Reading Online - Critical Issues: Reading Excellence Act

Comments on the Reading Excellence Act (U.S.)
(HR 2614, Senate-passed version)

An invited contribution

After reading these comments, please visit the discussion forum to view readers' comments. To find a list of Reading Online postings related to this commentary, click here.

“How'd we get to this?” a colleague asked me the other day. She was talking about new laws that mandate instructional methodology in reading, outlaw bilingual education, and at times narrow teacher education to indoctrination in specific commercial curricula. The Reading Excellence Act is the culmination of a campaign to establish direct instruction–phonics as the national paradigm for reading instruction; it goes so far as to specify materials, instructional methods, inclusions, and exclusions. It puts control over federal, state, and local district reading programs in the hands of a “peer panel,” three-quarters of whose members are appointed outside the control of the Secretary and Department of Education.

Who would have thought this possible? But then, who would have thought that California, Texas, Ohio, Arizona—and on and on—would be enacting such laws and mandates? How have we come to this absurd situation, in which reading and reading research are being defined by federal and state law?

To answer my colleague's question, I'm going to examine the development, contents, and implications of the Reading Excellence Act. This examination follows in several sections:

Setting the Stage—an exploration of events beginning more than a decade ago that led up to the campaign
The Early Events—a chronology of the campaign's early days
The Campaign in Full Swing—a description of more recent events leading to the passing of the Reading Excellence Act
What a Bill!—an examination of the Act itself, with a discussion of definitions, contents, and implications
Why Reading?—a discussion of the broader meaning of the Act
So, How Did We Get to This?—a summing up and some final thoughts
References

Setting the Stage

To understand the nature and purpose of the law, it is necessary not only to examine the bill as it passed both the House of Representatives and the Senate, but also to trace the history of the campaign to establish direct instruction–phonics programs nationwide. How did we get to this? (For a more complete history, see my edited book In Defense of Good Teaching, Goodman, 1998.)

Three documents foreshadowed the campaign. Each was a response to pressure for U.S. state and federal governments officially to mandate phonics. The first to be published was Becoming a Nation of Readers: The Report of the Commission on Reading (Anderson et al., 1985). This widely distributed monograph put a group of well-known researchers on record as supporting the direct teaching of phonics as necessary for students' successful reading acquisition. But it had little impact on practice.

Unsatisfied, the far right pushed for Congressional mandates. Senator Zorinsky (Nebraska) began introducing phonics bills in Congress, but they received little support. Senator Armstrong of Colorado picked up the cause. That led to the Senate Republican Policy Committee White Paper “Illiteracy: An Incurable Disease or Educational Malpractice?” (Armstrong, 1989). The paper carries Senator Armstrong's name, but it was written by Robert Sweet, who continues to play several key roles in the campaign and relies heavily for his material on Samuel Blumenfeld (see, for example, Blumenfeld, 1996, “Whole-Language Boondoggle,” published by Homeschool World, and Samuel Blumenfeld's Educational Newsletter). Thousands of copies of the white paper went to legislators and school board members all over the United States. As a result, Congress sent a mandate to the Department of Education, which directed the Center for the Study of Reading to produce a report.

Marilyn Adams, of Bolt, Beranek and Newman, got the assignment. Her Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print (Adams, 1990a) (along with its Summary, prepared with Steven Stahl, Jean Osborn, and Fran Lehr) was the result. Though the book was announced on the floor of the Senate and was widely distributed and publicized, it had little effect on practice.

Somewhere between publication of Adams' book and the 1994 elections, a political campaign that turned what had been a far-out, far-right plan to use law to establish simplistic phonics as national policy was launched. This campaign is not a conspiracy—in fact, most of the players aren't even aware of agendas other than their own. There isn't much that the Eagle Forum, the American Federation of Teachers, the Heritage Foundation, and the California Education Association agree on, but they have all supported legislation growing out of the campaign. It is a political campaign, in every amoral sense of the term at the turn of the millennium, and it brings political morality into school decision making. This morality says that ends justify means, and it assumes that disinformation and smear tactics are keys to winning. The campaign is brilliantly conceived and executed, adapting to state-level differences in how policies are determined and enforced. It is well-funded through neoconservative foundations and institutes, well connected, and highly coordinated. The National Education Association has carefully documented this network.

The campaign's managers know how the democratic process can be used to subvert itself. They know how to move bills through Congress and the various legislatures, often without substantial opposition. And they are highly effective in reaching politicians through State Business Councils, which represent big-money contributors to election war chests. They have skillfully folded misinformation into a scientific paradigm, creating the impression that widely rejected commercial programs such as Distar are the only ones based on scientific research. They have been highly successful in determining press coverage by local and national media. A key goal of the campaign is to marginalize the entire educational establishment: state and federal departments of education, researchers, teacher educators, local authorities, and teachers. The Reading Excellence Act is the jewel in the crown of the campaign.

Return to introduction

The Early Events

In December 1994, the Atlantic Monthly publishes an article by Art Levine that declares the “reading wars.” Levine portrays whole language negatively and suggests that phonics has been scientifically proven to be necessary for reading development. The media attack on whole language moves from far-right columnists and newsletters to national news magazines and mainstream newspapers.
Midterm Congressional elections in November 1994 produce a strong national shift to the right, which immediately affects education in several states, notably California and Texas. There are new state superintendents in California and Arizona. Criterion-referenced tests in California, Arizona, and elsewhere are scuttled. Attempts at authentic assessment are abruptly ended and traditional norm-referenced high-stakes tests are ordered.
In April 1995, the U.S. Department of Education releases an early report of the 1994 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reading data (Williams et al., 1995). (The full report is not available until spring 1996.) Focus is on declines between 1992 and 1994—particularly in California, where blame for lower scores in reading is put on whole language and the 1989 state language arts framework. A Reading Task Force is appointed in the state; its report stresses balance with the focus on phonics and phonemic awareness (Eastin, 1996).
The number of phonics laws introduced and passed in various states increases, particularly in California (Paterson, 1998). Robert Sweet and his Right to Read Foundation campaign state by state for such laws.
The campaign is successful in getting nationwide press coverage with the message that whole language has ruined literacy in California and that phonics is the antidote. The LA Times is particularly active in providing such coverage, beginning a series of articles attacking whole language and supporting phonics. One reporter is assigned full time to write about reading. The Times' sister paper, the Baltimore Sun, also leads the way in publicizing the campaign.

