A careful reader of The New York Times would by now be very confused about the state of reading research. In the past few weeks, three different writers in the newspaper have offered differing interpretations of the issue. Only one of them, in my view, is correct.
If you read the articles from Washington by reporter Diana Jean Schemo, you would conclude that the teaching of phonics is an untried and risky approach that excludes good literature and is under heavy fire by leading reading researchers. In January 2002, Schemo wrote two articles - one about the $900 million reading program in the recently enacted federal education legislation (January 9, 2002) - and the other about Reid Lyon, the Bush administration's key reading expert (January 19, 2002). Both Schemo articles insist that there is a sharp dichotomy between "drilling children in phonics" and the "whole language" method, which she defines as synonymous with teaching good literature. Schemo presents Lyon, chief of the Child Development and Behavior Branch at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, as the Dr. Strangelove of reading instruction, a man whose critics call him "Dr. Lyin'." She clearly prefers the critics who are skeptical of the value of phonics and who claim that the NICHD research is wrong.
Richard Rothstein, the newspaper's regular weekly columnist on education, who ordinarily uses words carefully, defines whole language as "exposure to literature," in contrast to phonics, which (he says) consists only of "the mechanics of reading." Like Schemo, Rothstein implies a dichotomy between phonics (no literature) and whole language (literature).
A third voice on The New York Times, editorial writer Brent Staples, shows a deep familiarity with the research literature on reading methods. In his January 5 article, "How the Clip 'N Snip's Owner Changed Special Education," Staples points out that "The task of teaching reading is undermined by the common but mistaken belief that children are somehow neurologically 'wired' to read. This view led to the 'whole language' fad of the 1970s, in which children were allowed to wander through books, improvising individual approaches to reading." Staples points out that some children learn to read through this method, but it is a disaster for about four in ten children. Nearly half of them fall behind in the early grades, "never catch up and eventually drop out."
These children are "casualties of bad instruction," many of whom are stigmatized as having a learning disability. The NICHD research shows that they need careful instruction to learn the alphabet, the connection between letters and sounds, and the sounds of syllables - in other words, phonics.
The careful reader of The New York Times, in other words, wishes that Brent Staples would sit down with Diana Jean Schemo and Richard Rothstein and explain the findings of NICHD research and of the National Research Council's 1998 report, "Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children," while pointing out that there is no necessary conflict between learning to read with phonics as beginning readers and then reading good literature. You can't read good literature if you can't read. Staples might mention that there is now a broad consensus around the NICHD research and that it has been endorsed by every major education organization (which are joined in the Learning First Alliance).
What is most annoying about the Times coverage is not only that it misleads and confuses its readers about reading research, but that it fails to report on the outstanding progress that has been made in the pedagogy of reading.
"Education Bill Urges New Emphasis on Phonics as Method for Teaching Reading," by Diana Jean Schemo, The New York Times, January 9, 2002 (abstract only; the full article may be purchased)
"Now, the Pressure Begins for Bush's Reading Expert," by Diana Jean Schemo, The New York Times, January 19, 2002
"Created: Bigger U.S. Role; Evolving: What the Role Is," by Richard Rothstein, The New York Times, January 16, 2002 (abstract only; the full article may be purchased)
"How the Clip 'N Snip's Owner Changed Special Education," by Brent Staples, The New York Times, January 5, 2002 (abstract only; the full article may be purchased)
