NCTE: Reading Excellence Act Information (fwd)

Ken Goodman (kgoodman who-is-at U.Arizona.EDU)
Tue, 14 Oct 1997 12:27:22 -0700 (MST)

I'm forwarding more information on the attempt of the far right to
establish phonics as a national reading curriculum/methodology

Phone: 520 6217868 Fax: 520 7455285----------------------
Kenneth S Goodman, Professor
Language, Reading & Culture, University of Arizona, Tucson
kgoodman who-is-at U.Arizona.EDu

>>Subject: Reading Excellence Act Information
>>
>> At the request of Faith Schullstrom, I'm forwarding the following
>> information about the U.S. Reading Excellence Act and NCTE's rationale
>> for opposing this legislation. She invites everyone to forward this
>> note to colleagues you think might be interested in this issue.
>>
>> Contact information for members of the House Committee on Education
>> and the Workforce will follow in a separate note.
>>
>> --Eric Crump
>> NCTE
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------
>> The following information is also available at
>> http://www.ncte.org/action/
>>
>>
>> Introduction to The Reading Excellence Act
>>
>> NCTE is one of several professional organizations that opposes
>> this legislation. Below you will find a brief introduction to the bill
>> and a rationale for opposition. We invite educators and parents to
>> become familiar with the bill and express their opinions on the issue.
>>
>>
>> October 9, 1997
>>
>> During the week of October 6, 1997, three major literacy research
>> organizations--the National Council of Teachers of English, the
>> National Reading Conference, and the National Research Council on
>> Language and Literacy-- collaborated to oppose the Reading Excellence
>> Act proposed by Representative Goodling, Chair of the House Committee
>> on Education and the Workforce. This bill was withdrawn this morning,
>> but it is anticipated that the committee staff will continue to work
>> on the bill as part of a major Republican Education Initiative which
>> is scheduled for the week of October 20 and includes support for
>> vouchers, charter schools, etc.
>>
>> Below you will find a brief introduction to the Reading
>> Excellence Act, a rationale for opposition, a sample letter of
>> opposition, and background material. We urge educators and parents to
>> become familiar with the bill and express opinions on the issue to
>> members of the Committee and to Representatives and Senators of your
>> states (members of the committee, email addresses, and phone numbers
>> are listed below).
>>
>> Introduction:
>>
>> This Reading Excellence Act stands to impose restrictions on the
>> types of reading instruction, professional development programs, and
>> research that could be supported with Federal funds. The language of
>> the bill proposes narrow definitions of reading instruction and
>> research, and uses these definitions to set criteria that will
>> determine how funds are to be distributed to state and local
>> educational agencies.
>>
>> This proposal is misleadingly and erroneously based on a review
>> of research focused primarily on children having difficulties in
>> learning to read when in fact 70 to 80 percent of all children are
>> having no difficulty in learning to read.
>>
>> It enlists the federal government (not the research community) in
>> determining what is "reliable, replicable research" and consequently
>> which reading research gets funded, what professional development
>> programs get implemented, as well as what literacy programs get used
>> and supported in our nation's schools.
>>
>> Furthermore, it allows funding decisions for projects under this
>> bill to be federally controlled by essentially the same panel of
>> NICHHD researchers who produced a report that the reading research
>> community has identified as an extremely biased, narrowly focused
>> summary of reading research (Allington, 1997; Pearson, 1997).
>>
>> We encourage you to review the materials we have collected here
>> and send a letter to your representative voicing your opinion on the
>> Reading Excellence Act. This is an opportunity to be proactive and
>> have opinions in the hands of legislators before they begin
>> considering the merits of a particular piece of legislation.
>>
>> A sample letter (included below)
>> (Use this letter as a model for your own, or if you prefer,
>> send it directly to selected members of the House
>> Education and the Workforce Committee. A webform has
>> been provided for that purpose.)