Return to introduction

The Campaign in Full Swing

A series of more than 12 phonics-related laws are passed in California, meeting little opposition. Governor Wilson in California and Governor Bush in Texas join the campaign. Both are potential presidential candidates in the 2000 election.
In the Texas campaign, the far right, particularly Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum, plays a prominent role. The Governor's Business Council also plays a leading role; in other states, including New York, Illinois, Ohio, and Arizona, business councils provide the campaign with money, contacts, and influence with governors and lawmakers. The campaign coordinators placed in governors' offices begin coercing university presidents and state Department of Education personnel.
The campaign makes use of the work of Jean Osborn, Doug Carnine, and Bonita Grossen of Distar connections to spread a seriously biased and one-sided view of reading. Grossen's “30 Years of Research” is distributed by the thousands to education administrators, members of the press, and public officials (Allington & Woodside-Jiron, 1998). Osborn and Carnine assume key roles in Texas and California, Grossen in North Carolina. Their Oregon colleague, Ed Kame'enui, is awarded the contract to rewrite the California framework after the state Board of Education rejects the draft produced by its own hand-picked committee.
Reid Lyon and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) emerge as the link between the “scientific” community and the Distar group. The term reliable replicable research begins appearing as code for the phonics–direct instruction paradigm. (The House-passed version of the Reading Excellence Act used it 23 times. It also appears in laws in many states.)
A study conducted by Barbara Foorman et al. in a Houston suburb, funded by NICHD but at the time unpublished, is presented at an AAAS panel and quickly becomes the most widely publicized study in the history of education. Despite questions concerning her research methodology, Foorman emerges as a star researcher—newspapers report that her study proves whole language is bad and direct instruction in phonics, as represented in the Open Court program, works best. Foorman estimates she received more than $100,000 worth of assistance from Open Court (Governor's Business Council, 1996; cited in Goodman, 1998). McGraw-Hill aggressively promotes Open Court, which it acquired in 1996, declaring that research has proven it to work—even before the Foorman study is finished or reported to the NICHD and the research community.
In California, Marian Joseph, now an appointed member of the state Board of Education, gets the Packard Foundation to give millions of dollars to districts to install Open Court basals and to train teachers in their use. (Two weeks before the November 1998 election, David Packard, son of the cofounder of Hewlett-Packard, gave $500,000 to Republican Gloria Matta Tuchman's unsuccessful campaign for state superintendent. Tuchman is a leader in the movement to ban bilingual education in California, which did succeed.)
State law in California lists those who may not give staff development and institutes a loyalty oath for those who may. Marian Joseph personally censors the staff-development materials that each successful proposer may or may not use. Control over laws and their enforcement is in the hands of the appointed state board, largely bypassing the state Department of Education.
In early 1997, the House of Representatives committee on education starts a series of countrywide hearings entitled “What Works in Education.” The hearings are never announced in advance, but they are carefully orchestrated and always full with preselected “witnesses.” The series culminates in Washington, where testimony lauds phonics and attacks whole language; Reid Lyon is a star witness.
Douglas Carnine and Hans Meeder (then staff for the Republican caucus in the House education committee) publish their plan for legislation in Education Week (Carnine & Meeder, 1997). It lays out a campaign to mandate a phonics–direct instruction paradigm through federal law. Based on the Carnine-Meeder plan, Representative Goodling introduces HR 2614, the Reading Excellence Act, in the House of Representatives. Bob Sweet replaces Meeder as Republican staff on the House committee. Meeder sets up a consulting company and runs for the Maryland legislature as a “concerned parent.”
The Goodling bill goes to the floor of the House in October 1997. On the weekend of October 27, there is a media blitz: the Washington Post, Baltimore Sun, Time magazine (Collins, 1997), Newsweek (Wingert & Kantowitz, 1997), US News and World Report (Toch, 1997), Policy Review (Palmaffy, 1997), and the Atlantic Monthly (Lemann, 1997) all publish articles on the “reading wars,” reporting the failure of whole language and scientific proof of the success of phonics.
On a Saturday afternoon in December 1997, just before the Christmas recess, the Reading Excellence Bill is passed by voice vote in the House.
A hand-picked panel, funded by the NICHD and working under the auspices of the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, issues a report entitled Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children (Snow et al., 1998). It claims to end the reading wars, again by calling for balance, but it includes recommendations for early direct instruction in phonics and phonemic awareness. Most of the reading education and reading research community is excluded from the panel and from citation in the report. The report is the base for the next panel, authorized without fanfare by an amendment to the budget bill.
A new, but still unbalanced, National Reading Panel is appointed by NICHD to determine which findings of the NRC committee should form the basis for federal reading research and curriculum (Manzo, 1998). Passage of HR 2614 by the Senate will make this new panel's recommendations the guide for interpretation of the law.
In June 1998, the Senate committee rewrites the House bill and sends a substitute that funds only staff development. An intensive campaign by educators to reach senators seems to pay off, with the NCTE playing a key lobbying role, particularly with staff in Senator Ted Kennedy's office. Maneuvering on the floor fails to restore the original bill, which dies as Congress goes into summer recess.
After the recess, the Senate committee on education, with Senator Kennedy playing a leading role, holds back the Senate version of the bill. But on October 6, 1998, with the blessing of President Clinton, the bill passes by voice vote after 30 minutes of discussion as an amendment to the omnibus budget bill, as members of Congress rush to go home to campaign in the upcoming elections.
California, Texas, and other states enter the enforcement stage in a winner-take-all, take-no-prisoners atmosphere. With a federal law on the books and even more prescriptive mandates in many states, the question becomes how the mandates will be enforced. So far, enforcement is through coercion and blacklisting, with threats of decertification of teacher-education programs and cuts in university budgets. For example, on Sunday, October 25, 1998, the Los Angeles Times prints an article by Duke Helfand, a writer assigned full time to the paper's ongoing Reading by 9 series, under the headline “ Some Professors Resist State's Reform Formula.” The lead lines read, “Many aspiring teachers are instructed in using whole-language method. Law mandates phonics.” The reporter had visited several teacher-education classes and then called the state Department of Education to confirm that they were violating the law. He was promised that an investigation would be conducted. In Texas and California, teacher-education programs must be recertified and must satisfy the state that they conform to state laws or board mandates.
And the campaign goes on.

