Posts
The heart of it:
Face it, the schools are not run by Republican oligarchs in top hats and spats but by perfectly nice, caring, sharing people, with a smattering of yoga/raga/tofu/mojo/mantra folks like my old confreres. Nice people are failing these kids, but when they are called on it, they get very huffy. When the grand poobah Ph.D.s of education stand up and blow, they speak with great confidence about theories of teaching, and considering the test results, the bums ought to be thrown out.
There is much evidence that teaching phonics really works, especially with kids with learning disabilities, a growing constituency. But because phonics is associated with behaviorism and with conservatives, and because the Current Occupant has spoken on the subject, my fellow liberals are opposed.
Liberal dogma says that each child is inherently gifted and will read if only he is read to. This was true of my grandson; it is demonstrably not true of many kids, including my sandy-haired, gap-toothed daughter. The No Child Left Behind initiative has plenty of flaws, but the Democrats who are trashing it should take another look at the Reading First program. It is morally disgusting if Democrats throw out Republican programs that are good for children. Life is not a scrimmage. Grown-ups who stick with dogma even though it condemns children to second-class lives should be put on buses and sent to North Dakota to hoe wheat for a year.
Who’d a thunk it?
Hat tip to Alexander Russo at This Week in Education.
28 comments:
The big mystery to me remains why is phonics associated with Republicans/conservatism?
I know that the association exists, and, anecdotally, it is somewhat accurate. But why? For the life of me, I cannot figure out what on earth phonics has to do with one's political leanings. I can see the correlation, but the causation eludes me.
As I research "reform math," I cannot figure out whether opponents lean repub. or dem. It appears to be more of a math-mind versus liberal-arts-mind dichotamy. The educrats certainly lean left, as they are awaiting additional funding for this, that, and the other.
"The big mystery to me remains why is phonics associated with Republicans/conservatism?"
One good guess is that the anti-phonics crowd in the 1930s considered itself very progressive. This is sorta the opposite of conservatives. The 1930s anti-phonics crowd was pushing "whole word" (aka Dick and Jane). In the 1960s, "whole word" got phased out and phonics was used again. The progressives were unhappy.
In the 1980s we got another anti-phonics attempt, this time "Whole Language" (which is very different from "whole word"). "Whole Language" was, again, progressive, and, again, opposed mostly by conservatives (in the true meaning here ... 'resistant to change').
"Whole Language" is as much a *philosophy* as it is a method for teaching children how to read. This is unfortunate because it makes it difficult to discuss whether "Whole Language" *works* independently of whether one wants to be on *that* team.
It is, however, irrational for the question of how to teach reading (or math) to break down along political lines.
-Mark Roulo
"As I research 'reform math,' I cannot figure out whether opponents lean repub. or dem. It appears to be more of a math-mind versus liberal-arts-mind dichotamy."
There *is* still a bit of a political split because the liberal-arts crowd tends to be more liberal/democrat than the math/science crowd. But I think you are mostly correct. The big split is the liberal-arts folks in the ed schools (well, more liberal-arts than math/science anyway) vs. the people who actually need to *use* math on a daily basis : scientists, engineers, mathematicians, etc.
Keep in mind that the split is far from clean. Some liberal-arts folks oppose reform math and some mathematicians (like Dennis DeTurk at Penn) like reform math:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2008-01-23-fractions_N.htm
-Mark Roulo
I find the political question riveting.
It is absolutely the case that we all need to STOP WHAT WE'RE DOING RIGHT NOW and read Left Behind. The whole language folks descend from the Progressive Movement in education (which is about all I can say about it).
So there's path dependency.
But it is equally true that very few liberals who did not attend ed school are pro-reform math, pro-whole language, etc.
Ed had dinner with a bunch of his left-wing colleagues shortly after the Nouvels Obs cover story came out, the one about constructivism having destroyed French education.
He brought it up at dinner and every professor there instantly went glum.
These are all men & women of the left and they are appalled by constructivism. I mentioned that every parent Ed talked to at the AHA convention in January was trying to pull his kids out of public schools or had already done so -- I'm sure all of these people are liberal or left-liberal.
I've been trying to get Ed to tell me (not sure if he knows) whether the Romantics, who are the intellectual forebears of progressive educators, tend to be Democrats while Enlightenment types (traditional ed) tend to be Republican.