>>
>> A Position Statement endorsed by The National Council of Teachers of
>> English, the National Reading Conference, the National Research
>> Council on Language and Literacy, and the Conference on College
>> Composition and Communication expressing concerns about the possible
>> consequences of the bill. (included below)
>>
>> The Committee on Education and the Workforce
>> (Includes names, email addresses, phone and fax
>> numbers. Use this page if you wish to send your own
>> message via email to individual members of the
>> committee.)
>>
>> ----------------
>>
>>
>>
>> A Statement of Opposition to the Reading
>> Excellence Act
>>
>> Endorsed by
>> the National Council of Teachers of English
>> the National Reading Council
>> the National Conference on Research in Language and Literacy
>> the Conference on College Composition and Communication
>>
>>
>>
>> HR 2614, the Reading Excellence Act, proposes support for staff
>> development, family literacy programs, after-school tutoring,
>> connections to Head Start and Even Start, and additional research. We
>> agree that all of these programs should be supported, but we are
>> concerned with the way this act proposes to achieve its goals.
>> Further, we believe that basic principles of local control and
>> democratic decision making are endangered by this bill.
>>
>> Any legislation that concerns reading needs to be acceptable to a
>> wide spectrum of educators, reading researchers, teachers,
>> administrators, and others concerned with literacy education. The
>> Reading Excellence Act in its current form does not enjoy this support
>> or acceptance.
>>
>> Three major national literacy organizations concerned with
>> beginning reading (the National Council of Teachers of English, the
>> National Reading Council, and the National Conference on Research in
>> Language and Literacy)_representing over 100,000 educators_oppose the
>> Reading Excellence Act for the following reasons:
>>
>> Neither Congress nor any federal agency should establish
>> a single definition of reading or restrict the type of
>> research used in funding criteria for preservice or inservice
>> teacher education and professional development programs.
>>
>> Why? Research has always progressed through dialogue, debate, and open
>> inquiry. In the past 30 years, these exchanges about reading and
>> learning have been informed and enriched by the work of linguists,
>> psychologists and sociologists, psycholinguists, sociolinguists, and
>> critical theorists who have used varying modes of inquiry, both
>> quantitative and qualitative. Using federal legislation to push one
>> view of research to the exclusion of all others denies all we have
>> learned, is unwarranted, and will do more harm than good in proposing
>> an agenda that may serve some children while excluding or harming
>> others.
>>
>> Neither Congress nor any federal agency should establish
>> a national reading curriculum or a national reading program.
>>
>> Why? The bill includes phrases, such as "reliable" and " replicable,"
>> which mask favoritism toward particular, commercial reading programs
>> (Distar, Open Court). Instead of responding to children's individual
>> needs and development, these programs treat children as "replicable"
>> targets of mass instruction. Congress should not pass laws requiring
>> schools or local education agencies to use any specific program or
>> methodology. If all children are to learn to read well, districts,
>> schools, and teachers need to be able to select programs that meet the
>> needs of individual students.
>>
>> Neither Congress nor any federal agency should impose a
>> agenda that restricts investigation to any single definition
>> of reading any single research model.
>>
>> Why? Scientific research progresses through debate and critique, not
>> through federally mandating one hypothesis or one methodology over
>> another. Such an imposition would be anti-scientific and limit what
>> could be learned. Assuring that all children learn to read well
>> depends on continued open debate and inquiry in the professional
>> research on reading.
>>
>> Neither Congress nor any federal agency should by-pass
>> traditional standards and procedures for peer review of
>> research; nor should they centralize authority for decision
>> making and review by putting these vital functions in the
>> hands of a single individual or extraordinary authorities.
>>
>> Why? In its draft form, the Reading Excellence Act locates decision
>> making in the hands of specially created agencies, panels, and
>> appointed individuals who would control funding without going through
>> established professional peer review. A broad-based review panel
>> including both private and public reviewers with varying expertise
>> convened by the Secretary of Education is needed.