Return to introduction

What a Bill!

Let's now examine the Reading Excellence Act as passed by the Senate on October 6, 1998.

Definitions

To the extent the Act has been reported, even in the education press, it is presented as having its primary focus on staff development for teachers, who are portrayed as lacking education in how to teach reading. Also extraordinary is that this Act establishes definitions that form the basis for what will and won't be considered acceptable by federal law. Here, for example, is the definition of reading:

“The term reading means a complex system of deriving meaning from print that requires all of the following: (a) the skills and knowledge to understand how phonemes, or speech sounds, are connected to print; (b) the ability to decode unfamiliar words; (c) the ability to read fluently; (d) sufficient background information and vocabulary to foster reading comprehension; (e) the development of appropriate active strategies to construct meaning from print; (f) the development and maintenance of a motivation to read.”

The language of this definition was negotiated with IRA and NCTE by Ted Kennedy's staff and is broader than that contained in the House-passed definition. But why should there be any legal definition of reading? What harm or good will it lead to? Who will have the power in the federal government to interpret the law? And what constraints will there be on this power?

One key change from the House version to the Senate's is the latter's use of the seemingly more inclusive phrase scientifically based reading research instead of reliable, replicable reading research. However, the fact that this new phrase appears 29 times in the text of the Act as passed by the Senate underscores that the intention is to categorize theory, methodology, materials, staff development, family literacy, early childhood education, research methodology, teacher education and certification—and all other matters the Act deals with—into that which is and that which isn't scientifically based reading research. The phrase and its interpretation become a condition of eligibility for funding, evidence of conforming to the federal law, and a screen to control who may or may not participate on local, state, and national levels.

For example, in defining eligible professional development provider , the Act states that such a person is “a provider of professional development in reading instruction to teachers that is based on scientifically based reading research.” Again the issue is partly the content of the definition, but also the underlying question of why any definition at all should be established by law. I base my staff development work on scientific research—my own included. It is unlikely that interpretation of scientifically based reading research will include my paradigm, however. Anyone has the right to reject my view of reading or anybody else's, but no one should be able to use the law to outlaw it and to establish his or her own as a national mandate.

The definition of scientifically based reading research itself is made explicit in the text:

“The term scientifically based reading research (a) means the application of rigorous, systematic, and objective procedures to obtain valid knowledge relevant to reading development, reading instruction, and reading difficulties; and (b) shall include research that (i) employs systematic, empirical methods that draw on observation or experiment, (ii) involves rigorous data analyses that are adequate to test the stated hypotheses and justify the general conclusions drawn, (iii) relies on measurements or observational methods that provide valid data across evaluators and observers and across multiple measurements and observations, and (iv) has been accepted by a peer-reviewed journal or approved by a panel of independent experts through a comparably rigorous, objective, and scientific review. ”

Note that research on the reading process is not included in this definition. Will a federal definition of reading research expand or limit research and potential findings? Clearly it will limit what can be studied and how.

Strangest of all is that the Act defines a class of reading failures who are in kindergarten or are “preparing to enter kindergarten” and who require assistance by tutors and others trained in “scientifically based reading research.” This is a strange extension of the deficit view that underlies the bill. Dewey once said schools can adjust to learners or can make learners adjust to schools. Here they must adjust to schools even before they begin. How do you test children for reading difficulties (potential or real) when they are entering kindergarten? How do you test reading ability in children who are not expected to be reading? Will we have hundreds of thousands of children failing a high-stakes kindergarten entrance test?

The “Peer Review” Panel

Who will decide what is and is not “scientifically based reading research”? The law specifies that in detail: it will be the ironically named “Peer Review Panel,” which will serve for an unspecified duration. The panel and its activities are described as follows in the Act:

“(A) IN GENERAL - The Secretary, in consultation with the National Institute for Literacy, shall convene a panel to evaluate applications under this section. At a minimum, the panel shall include:
   (i) representatives of the National Institute for Literacy, the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
   (ii) 3 individuals selected by the Secretary [of Education]
   (iii) 3 individuals selected by the National Institute for Literacy
   (iv) 3 individuals selected by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences
   (v) 3 individuals selected by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (B) EXPERTS - The panel shall include experts who are competent, by virtue of their training, expertise, or experience, to evaluate applications under this section, and experts who provide professional development to teachers of reading to children and adults, and experts who provide professional development to other instructional staff, based on scientifically based reading research. (C) PRIORITY - The panel shall recommend grant applications from state educational agencies under this section to the Secretary for funding or for disapproval. In making such recommendations, the panel shall give priority to applications from state educational agencies whose states have modified, are modifying, or provide an assurance that not later than 18 months after receiving a grant under this section the state educational agencies will increase the training and the methods of teaching reading required for certification as an elementary school teacher to reflect scientifically based reading research, except that nothing in this Act shall be construed to establish a national system of teacher certification.”

The Peer Review Panel, with its unchecked control over how the Act is interpreted, is clearly the key. It is charged essentially with deciding what is or isn't scientifically based reading research and then overseeing the law as it is implemented and as it affects states, local districts, community agencies, providers of staff development, teacher education institutions, and even, under the guise of family literacy, in families themselves:

“The term family literacy services means services provided to participants on a voluntary basis that are of sufficient intensity in terms of hours, and of sufficient duration, to make sustainable changes in a family” [emphasis mine].

Has any federal law and enforcement panel ever before been given the legislative authority to change families?

Determination of the panel's composition is largely in the hands of three federally funded agencies, outside the control of the Secretary of Education, who appoint three-quarters of the required members (the remaining three are chosen by the secretary). The main qualification for panel members: adherence to scientifically based reading research, which they will then define. To anyone who has followed the role played by the NICHD's Reid Lyon in the National Research Council's Snow report (Snow et al., 1998), it is clear that he will control the appointments.

But what does the National Research Council know about reading instruction anyway? And just what is the National Institute for Literacy that will house the panel and appoint three members? (A description of this institute appears below.) Excluded from the process are the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, the Department of Education's research arm, and all of the professional language and literacy organizations. Not to mention teachers.

