July 7, 1998
Editor
The Plano Star Courier
801 E. Plano Parkway, Ste. 100
Plano, Texas 75074
Dear Editor,
We read the article published in the June 17, 1998 edition of the Plano Star Courier entitled "Why students can't read: the approach is all wrong." As researchers supported by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, we would like to indicate that the interpretations of NICHD research provided in this piece by Ms. Garner are not accurate. NICHD researchers do not advocate "a hierarchical order that teachers should follow in teaching children to read" and there is no evidence from NICHD research that would support such an interpretation. When NICHD researchers recommend a "balanced approach", it is because the interventions that are being evaluated are in fact balanced. Specifically, virtually all of the interventions used by NICHD researchers provide explicit instruction in the alphabetic principle along with opportunities for application in decodable text and real literature at the child's instructional level. These recommendations have everything to do with results of the research studies. They do not reflect any concern that our research would be "vilified by the whole language supporters". This comment is particularly ironic since our research has been denigrated by individuals who have extreme positions on both sides of the so-called "Great Debate". Moreover, we have no concerns about any consequences of our dissemination efforts for our research funding. The characterization of relationships with textbook companies is ad hominen and inappropriate.
We used the term "balanced approach" because of what it means: teaching the alphabetic principle in the context of opportunities for application in literature. The problems with exclusive reliance on phonics as a primary form of reading instruction are well-documented and are partly responsible for the "whole language" movement that Ms. Garner decries. Recent research on teacher practices shows very clearly that experienced teachers who produce high achievers balance explicit teaching of the alphabetic principle with good literature practices. The descriptions of reading pedagogy in this article are simplified. "Phonics" and "whole language" are not antithetical and effective teachers employ a variety of methods simultaneously. Children do not become proficient readers without development of word recognition skills and lots of opportunities to read and write. Reading programs that only teach phonics and phonological awareness - even in the earliest grades - are demonstrably ineffective and do not constitute sound instructional practices.
Readers should be aware that the Texas Alternative Document is not "built upon the solid National Institutes of Health research." We would encourage readers to access the website and read Dr. Lyon's testimony before Congress. They should ignore the "30 Years Report" because it was not sponsored by the NICHD and is not an accurate description of this research. An excellent report summarizing contemporary NICHD and non - NICHD research on reading is the recently released report from the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children.
We, like other NICHD and non-NICHD researchers, support the TEKS. We feel the TEKS provide effective guidelines to teachers without mandates or excessive scripting. We view the TADS as excessively scripted, antiquated, and often inconsistent with contemporary reading research, including that produced by the NICHD.
Please advise us of whether you will publish this letter. We would prefer to do our own editing if there are space limitations.
Sincerely
Barbara R. Foorman, Ph. D.
Jack M. Fletcher, Ph. D.
David J. Francis, Ph. D.
Center for Academics and Reading Skills
University of Texas - Houston Health Science Center