I remember him giving me some kind of answer about this at some point, but I don't remember what it was.
Offhand I would guess that Republicans tend to be Enlightenment types and that Democrats are likely to be both.
But I don't know.
I'm also guessing that people who are religious (or sympathetic to religion) hew to the Enlightenment side of things, while people who have left religion altogether, or who have embraced a New Age/nature-type religious worldview, are Romantic.
But, yet again, I don't know!
You can also find the article at chicagotribune.com in the editorials today.
SusanS
Here Patrick Groff documents that the creators of whole language had a leftist political agenda.
http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=2147
Whole Language: Emancipatory Pedagogy or Socialist Nonsense?
This could explain the political association. WL left, ergo phonics right. Or because the creators of WL were leftist, those who oppose WL must therefore necessarily be on the right. Not good logic, but what is a little demagoguery in the service of a cause?
Perhaps the Garrison Keillor thing could be a tipping point.
Anecdotally, at Christmas a couple we know who are academics and (I'm assuming) conventionally left-leaning were describing their travails trying to get their small, SF Bay area district to consider Singapore Math to alleviate the districts plummeting test scores.
The district had bought into something called Integrated Thematic Instruction, which has caused the scores to fall further.
The couple put together a presentation and quantitative date to present to the school board.
Apparently it did not go well. The were at our St. Philip open house this Sunday. My son looks likely to have a new classmate in the fall.
whether the Romantics...tend to be Democrats while Enlightenment types...Republican.
To throw my own broad-brush generalization into the ring, I would say the New England Puritan settlement was the intellectual seed bed both for some of the philosophical ideas you see in constructivism and in American liberalism.
In Universalism and Transcendentalism you get some of the ideas about the perfectibility of man. And that man can exist in an unspoiled state.
You also get a more community idea of freedom, as opposed to an individual ideal, as you see coming out of Anglican Virginia.
Of course this description is generalized beyond the point of caricature. But I'll note that John Dewey was from Vermont and was stepped in the intellectual traditions of the region.
"Or because the creators of WL were leftist, those who oppose WL must therefore necessarily be on the right. Not good logic, but what is a little demagoguery in the service of a cause?"
I agree with Instructivist.
It's team politics. I would love to see changes in government that would reduce the importance and power of the teams. We lost a thoughtful senator who was replaced by a party cog. Instead of focusing on individual issues, they focus on winning, losing, and political turf. It's not just about compromise on individual issues, it's about compromise on their whole political platform. They have to keep everyone on the team bus.
I don't think that Democrats are particularly for progressivism, but they are for the position of supporting the public school political block and all they can get from it. Many turn around and send their kids to other schools.
"Anecdotally, at Christmas a couple we know who are academics and (I'm assuming) conventionally left-leaning were describing their travails trying to get their small, SF Bay area district to consider Singapore Math to alleviate the districts plummeting test scores."
Perchance is the husband named Rich?
I may know them :-)
-Mark Roulo
at Christmas a couple we know who are academics
From where I sit, these people are on the lam.
Full flight.
I imagine people would be made uneasy by this. The sight of professors pulling their kids out of the public schools ought to give one pause.
But I'll note that John Dewey was from Vermont and was stepped in the intellectual traditions of the region.
Interesting.
You've read Albion's Seed, right?
It's on my list.
You would be correct, Mark.
You've read Albion's Seed, right?
Yes I steal many of my idea from that book.
Geraldine E. Rodgers' book "The History of Beginning Reading" has a fascinating look at the French Revolution and its influence on education, and also on the French connection to whole language teaching. You can get it for 8.95 at author house, you'll want the e-book so you can search it: http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail~bookid~2966.aspx
Here's a four page article she wrote that explains the French connection a little: http://www.donpotter.net/PDF/WHY%20NOAH%20WEBSTER%20WAS%20RIGHT.pdf
There is a fair left/right correlation with phonics, but there are other factors at work, too. I've known people from both sides of the political spectrum who don't fall on the same side of the phonics spectrum. Common sense and resistance to ed school ideology are factors. Most Christian schools use a good phonics curriculum, but I've known Christians who bought the whole language ideology and would not listen to the facts. I haven't yet met a person in the military from either side of the political fence who did not believe in phonics once I told them the facts. Of course, military people move a lot and have seen so many different school systems that they have a unique opportunity to view what's really going on with our schools nationwide. They also are overall "get the mission done" type of people who put stock in facts and reality.