In no sense of the term is this all-powerful group a “peer review” panel. It is this panel—how it's charged and constituted—that makes of the Reading Excellence Act a national reading methodology, a national reading curriculum, a national reading paradigm, and establishes federal control over state and local education in a manner and to an extent never before attempted. The way in which members are to be chosen is probably unconstitutional, should anyone care enough to challenge the law in court.

Funding

The problems of writing curriculum and methodology into law are illustrated by a number of the Act's provisions. It controls every aspect of state decision making. The roles of the governor and state education agency are specified, including how state and local funds are to be spent. How subgrantees (i.e., local education agencies) will be selected, overseen, and evaluated is also spelled out. Teacher education and staff development are controlled, as are reading programs within local school systems and family literacy efforts. Who may be employed as a tutor is specified, as is how tutors are trained.

In the specific area of funding, this control is very evident. Applications for grants are to come from “partnerships,” the approved composition for which is, of course, described in the Act. And, of course, in every detail the criterion to be met is the use of scientifically based reading research. For example, a condition for receiving funding is that a state make elementary teacher education and certification “reflect scientifically based reading research. ” Further, to receive funding, an application must follow specific procedures and meet numerous highly defined conditions:

“An application under this subsection shall contain the following:
(A) An assurance that the governor of the state, in consultation with the state educational agency, has established a reading and literacy partnership described in subsection (d), and a description of how such partnership (i) assisted in the development of the state plan; (ii) will be involved in advising on the selection of subgrantees under sections 2255 and 2256; and (iii) will assist in the oversight and evaluation of such subgrantees.
(B) A description of the following: (i) how the state educational agency will ensure that professional development activities related to reading instruction and provided under this part are (1) coordinated with other state and local-level funds and used effectively to improve instructional practices for reading; and (2) based on scientifically based reading research; (ii) how the activities assisted under this part will address the needs of teachers and other instructional staff, and will effectively teach students to read in schools receiving assistance under section 2255 and 2256; (iii) the extent to which the activities will prepare teachers in all the major components of reading instruction (including phonemic awareness, systematic phonics, fluency, and reading comprehension);... (v) how parents can participate in literacy-related activities assisted under this part to enhance their children reading; (vi) how subgrants made by the state educational agency under sections 2255 and 2256 will meet the requirements of this part, including how the state educational agency will ensure that subgrantees will use practices based on scientifically based reading research....
(C) An assurance that each local educational agency to which the state educational agency makes a subgrant (i) will provide professional development for the classroom teacher and other appropriate instructional staff on the teaching of reading based on scientifically based reading research; (ii) will provide family literacy services based on programs such as the Even Start family literacy model authorized under part B of title I, to enable parents to be their child's first and most important teacher; (iii) will carry out programs to assist those kindergarten students who are not ready for the transition to first grade, particularly students experiencing difficulty with reading skills; and (iv) will use supervised individuals (including tutors), who have been appropriately trained using scientifically based reading research, to provide additional support, before school, after school, on weekends, during noninstructional periods of the school day, or during the summer, for children preparing to enter kindergarten and students in kindergarten through grade 3 who are experiencing difficulty reading... [emphasis mine].”

There's more control at the local-district and school levels in section 2255 of the Act. Target schools in funded districts would be designated with certain conditions The district must “select one or more programs of reading instruction, developed using scientifically based reading research, to improve reading instruction by all academic teachers for all children in each of the schools selected [emphasis mine] by the agency under such subsections and, where appropriate, for their parents” and “enter into an agreement with a person or entity responsible for the development of each program selected...or a person with experience or expertise about the program and its implementation, under which the person or entity agrees to work with the local educational agency and the schools in connection with such implementation and improvement efforts....”

That's of course tailormade for Bob Slavin of Success for All (see the November 1998 issue of the Atlantic Monthly). Districts do get to choose one or more programs for each targeted school, but they must choose for all teachers and for all kids. But few programs are marketed as “whole school” programs. So there's success for all—and not exactly.

The National Institute for Literacy

The little known National Institute for Literacy was chartered by Congress to coordinate literacy efforts among adults. Here is its mission statement:

“The National Institute for Literacy will execute the responsibilities enumerated in the National Literacy Act through the creation of system(s) which will enable every adult [emphasis mine] with literacy needs to receive services of the highest quality. The Institute will advance the nation's agenda with special emphasis given to building public consensus and policy, monitoring programs, sponsoring promising initiatives, disseminating valid information on programs and research pertinent to literacy, and building interagency collaboration at the federal and state levels.”

That mission makes it hard to understand why the Reading Excellence Act puts the Institute in charge of actual administration and day-to-day implementation of the law. It would not seem to have the requisite expertise or history to execute the charge described in the Act:

“...work in conjunction with any panel convened by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the Secretary and any panel convened by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement to assess the current status of research-based knowledge on reading development, including the effectiveness of various approaches to teaching children to read, with respect to determining the criteria by which the National Institute for Literacy judges scientifically based reading research and the design of strategies to disseminate such information.”

There just happens to be an NICHD panel, but there is no OERI panel. The Institute is also charged with helping state and local agencies prepare their proposals to meet the requirement that they show their use of scientifically based reading research.

There's more—lots more—in this unique Act. Every aspect of what its authors, and the campaign managers who spawned it, intended is spelled out in fine detail, with everything tied to the requirement of conformity to this national reading policy and its stipulation of “scientifically based reading research.”

Return to introduction

Why Reading?

A final question: Even reporters ask me occasionally, “Why reading?” Why is so much effort, heat, anger, and venom poured into arcane issues of how kids learn to read? Setting aside the frenzy over the “manufactured crisis” (Berliner & Biddle, 1995) that motivates some sincere folks who really believe phonics is the scientifically-based-reading-research solution to making everyone a proficient reader, those running the campaign had three reasons for their focus on law to control reading education:

Reading has always been a hot-button issue. It has a proven track record of scaring parents into electing board members who support back-to-basics campaigns. Getting hooked on phonics has become a part of the national folklore.
Political campaigns need to paint everything in black and white as good versus bad, assuming that such simple and sharp contrasts are easy for the public and the media to understand. Phonics versus whole language was made to order for such a campaign, with the added bonus that a segment of the scientific community was ready and willing to join in portraying the debate as scientists versus whole language gurus. The network of neoconservative foundations and institutes has learned well how to co-opt respectable academics to its causes. Their price tags are often low—a grant here, a speaking tour there, wide distribution of their publications, lucrative publishing contracts, and the promise of high visibility. Many academics believe they are using the campaign and not being used by it.
A successful reading campaign could be a vehicle for developing a blueprint for a campaign to control education at all levels through national law, an objective heretofore seemingly impossible under the constitution. How well this goal has been accomplished is witnessed in the muted voices of the right, who in the past always demanded local control and vigorously opposed imposition of educational policy through federal law.

