Received: (news@localhost) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.6.8/940311.01ccg) id TAA16584 for nifl-esl@novel.nifl.gov; Mon, 4 Dec 1995 19:11:43 -0500 Path: literacy.nifl.gov!nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov From: Lucy Tse <ltse@chaph.usc.edu> Newsgroups: nifl.esl Subject: Whole Language in California (fwd) Date: 4 Dec 1995 19:11:43 -0500 Organization: National Institute for Literacy Lines: 183 Sender: listproc@literacy.nifl.gov Distribution: nifl Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.951204160901.7941A-100000@aludra.usc.edu> Reply-To: nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov NNTP-Posting-Host: literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov Apparently-To: nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov Status: RO X-Status: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please feel free to repost/distribute. The following is in response to California's recent Reading Task Force Report, whose findings have been widely publicized. Those interested in receiving a copy of a soon-to-be-published "alternative Task Force" report should send me a personal email: mcquill@scf.usc.edu Permission is granted to reprint, repost, and distribute this posting with proper credit to the author and CommuniCATE Newsletter. __________________________________________________________________________ Did Whole Language Fail in California? Jeff McQuillan, University of Southern California >From CommuniCATE Newsletter, October, 1995 California's Superintendent of Public Instruction, Delaine Eastin, appointed a Reading Task Force (RTF) to study the "possible causes of students' low achievement in reading" and to recommend a course of action (RTF Minutes, May 4, 1995). Among the Taskforce's targets for reform is the state's English/Language Arts Framework, adopted in 1987, which de-emphasizes traditional skills instruction and promotes a whole language philosophy. The RTF believes that reading instruction, particularly at the K-3 level, needs a "skills-based strand," and that a failure to focus on the "basics" in recent years has caused California students to perform poorly in reading. Before blaming whole language for California's reading problems, however, teachers and state officials must first ask two important questions. First, what exactly has happened to California achievement scores since the Framework was adopted eight years ago? And second, what are the likely causes for the changes in those scores, and California's relatively low national ranking in reading achievement? California Reading Achievement, 1984-1994 The RTF cited two pieces of evidence to demonstrate that California's reading achievement is low. The recently adopted CLAS test revealed that only 23% of fourth graders achieved above a Level 4 (out of 6) on the reading section. In addition, the latest (1992) National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) report showed that California ranks near the bottom of the states in reading achievement (RTF Minutes, May 4, 1995). Unfortunately, neither piece of information tells us how and if reading scores have become worse since the Framework was adopted. Since the the CLAS test was only first administered in 1993, and the NAEP scores were not broken down by state in earlier U.S. Department of Education reports, we have no way of comparing these measures with data from previous years. What is available are the (now discontinued) California Assessment Program scores up to the year 1990 (California DOE, 1991:23; Guthrie et al., 1988). The data show that third grade scores rose steadily from 1984 to 1987, then declined slightly in 1988 and 1989. Sixth grade scores seemed to peak in 1988, then declined the following year. Eighth and twelfth grade scores, on the other hand, both began rising in 1987 and continued to climb through 1990. The story for the years following the Framework's adoption is, then, very mixed. Some scores went up, some went down, but there is hardly evidence for proclamations of general failure. In fact, when we look at other factors likely to have influenced reading score trends, some declines seem almost inevitable and completely unrelated to the possible effects of whole language teaching methods. Trends Affecting Literacy Development in California: Plenty of Blame to Go Around California has experienced negative changes in several factors which have been shown to influence the development of reading proficiency. These factors can, by themselves, explain both why some reading scores have been declining and why the state is one of the worst in reading achievement nationwide. Consider the following: 1. California ranks near the bottom in school library holdings. As Krashen (1995) and Lance et al. (1993) have noted, the quality of school libraries has a direct and powerful impact on reading achievement scores. California ranks next to last in books per pupil in its elementary school libraries, and well below recommended levels (1). Even an ambitious whole language program cannot work if there is nothing for children to read. 2. California's public libraries have been decimated over the past seven years, with children's services being the hardest hit area. In addition to school libraries, public library circulation is also a significant predictor of school reading performance (Krashen, 1995). California public library services has been dramatically reduced since 1987 (Gibson, 1993). Among the worst cuts: -Book budgets have been cut by 25% since 1989, despite increases in California's population. -The number of hours libraries are open to the public has declined 30% since 1987, giving California the distinction of having the worst public library access in the United States. -According to Gibson, children's services (K-6) have been "the hardest hit," with over 25% of libraries surveyed reporting cutbacks in this area (1993:2). -Per capita spending on materials fell 36% in just four years, from $2.20 in 1989 to $1.40 in 1993. 