on his or her own. Parents ignore
school reading methodology at their child's peril. I am not one who
looks for problems, but try as I might, I could not avoid this one,
since as a parent I must help my children learn to read.
I suspect that very few of the children at The Brooks Hill School
are in danger of leading lives of "disregard (of)...established
authority." The greater concern is children adopting an unthinking
acceptance of everything emanating from established authority.
Sometimes established authority is right, and sometimes it is wrong.
We want our children to develop their ability and confidence to think
on their own.
I agree wholeheartedly with your description of the teaching
profession, for which I have great respect. I am pleased that The
Brooks Hill School will seek out the very best teachers, but that is
not enough. We must give our teachers the support they need in
providing them with the best methodology for teaching reading. As
important as the teacher is, it is not the teacher that makes the most
important difference in how children learn to read, but rather the
method used. See Why Johnny Still Can't Read, pgs. 45, 46, and
57. The subject of my letter goes beyond the scope of questions that
can be effectively handled by individual teachers. It is a matter of
school policy, as it should be.
We need to address the substance of my remarks, not get sidetracked
by the way I brought this problem to the attention of the Board of
Trustees. The only effective way to raise the consciousness of the
Board on this fundamentally important matter is to create a stir. This
is especially true when the School sees itself as performing well
under its look-and-say regime. I am truly sorry my letters are
irritating, since I do not like it any more than you do. I am trying
to be as nice as I can about all this, while still remaining honest.
It is not beyond the ken of the members of the Board of Trustees or
the parents to understand the issues involved in deciding how to teach
reading. Parents, if they are doing their job, are intimately involved
in the process of teaching their children to read. Those of us outside
of School administration cannot just wash our hands of this matter. We
cannot stick our heads in the sand and refuse to think about it,
labeling it as a concern of "experts." If we are not part of the
solution, we are part of the problem. The School yearbook reports the
Head of School has degrees in chemistry and college counseling, not
primary education. Just because someone has a degree in primary
education or the teaching of reading does not mean that one should
unthinkingly accept that person's opinions on this subject. "Experts"
in the field vociferously disagree. The question is: who is correct?
Research demonstrates that phonics-first advocates are. Please see the
Science News article, Dr. Flesch's books, and Dr. Adams's book
for ample support for this assertion. It is too important to say
glibly that we have had outstanding graduates or to tout our
relatively superior performance over the Virgin Islands public schools
and leave it at that. Surely, not all our graduates are academically
outstanding. Our SAT scores attest to this. What would a closer
examination reveal about the reading ability of our typical graduate?
We should not forget the ones at the bottom of the class either. We
need to focus on our children's potential for greatness and use that
as our measuring stick.
On the procedural matter raised in your letter, I have not read the
by-laws of the Board of Trustees, but if they provide that the
Trustees may not in any significant fashion act with regard to
educational policy matters, the by-laws can be revised. Current by-law
impediments are not a good reason to avoid this issue. I am confident
without even having read the by-laws that the Board of Trustees can
act on this matter.
I understand the need for a chain of command and the division of
responsibilities in any organization, but all organizations are well
advised to pay attention to the substance of constructive criticism in
order better to accomplish their goals. It is my hope that the Board
of Trustees will treat my letter in the spirit in which it was
written: that of love and concern; nothing more, nothing less.
By the way, my earlier letter was from me, not the Parent
Association. I sent a copy to the President of the Parent Association
out of respect for her and her office, but neither she nor the
Association had anything to do with it.
Thanks again, Bob, for your letter. I really mean that "thank you."
I appreciate your willingness to put your thoughts, especially your
criticisms, in writing directly to me. I know how difficult it was for
me to write my letters criticizing Brooks Hill School teaching
methods. Although your letter is highly critical of me, it does not
address the substance of my argument, that phonics-first is superior
to The Brooks Hill School look-and-say method. I know that job was
given to the Director of the Lower School. Now that the issue is
engaged, perhaps we can effectively evaluate our reading program to
see if it can be improved. I assure you we are both on the same team.
Cordially,
Edward Haskins Jacobs
cc: Head of School
Director of Lower School
Members of the Board
President of Parent Association
(The names of individuals connected with the school are
fictitious.)