Am I saying the campaign was not about reading? That's right. Yes, many players had agendas that were about reading, at least tangentially. But I believe that from the anti–public education view of those who planned and carried through the campaign, the more harm the law eventually does to teachers, teacher educators, public schools, and the kids in those schools, the better. That's the amoral perspective of political campaigns anyway. Winning is its own justification. Privatization of schools depends on convincing the public that public education is a failed experiment.

It doesn't stop here: today reading, tomorrow math. That reform-leading state, California, already has math laws. There was no whole language to serve as the tall poppy to cut down, so they invented a bad guy: the new, new math. And after math comes the rest of the curriculum, and ultimately public education itself.

The goal of universal, compulsory , public education was achieved through bitter battles to get children out of the factories and into the schools. Those attacking public education have never accepted the concept that they should pay taxes to educate other people's children. From a business perspective there is no longer the need for more than a small educated workforce to run the technology. Deprofessionalized teachers will be cheaper and easier to control. And literacy is dangerous in the wrong hands. A key underlying message of the campaign is, "Why throw money on education when you can effectively control schools by controlling curriculum and teachers through law? " (see the National Education Association's summary of attacks on public education).

Return to introduction

So, How Did We Get to This?

Not all the campaigns of the neoconservative think-tanks work as well as the reading campaign. So why has this one worked so well? Was it our fault? Certainly, mistakes have been made. But I think we can learn from our defeats and come to understand how sometimes silly, sometimes vicious laws that demean teachers and learners and establish misinformation as the law of the land and the law of the states got there. Here are some of my own thoughts on how we have come to this sad state:

We are a deeply divided profession. The reading campaign was able to take advantage of divisions over the reading process, reading instruction, and reading research. When the campaign started it took the form of an attack on whole language, and we failed to recognize that this was an attack on all literacy educators. In fact, the campaign found it easy to enlist support from those who resented the popularity of whole language among teachers (Adams & Bruck, 1995). And it was easy to sell a misrepresention of research that misinformed the public because many researchers failed to respond to the distortions of their own and other people's work.
There is widespread public support for public education; that creates a problem for the anti–public schools campaign. But that campaign has been successful in pushing the idea that improvement in education should not involve change. New classroom practices, reconceptualizing language learning, reinventing teaching, new understandings of how literacy develops, movement from basals to trade books—these are major changes designed to improve literacy education. But we didn't build a constituency among parents and the public for such change. Even members of the profession were convinced when the campaigners said, “Kids aren't learning to read and it's because teachers aren't being taught how to teach reading.” Public education was won by a coalition—unions, child-welfare advocates campaigning against child labor, women's groups, immigrant groups, and educators. Today there is no such broad political support to defend public education or to see in the reading campaign an attack on what was won a century ago.
American educators, as a group, are politically naive. They don't recognize how what they do, say, and write has political effects, and they are easily exploited by those who know how to manipulate the process. They don't recognize what has happened when a longstanding difference in paradigm and approach is resolved so that one—and only one—kind of reading research becomes the law. They don't recognize that these sometimes silly, sometimes vicious, political and legal actions demean teachers and learners. If they read the law at all, they miss the explicit content because they can't accept that it means what it says.

Some of us, myself included, have been forced to receive a political education in the course of fighting the campaign. It's helped us to see the power of money, influence, and political expertise that is arrayed against us. Such knowledge may help us to fight back.

These days I sign my e-mail with this observation: These are mean times in education. And in the meantime we're learning to live under water.

Return to introduction

Author Information

Ken Goodman (e-mail: kgoodman@u.arizona.edu) is a professor emeritus in the Department of Language, Reading, and Culture of the University of Arizona, Tucson.

References

Adams, M.J. (1990a). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Adams, M.J. (1990b). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print, a summary (summary preparers S.A. Stahl, J. Osborn, & F. Lehr). Champaign, IL: Center for the Study of Reading.

Adams, M.J., & Bruck, M. (1995, Summer). Resolving the great debate. American Educator, 7, 10-20.

Allington, R.I., & Woodside-Jiron, H. (1998). 30 years of research in reading...: When is a research summary not a research summary? In K.S. Goodman (ed.), In defense of good teaching. York, ME: Stenhouse.

Anderson, R.C., et al. (1985). Becoming a nation of readers: The report of the Commission on Reading. Champaign, IL: Center for the Study of Reading.

Armstrong, S.W. (1989). Illiteracy: An incurable disease or educational malpractice? Washington, DC: Senate Republican Policy Committee.

Berliner, D., & Biddle, B. (1995). Manufactured crisis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Blumenfeld, S.L. (1996). The whole language/OBE fraud: The shocking story of how America is being dumbed down by its own education system. Boise, ID: Paradigm.

Carnine, D., & Meeder, H. (1997, September 3). Reading research into practice. Education Week, 41-43.

Collins, J. (1997). How Johnny should read. Time, 150(17), 78-81.

Eastin, D. (1996). A balanced comprehensive approach to teaching reading in grades prekindergarten to 3. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education.

Goodman, K.S. (1998). In defense of good teaching: What teachers need to know about the “reading wars”. York, ME: Stenhouse.

Governor's Business Council. (1996). Picking a research-based reading program (unpublished paper). Houston, TX: Author.

Helfand, D. (1998, October 25). Some professors resist state's reform formula. Los Angeles Times, p. A1.

Lemann, N. (1997, November). The reading wars. Atlantic Monthly, 280(5), 128-134.

Manzo, K.K. (1998, April 8). NICHD chief names closely watched panel in reading research. Education Week, 24.

Palmaffy, T. (1997, November-December). See Dick flunk. Policy Review, 32-40.

Paterson, F.R.A. (1998). Mandating methodology: Promoting the use of phonics through state statute. In K.S. Goodman (ed.), In defense of good teaching. York, ME: Stenhouse.