3. Per capita personal income in California has been dropping steadily since 1988. While personal income in the state rose from 1984 ($21,401) to 1988 ($22,892), it had returned to 1984 levels by 1993 ($21,457) (CCSCE, 1994). (All figures adjusted for inflation, 1992 dollars). Interestingly, this is almost precisely the pattern we see in 3rd grade achievement scores: rising scores through 1987, followed by a decline. Such correlations are not coincidental. Several researchers (e.g. Hill & Giammatteo, 1963; Anglum, Bell, & Roubinek, 1990) have found that socio-economic status is related to school achievement, and in particular, to the print environment in the home (Morrow, 1983). Since print environment is in turn a strong predictor of reading performance, an increasingly impoverished California can expect lower reading scores, especially for those for whom home influence is strongest and most critical, children in grades K-3. 4. The rate of increase in Limited English Proficient (LEP) students rose dramatically after 1987. While the number of LEP students had been rising previous to 1987, the rate jumped sharply in the following five years (California DOE, 1993). Such large increases, mostly falling on elementary school classrooms, present immense difficulties for teachers and districts attempting to provide language arts services, particularly to new readers. 5. California ranks near the bottom (40th) in per pupil expenditures in the United States. Lance et al. (1993) found that total school expenditures affects reading achievement by way of school library funding. Despite the growing needs of LEP students following the post-1987 increases, funding levels have remained virtually unchanged in California since that time. It is again interesting to note that per pupil funding rose each year from 1984 to 1989, concomitant with the general rise of reading scores at the 3rd and 6th grade levels. The Verdict on Whole Language? Nearly every important variable that affects literacy development, particularly at the early grades, has either become worse over the past eight years or was already at very low levels relative to other states. Instead of starting with these obvious explanations for low reading test scores and seeking to focus the state's resources on places where it can do some good (such as funding school and public libraries), the RTF has instead chosen to bring back the failed skills approaches which research has consistently shown to be less effective than whole language curricula (e.g. Morrow, O'Conner, & Smith, 1990). In fact, the RTF has offered no real evidence that whole language has failed at all in California. In light of the declines noted above, it is somewhat surprising reading achievement is not worse than it is (2). Notes 1. Although the most current data available is somewhat old (1984-1985 school year, from White, 1991), there is little reason to believe the situation has improved. As noted in point 5 below, overall per pupil expenditures have changed little since the late 1980s to correct the problem. 2. There is also doubt as to the extent to which whole language has been implented in many districts. Dennis Parker, chief of language arts for the California DOE, noted that only 2% of the state's teachers have been exposed to whole language principles, and the state is still in the process of compiling a collection of sample lesson plans based on the Framework (Colvin, 1995). References Anlum, B., Bell, M., & Roubinek, D. (1990). Prediction of elementary student reading achievement from specific home environment variables. Reading Improvement, 27, 173-184. California Department of Education (DOE). (1991). Fact sheet, 1990-1991. Sacramento, CA: California DOE Public Relations Office. California Department of Education (DOE). (1993). Fact sheet, 1992-1993. Sacramento, CA: California DOE Public Relations Office. Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy (CCSCE). (1994). California counties data base: Annual economic and demographic profile from 1970. Palo Alto, CA: CCSCE. Colvin, R. (1995). State report urges return to basics in teaching reading. Los Angeles Times, September 13, 1995, p. A1, A24. Gibson, L. (1993). Status of California public libraries: Final report, abbreviated version. Sacramento, CA: California State Library. Guthrie, J., Kirst, M., Odden, A., Adams, J., Cagampang, H., Emmett, T., Evans, J., Geranios, J., Koppich, J., & Merchant, B. (1988). Conditions of Education in California 1988. Sacramento, CA: Policy Analysis for California Education. Hill, E., & Giammatteo, M. (1963). Socio-economic status and its relationship to school achievement in the elementary school. Elementary English, 40, 265-270. Krashen, S. (1995). School libraries, public libraries, and the NAEP reading scores. School Library Media Quarterly, 23, 235-237. Lance, K., Wellborn, L., & Hamilton-Pennell, C. (1993). The impact of school library media centers on academic achievement. Castle Rock, CO: Hi Willow Publishing. Morrow, L. (1983). Home and school correlates of early interest in literature. Journal of Educational Research, 76, 221-230. Morrow, L., O'Conner, E., & Smith, J. (1990). Effects of a story reading program on the literacy development of at-risk kindergarten children. Journal of Reading Behavior, 22, 255-275. California Reading Task Force. (1995). Meeting minutes, May 4, 1995. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education [electronic publication]. White, H. (1991). School library collections and services: Ranking the states. School Library Media Quarterly, 19, 13-26.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 11 2000 - 13:21:44 EST