Return-Path: <nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id i1HEMiI14589; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 09:22:44 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 09:22:44 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <20040217.091958.6398.0.socrates555@juno.com> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: "George E. Demetrion" <socrates555@juno.com> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-AALPD:1045] A Century of Miseducation-review commentary X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 Status: O Content-Length: 9167 Lines: 170 The following is an adaptation of an earlier message I had posted on this list. Given the current discussion it seems appropriate to re-post it at this time. I strongly recommend that Sweet's article be read in conjunction with P. David Pearson's more credible essay "Reading in the Twentieth century" at (http://www.ciera.org/library/archive/2001-08/200108.htm). George Demetrion Literacy Geek (Unlike Andres, at least I don't wear spandex when riding my bike) ________________________________________________________________ The Century of Miseducation of American Teachers Robert W. Sweet, Jr. http://www.nrrf.org/essay_Century_of_Miseducation.html Among other roles, Sweet was a former policy advisor to President Reagan The article is published under the auspices of the National Right to Read Foundation, which takes a very strong stance in support phonic-based instruction and is highly critical of: a) whole language reading theory b) balanced approached or theories, and, therefore, I presume, the reasoned discussions of P. David Pearson and Victoria Purcell Gates c) Reading Recovery The one statement that I find reasonable in Sweet's article is the following: "For generations the education pendulum has swung from one extreme to the other... teaching skills but with little reading of quality materials, or teaching literature without skills necessary to actually read it. We know that doing one without the other dooms large numbers of our children to failure and closes the door to further learning" (p. 3). If Sweet had taken that as his organizing synthesis, I would only be able to conclude that his argument is based on solid ground. In different ways, advocates of reading recovery, balanced reading theory, and tempered whole language philosophies make a similar argument. Instead of building on this broad middle, Sweet takes an extreme position, which in his article conveys a tone of political and religious-like zealotry. He sees the enemy in anything other than phonic-based instruction, and his task is to slay any and all countervailing perspectives. What I want to focus on here is the construction of Sweet's argument, since he is making the case that phonics based reading instruction is grounded in sound science, as opposed to what he views as the unproven methodologies of other theories and approaches. What I concentrate on is both the flow of his argument and his use of polemicism in characterizing the view he opposes. I do so to get at two issues: a) The extent to which he grounds his argument for phonic-based instruction on science. b) The extent to which he rebuts the view he opposes based on evidence and fairness and balance of argumentation that takes into account the complexity and nuance of the various views on reading/literacy, that fall under the auspices of reading recovery theory, balanced theory, and whole language theory. Sweet starts out by citing various literature that points to a national literacy crisis. Perhaps he uses the phrase somewhere, "epidemic." If not, he certainly intends to convey that imagery. He does refer to "educational malpractice" and "child abuse" (p. 1) based on the bogeyman,"whole language" reading theory. The statistics he cites from the normative literature on literacy, is discourse that many advocates of literacy have used regardless of what views of reading theory/literacy that they hold. Thus, the dire statistics, which occupy the first two pages proves nothing in terms of appropriate solutions, which Sweet proposes in phonics-based reading instruction. That is, there is no direct or scientific correlation to the problem he identifies and the solution he offers. That's point number one. Then (and this may be hard to believe for advocates of "rigorous" science), Sweet resorts to an anecdote about a certain Bonnie who, though "normal in every other way," was placed in special education, where she floundered for years. Finally, she was placed with a reading instructor who provided her with what she needed, "direct instruction in phonics," with a "happy ending" (p. 3) the result. Of course, many of us could all share anecdotes, of which a more coherent utilization (lacking here) could serve as a basis for case study analysis. But then that gets us into what some view as the slippery slope of "response bias" and subjectivity even with the qualitative research modality of "triangulation" (See Donna Mertens and Sharan Merriam for further discussion of various research traditions). Of course others view the data of human consciousness and social interaction, and patterns of logic and inquiry that may emerge from them, as the only viable basis through which to ground a .human, science. So, the use of this story by Sweet proves absolutely nothing based on the "rigorous" positivist research paradigm which is the one, only, that he considers valid. Neither is it a good example of case study or qualitative analysis because neither evidence is offered, nor is there any critical methodology by which the author utilizes this data. After some discussion of Daniel Webster and Dick and Jane, Sweet provides a very schematic and biased historical overview of US reading theory and practice extending back to the 19th century. Horace Mann and John Dewey are two of his culprits for their insistence on wholistic, student-centered learning. For a much more coherent, balanced, and academically-informed summary analysis of 20th century reading theory and practice, see P. David Pearson's incisive "Reading in the Twentieth century" at (http://www.ciera.org/library/archive/2001-08/200108.htm). Sweet's discussion of whole language consists of a half-page (p. 5) and contains none of the nuances or sophistication that one would find in the voluminous literature of Constance Weaver, Yetta and Ken Goodman, and Frank Smith and others. Any serious piece of science or scholarship, generally, would build a critical analysis on the substance of the position under analysis. That does not happen here. In fact, there is very little credible scholarship offered in this piece, which remains a polemic geared to rouse the troops--the typical trick of the political and educational Right. Sweet then spends the next couple of pages discussing the "phonics revolution" in a highly stylized polarized idiom. In describing the whole language "plot" among teacher organizations and their cohorts, one gets a sense of a text embedded in the language of Freudian imagery of transference and projection. This is typical of conspiracy theorists who project their own conspiratorial designs onto the undesirable other and transfer the concept of the victim to themselves. This stance is very typical of right wing ideologues like Ann Coulter and Bernie Goldberg who speak of liberal bias in the media as a not very convincing masquerading of a pervasive conservative bias reflected in the mainstream media, particularly major cable outlets. This stance by Sweet is particularly ironic given the current state of affairs, in which the author caricatures a whole language "interlocking protecting network, of teacher educators, teacher organizations and their publications, state and federal departments of education, school officials and publishers of school textbooks, that is exceedingly difficult for outside criticism to penetrate" (pp. 5-6). There may have been a certain degree of organization among various components of the progressive educational movement. Yet, there was nothing close to this level of what Sweet intimates was a conspiracy. Surely the shoe is on the other foot at this time, with educational conservative elites doing everything in their power to politically destroy any and all remnants of educational progressivism such as the attempt to derail ERIC and to redefine the purposes of NIFL.. Do I exaggerate one iota? That should only be the case. In addition to the progressive conspiracy, Sweet points to "the general ignorance [by the purveyors of whole language] about what experimental research has proven to be the benefits of teaching direct, systematic phonics" (p. 6). However, there is no substantive discussion offered of this form of research and no reasons given to explain its superiority over other methodologies and approaches. Given the level of polemicism that characterizes Sweet's essay, this assertion remains an unproven claim, which is aimed at rousing the ranks. Just chant the incantation, "scientific-based educational research." There is also no serious discussion of even phonic-based instruction in this essay. Sweet makes a few general points with neither evidence nor elaboration. So the question is, what do we actually have here in this document? I suggest the following: a) Sweeping generalizations b) Polarized thinking c) Political polemics A serious discussion of reading theory and practice is more than warranted on this and other lists, but Sweet doesn't provide it in this polemical broadsde. For whatever else it may be it is not a serious defense or explanation even of phonics-based instruction.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Dec 23 2004 - 09:45:39 EST