Snow, C., Burns, M.S., & Griffin, P. (eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy of Science.

Toch, T. (1997, October 27). The reading wars continue. US News and World Report , 123(16), 77.

Williams, P.L., et al. (1995). NAEP 1994. Reading: A first look (rev. ed.). Washington, DC: Office of Education Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education.

Wingert, P., & Kantowitz, B. (1997, October 27). Why Andy couldn't read. Newsweek, 56-60.

Transcript of the Discussion Forum

Editors' Note: When this article was posted in Reading Online in December 1998, readers were invited to comment on it through a bulletin board feature that was discontinued when the journal was redesigned in July 2000. Following are the comments posted to that bulletin board.

Readers who would like the opportunity to comment on this or other articles in the journal are invited to contact the author directly or to post messages through ROL Communities.

Post 1

Author: Brennan Thomas
Date: 07-11-1999 20:06

Okay, I've read Goodman's comments about the new Reading Excellence Act. All I can say is "Boy, is literacy in this country done for!" Can't educators see that this whole campaign is politically motivated? Goodman didn't point it out, but the whole ball got rolling in 1983 with the publication of A Nation At Risk. This is just STUPIDITY! We have "scientifically-based" reading research conducted by questionable sources like Barbara Foorman (who are merely attempting to catapult themselves into the history books), and politicians, rather than attempt to replicate these studies, argued about the terminology of the Act. Are we the rashest country in the world? Is that it? Are we so incredibly paranoid that our literacy rates will drop below Greenland's that we appoint unqualified individuals to make brash decisions regarding this country's educational program for us? This brashness has become a DISEASE. Several states, including Texas and California, have already fallen to this idiotic political wave. Please, I urge educators to stop the spread of direct phonics instruction before it takes over our entire educational system in America.

Post 2

Author: ella_roofener
Date: 08-18-1999 10:01

This article does not surprise me at all. Yes, I strongly feel that there needs to be some sort of uniformity and framework to follow in order to teach reading, but the right people need to be developing this such framework. As the article said, the people making these laws aren't qualified and are only creating these such laws for their own personal agendas. Unfortunately, education is just another big business and everyone is out for themselves- the ones who pay the price are the teachers and the students.

Reply 2a

Author: Addie_Gaines
Date: 08-18-1999 10:01

agree totally with a few of the comments made in this article. Yes, I fully understand and agree that mandates, laws, and frameworks should be devised to set some sort of standards in which to teach by, but who should make these such laws?! EDUCATORS! People who are qualified and aware of what actually goes on in a classroom. Not politicians that are out for their own advancement and agendas. This, I feel, is a major problem of education. We have legislators and even school board members who have never set foot in a classroom making our standards. That makes a lot of sense. Then the people who suffer for these actions are the teachers and the students.

Reply 2b

Author: SUZANNE_THIEM

Author: ella_roofener
Date: 08-18-1999 10:02

frightening essay on the growing Nazi movement in the U.S. We need more press for this viewpoint. Unfortunately even the heretofore "liberal" press is in their camp.

I am saddened that Whole Language, a movement I wholly supported, has taken the fall for issues that have been brewing for several decades in this country. It in the right place at the right time, and so became the "fall guy."

Even more disconcerting is the fact that parents have bought "hook, line and sinker" into this propaganda.

Reply 2c

Author: Roxann_Tidwell
Date: 08-18-1999 10:02

I agree with Julia about the fact that parents have too readily bought into the war against Whole Language. I spent two years working for one of the local "supplemental education" institutions (business-oriented, quite expensive tutoring, but some excellent programs). Many a parent came to us with the plea that their child just wasn't catching on in school, that their child had fallen behind in reading. I hate to admit this, but I myself am guilty of having blamed "whole language practices" for this deficit. The fact that schools no longer taught phonics was the problem. At that time I truly did not know for certain what whole language entailed, but I knew that phonics surely had to be included in the teaching of reading! I believed what I said and parents certainly believed it! I'm sure this is typical of what has happened in many places.

Granted, I know differently now. I believe in balanced literacy education and the importance of observing children's learning to meet their individual needs. But it is a sad fact that unfounded opinions of educational practices can spread like wildfire.

Reply 2d

Author: steve vajda
Date: 09-08-1999 17:57

One of education's problems has been that the professional politicians have been dictating educational policy for a long time. I agree that, unfortunately, these people have no training in education. Most of the time they are merely trying to get reelected. They would like to appear as the "Education President" or the "Education Governor" or the "Education Senator". Here in Ohio we also have state-mandated testing in five subject areas. Students have to pass these tests in the fourth, sixth, ninth, and twelth grades to graduate. Currently the twelth grade test is not mandatory, but I think the state will soon change that. Consequently much of our curriculum is directed toward these "proficiency" tests.

Post 3

Author: Judy_Ramirez
Date: 08-18-1999 10:03

From my perspective, HR 2614 devalues teachers' professional judgement and career sovereignty. In classrooms across America we daily pledge allegiance to "freedom and fairness". Is this it?!

I say that, when teachers lack expertise in any aspect of their teaching assignment, they need support -- not bullying -- to remediate their deficit. In whatever area of professional weakness, let them find their own solution with guidance, not domination. Teachers are not "furniture" to be jostled here and there mindlessly...

Radical NEW materials are coming online, encouraging teachers to use the best of both explicit phonemic teaching and whole-language strategies.

Judy Ramirez
DECODEnglish@home.com

Post 4

Author: Tari_Lawson
Date: 08-18-1999 10:03

We are quickly coming to a National Curriculum. Our state, Ohio, has already made it to a State Curriculum with the mandatory Proficiency Tests.

Our politicians, not educators, are steering the direction of education. Who are the experts? This is clearly a political agenda. They have forgotten those on whom we should be focused. THE CHILDREN!!

Much research has been done on learning styles. Not everyone learns in the same manner. If this is true ( remember we all had an subject of difficulty in school) then we must be teaching to all of them. We are NOT teaching robots, but individuals. Whole Language works well for children with ample experience in reading outside of school, but those with little support outside the school seem to do better with Phonics. Why not provide the support that is needed, where it is needed?

What is the government going to do when children fail the kindergarten entrance exam for reading? Will they go into each home and mandate preschool? Parent education? What???? They won't be able to place the blame on teachers at this point.