>>
>>
>> There should be no blacklisting or stigmatizing of
>> individuals, pedagogies, universities, research agencies,
>> or instructional programs, either directly or by
>> establishing a narrow set of critieria for eligible programs
>> or grantees.
>>
>> Why? In several states, legislation has been introduced or passed
>> which singles out and even ridicules certain pedagogies, instructional
>> materials, and research methods. These include use of predictable
>> texts, invented spelling, determining meaning from context,
>> case study and teacher research, all of which are implied to be
>> unacceptable. In other cases criteria for acceptable practice are so
>> specific and narrowly drawn that they have the same effect.
>>
>> No Federal law or program should be framed in such a way
>> that its effect would be to provide substantial advantage
>> to any commercial reading program. No person who could
>> personally profit from any legislation or regulation
>> should hold a staff position with the government agency
>> that creates or monitors the legislation or regulation.
>>
>> Why? Persons who are closely associated with specific commercial
>> reading programs hold key advisory roles to the Committee on Education
>> and the Workforce--the committee responsible for drafting and
>> introducing this bill. These individuals could stand to profit from
>> federal legislation and their central role in drafting the bill creates
>> a strong appearance of conflict of interest and undermines educators'
>> confidence in the intentions of the legislation.
>>
>>
>> ----------------
>>
>>
>> [Note: The letter below is a sample that anyone who is concerned
>> about the implications of HR 2614, the "Reading Excellence Act" may
>> use to express opposition. Feel free to borrow from this text or, if
>> you agree with its points, use the form following the letter to send
>> this text to members of the House Committee on Education and the
>> Workforce or other Representatives.]
>>
>>
>>
>> United States House of Representatives
>> Washington, DC
>>
>> Dear Representative:
>>
>> As a language arts educator, I am writing to applaud the removal
>> of HR 2614, "Reading Excellence Act," from consideration on October 9,
>> 1997. The bill was flawed and would have done more harm than good for
>> our nation's beginning readers by favoring only one kind of reading
>> instruction and by approving only one type of reading research that
>> would be supported by Federal funds. The bill ignored what we parents,
>> teachers, and administrators at the local level know about teaching our
>> students to read.
>>
>> HR 2614 severely limited students' experiences with print and
>> language by emphasizing skills exercises over vital learning-to-read
>> activities such as storytelling, reading aloud, and writing. Reading,
>> as I'm sure you know, is a very complicated process--it does include
>> decoding letters, sounds, and words and it involves much more. Good
>> readers don't just know the words read but also comprehend the
>> subtleties and nuances of our language in order to understand clearly
>> what the writing means. All children do not learn to read in the exact
>> same way or at the exact same time. The wide array of programs,
>> methods, and materials that are used to teach reading successfully
>> testify to this fact--one way cannot succeed for all children, and
>> teachers need to be knowledgeable about and have at their disposal
>> many approaches in order to assure that all children learn well.
>>
>> Research on the learning and teaching of reading takes many forms
>> and goes on daily: in classrooms by teachers observing their students,
>> in studies contracted by government agencies, in university-sponsored
>> research studies. This variety of sources and the varying conclusions
>> drawn by these projects demonstrate the complexity and individuality of
>> the reading process for each child. When considered as a body, this
>> research recommends that, in order to reach all children, educators
>> have available many methods for teaching reading. Yet, by endorsing
>> only one form of reading research, HR 2614 would have stayed the
>> progress of research and limited debate. Without ongoing, varied
>> reading research, from classrooms to laboratories, we would confine
>> ourselves to a narrow perspective and severely limit the potential for
>> new ideas to inform us. We would risk treating students as if they were
>> all exactly the same, replaceable subjects in an experiment instead of
>> individual beings with individual approaches to learning.