I'm not surprised that Keillor supports phonics. While I don't always agree with him, he does seem like the type of person who would be immune to the strange sway of whole language indoctrination.
Elizabeth - thanks SO much for the links and resources.
It is high time I delved into the history of education. We're all sitting around being oppressed by history and we don't know any history!
(I should probably change the "we" to "I.")
Yes I steal many of my idea from that book.
I plan to follow suit once I read the damn thing.
FECA is walking distance from my house.
I'm going to have to stop by some day and ask them what they think of character education.
Catherine-
If you scroll to the middle of my History of Reading Instruction page, there's a nice graph there that I think is worth 1,000 words:
http://www.thephonicspage.org/On%20Phonics/historyofreading.html
Here's a great quote that I link in my history page, it was written in 1895 (they had gone to whole word instruction and dropped spelling books entirely in most schools) :
"In addition to the "spelling-lists," I would supplement with a good spelling-book. So far, no "word-list," however well selected, has supplied the place of a spelling book. All those schools that threw out the spelling-book and undertook to teach spelling incidentally or by word-lists failed, and for the same reason that grammar, arithmetic, geography, and other branches, cannot be taught incidentally as the pupil or the class reads Robinson Crusoe, or any other similar work. It is an independent study and as such should be pursued."
It's a small world, Ben :-)
-Mark Roulo
Dear Garrison: For many years I have enjoyed your radio shows and now I have especially enjoyed your column here regarding Reading First and phonics. It is refreshing to see someone cross political boundaries, from whichever side to the other, to stand up for what is obviously the truth.
I am one of many parents in Illinois who fought the phonics/math battles when our kids were in public school during the 1990s. My wife and I surrendered early for the sake of our kids, pulled them out, home-schooled them, and then sent them to a high-standards prep school (Catholic, incidentally). In parallel with this I spent years participating in the "reading wars" and communicating with other parents about the travesties going on in the public schools. Eventually a friend and I put our assembled data on a site designed to inform parents about all this stuff, at www.illinoisloop.org.
Like you I became incensed after reading the NAEP "report card" (of 1994) describing the inconceivable depth of our national reading disaster. Consequently I spent five years of my life producing a phonics-based after-school reading program that I had hoped would eventually become my career. It succeeded brilliantly in teaching about 500 kids to read, but fell victim to the 2001 recession and subsequent job shortage in the Chicago area. But I left the web site up at www.projectpro.com/icanread.htm. Maybe you will find some gems there; this site doesn't just complain about problems - it offers solid solutions.
On behalf of the parents struggling against this arrogant and utterly unreformable system I thank you. I hope you find some solace in knowing that there are many others who share your view, and that you will perhaps find some items that interest you on www.illinoisloop.org (try the menu item Subjects->Reading for starters).
Keep up the battle. Maybe enough of us all together can topple this monster.
Dave,
Illinois Loop is a great website. You and Kevin have done so much for parents.
I do wish it was easier to get more info on Catholic schools. I know you have some info on your site, but I find it hard to compare them to their public school competition.
Susan S.
Dave it's you and IllinoisLoop we have to thank. It's a great web site. You will probably never know how many parents you've helped.
I too have enjoyed Garrison's stories for years and appreciate his comments, but find it odd that it took him this long to discover:
"It is morally disgusting if Democrats throw out Republican programs that are good for children. Life is not a scrimmage. Grown-ups who stick with dogma even though it condemns children to second-class lives should be put on buses and sent to North Dakota to hoe wheat for a year."
To be fair, this approach to issues is not only the domain of the Democrats. But, try as they might, educators can never seem to dismiss their opponents as right wing conservatives.
There are lots of progressivist, leftist, liberal, Democratic or what-have-you sheep in the DI fold. Of course there are conservatives of varying stripes, too. For the most part they get along, having in common a desire to see students receive effective instruction, and a perception that this is a serious moral and ethical responsibility.
Of course the rabid anti-DI crowd also claim to be driven by moral fervor and the desire to maximize the educational experiences of children. So I think there are other memes at play.
I AM A HUGE FAN OF ILLINOIS LOOP!
WE QUOTE YOU ALL THE TIME!
HI!
arrogant and utterly unreformable system
yeah
Post a Comment