Political agenda will not improve schools and education.

Reply 4a

Author: Addie_Gaines
Date: 08-18-1999 10:20

I think that a legislative definition of reading and laws mandating how it will be taught makes the assumption that all students at a given grade level are the same and by using their "chosen" method all these students will accomplish the same literacy goals. This would work if our students were robots or machines, but they are not. They are individuals with strengths and weaknesses relative to learning and learning to read. They are individuals with their own developmental timetables that allow them to learn as they are ready. They are individuals with different learning styles and multiple intelligences that may respond better to different approaches than other individuals in the class. The law totally misses the boat...we are teaching children to read, keyword - children...not teaching reading to children. If the problem of reading difficulties was so easy to solve, it would have been solved eons ago! Why is it so perplexing? Because it involves individuals with individual differences.

Reply 4b

Author: Margo_Kujat
Date: 08-18-1999 10:21

> It is sad that anyone who desires a return to sequential, direct, systematic teaching is seen as an enemy of the public schools. There are probably hundreds of parents like myself, fighting for the education of their children and the education of other's children as well. We do care about our children. We do not have a political agenda. We want our children to receive the best possible PUBLIC education. I have spent the past two years reading every book, article and internet site I could find about reading instruction. I have been fighting for sequential phonics instruction in my district. But I have had to teach my daughter myself and hire private tutors. I can't wait for the schools to do it. This is MY child and I will do what needs to be done now.

Sincerely,
A concerned parent

Reply 4c

Author: Pat_Fenton
Date: 10-25-1999 11:15

Adolescent Literacy - We have new reading specialists positions at our middle schools. The teachers are asking for a "quality" assessment tool to track student performance and growth. We have looked at the Silvaroli, Ekwall, etc. and want something else. Are there any suggestions?

Reply 4a

Author: Addie_Gaines
Date: 08-18-1999 10:21

I just wanted to clarify that I am not against "systematic direct reading instruction", per se, but against the legislation of certain types of reading instruction as best for everyone. No one method is best for every learning. Within each classroom their should be a multitude of different practices and approaches available, so that each child has the maximum chance at success.

Reply 4d

Author: Joel_Kupperstein
Date: 08-18-1999 10:22

I recently attended the IRA conference, saw Ken Goodman speak, and dove headfirst into learning about reading legislation and the factions imposing pressure on the lawmakers. Something perhaps a member of this forum can help me understand is how the two sides of "the great debate" became aligned with political polar opposites. Specifically, what is it about the push for systematic phonics instruction that attracts ultra-conservatives such as Phyllis Schlafly, and what is it about the whole language philosophy that attracts liberals? It seems to me that one's political viewpoints should be unrelated to the methodology for reading instruction one espouses. If anyone has insight into this, please share it with me. I can be reached at joel.kupperstein@creativeteaching.com.

Reply 4e

Author: Denise Davis
Date: 09-21-1999 10:57

Joel, Like you, I am becoming increasingly aware of the division educators display over the "Reading Wars" spilling over into the always divisive polital field. Upon much summer time reflection (Some spurred on by my reading of the book ,"The Changing Face of Whole Language,") I am seeing why this mess began and how it can grow out of control and continue in the nose dive it appears to be headed.

To me, Those who allign themselves with the Direct/Intensive Phonics for All camp have the agenda of keeping the status quo;it is a belief in power structures that dictate and separate. The beliefs seem to entail: students are blank slates which must be filled up with another's messages; all students need the same things because they all develop the same; reading is simply scientific and teachers must be explicitly informed as to what to do, among other tenets.

Those who allign themselves in the Whole Language camp do indeed have an agenda as well; it revolves around empowerment and freedom for all through literacy. Whole Language beliefs include:all students bring much to every situation; students(and teachers) construct their own personal meaning throungh experiences; becoming literate is a passionate adventure which leads to an informed and able citizenry;students vary and deserve their unique needs met by a variety of instructional materials and methods; teaching professionals have the intellect and ability to meet student needs, among other tenets.

The Phonics folks buy into a myth that there exists one universal cure for every reading difficulty and it most likely sits in the phonics of the "Good "ole Days.". (However, NEVER have all children become literate in this nation to the extent we desire, despite media hype yelping to the contrary.)

The Whole Language folks buy into the notion that literacy will change both individuals and the world, regardless of the complex nature of reading.

So, whether we educators dive into politics or whince at the thought, reading, and I believe all of education, is politically based.

Does that make it clearer why conservatives and liberals tend to choose certain sides?

Post 5

Author: Patricia_Denne
Date: 08-18-1999 10:04

We in Canada are feeling the effects of this trend as well. I do not have a problem with explicit teaching of phonics to those children who need it. I do have a problem with mandating one method for all. It makes no more sense than mandating that all children must crawl before they walk (and it must be a standard on-all-fours crawl).

Reply 5a

Author: mluisa_martinez
Date: 08-18-1999 10:04

I agree--children need the largest range of skills we can bring to the job, regardless of the political climate or current philosophical slant. I don't get involved in political debate, but prefer to work quietly, one kid at a time, and work really hard to meet their needs. The best solutions continue to be those that integrate philosophies rather than exclude them.

Post 6

Author: Karen_West0
Date: 08-18-1999 10:04

I would like to say "thank you" to Dr. Ken Goodman, for taking the time to write such a thorough, thought-provoking piece. In particular, I appreciate the large numbers of links that are included. In this way, each of us as readers can make our own decisions as to what we think--we have the opportunity to examine many related documents. THANK YOU!

In another light, I am concerned about (what I perceive as) MISINFORMATION that gets published and seems to have great influence in political arenas. I'm wondering why so much seems to be simply "accepted" as truth?

I'm also wondering why such organizations as INTERNATIONAL READING ASSOCIATION, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF TEACHERS OF ENGLISH and other orgs. seem to be absent from much of the 'information' that is driving politicians to move in such directions... Shouldn't leading literacy organizations be consulted, acknowledged, or perhaps cited in papers when we are looking at ways to improve literacy learning?

