Since 1971, the National
Center for Education Statistics has been tracking assessment data in the
areas of Math, Science, and Reading -- this assessment is called the National
Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP), and it has come to be known as
the "Nation's Report Card."
In reading, scores have been tracked
from a nationwide sample of 9, 13, and 17 year olds since 1971. A
summary of the reading scores for the NAEP is presented below:
From the National
Center for Education Statistics
Scores on the NAEP have not changed
dramatically in over 30 years. As the great debate has raged, we
have moved through periods of Phonics instruction and Whole Language instruction,
and even periods of Balanced Reading instruction. Still the scores
have remained stable.
What's worse, the reading scores
are not good. Consider this summary of the 1998 NAEP scores:
|
Age
|
Percent Below Basic
|
Percent Basic
|
Percent Proficient
|
Percent Advanced
|
|
Age 9 (grade 4)
|
38
|
24
|
24
|
7
|
|
Age 13 (grade 8)
|
26
|
38
|
30
|
3
|
|
Age 17 (grade 12)
|
23
|
31
|
34
|
6
|
What this summary table says
is that most students have only rudimentary reading skills, while only
a very few students have proficient or advanced reading skills.
And it has been that way for as
long as we have been testing reading skills.
The moral of this story is that
the "Great Debate" (or what some have described as the "Reading Wars")
is really a pointless debate. With the focus on instructional techniques,
we have lost sight of student learning. We are concerned more with
what the teacher does than what the student needs to learn. If we
are to be truly successful at teaching all children to read (and there
is no reason why we shouldn't be), we must shift our attention away from
the pointless polemics of the Great Debate, and focus instead upon student
learning needs.
Only when we shift our focus to
the individual learning needs of individual students will we be able to
teach all children to read. Research has shown that there are basic
knowledge domains that must be well developed in all early readers if they
are to be successful. No matter what instructional approach the teacher
uses, all children must learn and master the same knowledge domains.
What all teachers must understand, then, is what these knowledge domains
are, and how they can assess them and teach them as effectively as possible.
Fortunately, this is an area where
research can offer a great deal of information.
The Southwest Educational Development
Laboratory, for example, has summarized the most important findings of
the past 30 years of reading research and presented it in a readable document
that teachers have found to be quite helpful in understanding what the
essential areas related to successful reading acquisition are, and how
they relate to each other. Beginning with an understanding of the
"framework" presented in that document will help teachers understand and
make use of such valuable resources as "Beginning to Read: Thinking and
Learning About Print" by Marilyn Jager Adams, "Classrooms that Work" by
Dick Allington and Pat Cunningham, and Preventing Reading Difficulties
in Young Children by the National Research Council. Go to http://www.sedl.org/reading/framework
and browse around the on-line, interactive version of the framework.
You can also download a PDF version to read and share with other people.
We have also begun to collect information
that can help teachers to be more effective in their instruction as well
(see "I is for
Instruction"). And we have collected a good deal of information
and resources related to diagnostic reading assessment (see "A
is for Assessment")
If we do not dramatically change
the way we think about reading instruction, and break out of the repetitive
cycle of the Great Debate, then children are doomed to the mediocre reading
achievement levels we have seen for the past 30 years. And that is
totally unacceptable (see "C
is for Consequences for Reading Failure").