Hmmm...??? What are you thinking???

from,
Karen West
Kindergarten Teacher
Tucson, AZ
krwest@flash.net

Reply 6a

Author: Rebecca_Pickett
Date: 08-18-1999 10:05

Karen,

I have asked the same questions many times as I read information in newspapers etc. I have also asked my politicians in my state why we as teachers haven't been consulted before laws for our state were implemented. I got not reply from them about that or about where they got their research to help them decide upon these laws. What Dr. Goodman has stated makes sense to me. I believe I see those patterns he described coming to pass in Idaho. Retirement looks better all the time because I feel rather helpless in making changes but I'm not giving up either.

Becky Pickett
1 -2 grade teacher
Idaho Falls, ID

Reply 6b

Author: miller_elizabeth
Date: 08-18-1999 10:05

Hello Karen, I just read your message posted on ReadingOnLine about the way our policy makers are not consulting the professional organizations when making decisions regarding literacy education. Have you by chance read Teaching Beginning Reading and The Spin Doctors of Science by Denny Taylor? Quite a book! Elizabeth Miller, kindergarten teacher, spring lake , michigan

Post 7

Author: Ashley_Schoenberg
Date: 08-18-1999 10:05

I am on the verge of completing five years of teacher education classes at an acclaimed university. I will graduate as a professional educator, same as my fellow students who are attending the business school will graduate as business professionals. But why will they be treated and referred to as professionals; whereas I will be looked upon as someone who needs babysitting by federal laws, as someone who does not know what is best for her classroom, students, and self?

Teachers constantly participate in professional dialogue with other teachers. They are researchers both within and outside of the classroom. They continue with higher education; they are in all respects professionals. Their comments and assertions should be referred to as professional opinion; the "professional opinion" that is sought after when questions pertaining to the education of the nation's children are asked. Politicians, big-business educational materials companies, and researchers who are sponsored by those companies should not be where the public turns to find answers to education questions. They should turn to the education professionals that were, and continue to be trained in the profession of teaching, and who are with the children all day, five days a week, almost 200 days of the year. They are the ones with the true answers.

Post 8

Author: Abigail_Gard
Date: 08-18-1999 10:06

As Patrick Shannon reminds us in Broken Promises, there were no "good old days" in reading instruction during which meaningful literacy was the goal of most teachers and school systems. The power of the "Back to Basics" campaign rests in the myth that there is a "back," a time when reading instruction focusing only on the basic rules of pronunciation (or any one method of teaching) produced a nation of readers. One of the steps in our fight for education should be to expose and destroy this myth.

Post 9

Author: Karen_West0
Date: 08-18-1999 10:07

We have legislators >and even school board members who have never set foot in a classroom >making our standards

Hello Ella, I agree with you, it is frustrating to know that folks very far away from the classroom are making decisions on what and how we ought to be working in our classrooms.

You wrote:

We have legislators >and even school board members who have never set foot in a classroom >making our standards

I'm wondering... Perhaps we need to invite politicians and parents into our classrooms?...on a grand scale. What might happen, if masses of teachers personally invited politicians to come into our classrooms to see how our children are reading and writing?

What do others think?

Sincerely,
Karen West
Kindergarten Teacher
Tucson, AZ

Reply 9a

Author: Roxann_Tidwell
Date: 08-18-1999 10:07

Personally, I don't believe it would make that big a difference if we DID invite politicians into the classrooms, although I wish that it would. The chances that enough of them would respond and would take the time out of their already loaded schedules is probably pretty slim. It's frightening to think that these elected officials often argue for or against policies according to the stance of whatever group happens to be most powerful. And that group usually does not represent the majority of teachers. As Ken Goodman points out, many educators are "politically naive." Maybe what we really need to do is work as educators to become more aware and more directly involved in what goes on in politics. If we aren't heard, then we won't make a difference.

Reply 9b

Author: Gayle_Marek
Date: 08-18-1999 10:07

I think that inviting politicians into the classrooms is a good idea, but I have a feeling it may be futile. I believe that politicians and educators rarely see the same issue in the same way. For example, if a politician who knows nothing about reading instruction or literacy in general came into a classroom where students were practicing sustained silent reading in books of their choice, s/he might think, "Why aren't these students using the textbooks on the shelf that the taxpayers of this district worked so hard to pay for?" This might be a ridiculous example, but I feel that it helps to illustrate my point. Politicians and educators are operating from not only completely different agendas, but also from a different knowledge base. If we could somehow educate politicians about effective reading practices, we might have a chance. Until then there will be even more dissention and bickering because we can't seem to work together for the good of our country and the future of our children. And the bottom line is, money talks. The far-right organizations seem to have a lot of political clout because they are cohesive and have the money to support their cause. Until educators can unite with a common purpose, we will continue to see the effects of divison among us.

Reply 9c

Author: Maureen_Morrissey
Date: 08-18-1999 10:08

Karen, the politicians are too busy with their agendas to spend any real time inside real classrooms. Unfortunately, they base their political decisions on their personal experiences, as children years ago or as parents, and on the information they get from politically savvy lobbyists. As Ken said, teachers are a politically naive group...

I have tried to get politicians into my classroom, from local legislators on down to my own superintendent, to no avail. Everyone's too busy making decisions that will affect my students to get to know my students. It's frustrating.

The reality is that each child needs something different and it's my job to make sure she/he gets it. There are those who need to focus on sounds, letters and words for a time, and those who don't. To limit me as an educator would be to limit my students as well. Is that what the federal government really wants?

Maureen, who used to be a Tucson teacher, and now lives and works in Westchester County, NY (say "HI" to the Old Pueblo for me..)

> > >I'm wondering... >Perhaps we need to invite politicians and parents into our classrooms?...on >a grand scale. What might happen, if masses of teachers personally >invited politicians to come into our classrooms to see how our >child�

Post 10

Author: Valerie_Wiser2
Date: 12-08-1999 12:26

I just attended a presentation on the Reading Excellence Act and was very surprised at how long this act has been in the making, yet I had heard nothing about it! Perhaps I haven't been reading the right literature, but with something this impacting I would think thre would be an uproar in the media from educators.

Readers who enjoy this posting may also be interested in the following:

The National Reading Panel: Using Research to Create More Literate Students, by Timothy Shanahan
Literacy and Politics: A Conversation with Myself, by Allen Berger

Return to introduction

Reading Online, www.readingonline.org
Posted December 1998
© 1998-2000 International Reading Association, Inc. ISSN 1096-1232