>>
>> In conclusion, I urge you to consider the following as you draft
>> future reading legislation. The imposition of a single narrow national
>> philosophy for the teaching of reading will stifle students and
>> educational institutions alike by undermining local decision making in
>> curriculum development and choice. Certainly the Congress of our
>> democratic nation would not pass a law requiring schools or local
>> education agencies to ignore their experience, judgment, and knowledge
>> or to use a specific program or methodology. As a professional English
>> language arts educator, I know my students and I benefit from having
>> available to us many, varied, research-based approaches to learning and
>> teaching reading. I would be happy to talk with you or your staff
>> concerning how I've taught my students and how my students have learned
>> to read.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>>
>> ______________________________________
>>
>> Address:
>>
>> Email:
>>
>> Affiliation:
>>
>> -------------------------------------
>> Contact information for members of the House Committee on Education
>> and the Workforce:
>>
>> Capitol switchboard: 800-723-5246
>> House operator: 202-225-3121
>> House e-mail addresses:
>> http://www.howdyneighbor.com/dmorgan/house2.html
>>
>>
>> (Area code: 202)
>>
>>
>> Chair:
>> William Goodling
>> Pennsylvania
>> gretchen.gipson who-is-at mail.house.gov
>> Phone: 225-5836
>> Fax: 226-1000
>>
>> Republicans:
>>
>> Thomas Petri (Vice Chairman)
>> Wisconsin
>> tompetri who-is-at mail.house.gov
>> Phone: 225-2476
>> Fax: 225-2356
>>
>> Marge Roukema
>> New Jersey
>> craig.shearman who-is-at mail.house.gov
>> Phone: 225-4465
>> Fax: 225-9048
>>
>> Harris Fawell
>> Illinois
>> rep.fawell who-is-at mail.house.gov
>> Phone: 225-3515
>> Fax: 225-9420
>>
>> Cass Ballenger
>> North Carolina
>> cassmail who-is-at hr.house.gov
>> Phone: 225-2576
>> Fax: 225-0316
>>
>> Bill Barrett
>> Nebraska
>> julie.ryan who-is-at mail.house.gov
>> Phone: 225-3571
>> Fax: 225-2185
>>
>> Peter Hoekstra
>> Michigan
>> tellhoek who-is-at mail.house.gov
>> Phone: 225-4401
>> Fax: 226-4401
>>
>> Howard "Buck" McKeon
>> California
>> tellbuck who-is-at hr.house.gov
>> Phone: 225-1956
>> Fax: 226-0683
>>
>> Michael Castle
>> Delaware
>> delaware who-is-at mail.house.gov
>> Phone: 225-4165
>> Fax: 225-2291
>>
>> Sam Johnson
>> Texas
>> sam.txO3 who-is-at mail.house.gov
>> Phone: 225-4201
>> Fax: 225-1485
>>
>> James Talent
>> Missouri
>> rep.talent who-is-at mail.house.gov
>> Phone: 225-2561
>> Fax: 225-2563
>>
>> James Greenwood
>> Pennsylvania
>> mike.walsh who-is-at mail.house.gov
>> Phone: 225-4276
>> Fax: 225-9511
>>
>> Joe Knollenberg
>> Michigan
>> Phone: 225-5802
>> Fax: 226-2356
>>
>> Frank Riggs
>> California
>> repriggs who-is-at hr.house.gov
>> Phone: 225-3311
>> Fax: 225-3403
>>
>> Lindsey Graham
>> South Carolina
>> lindsey.graham who-is-at mail.house.gov
>> Phone: 225-5301
>> Fax: 225-3216
>>
>> Mark Souder
>> Indiana
>> souder who-is-at hr.house.gov
>> Phone: 225-4436
>> Fax: 225-3479
>>
>> David Mclntosh
>> Indiana
>> mcintosh who-is-at hr.house.gov
>> Phone: 225-3021
>> Fax: 225-3382
>>
>> Charlie Norwood
>> Georgia
>> john.stone who-is-at mail.house.gov
>> Phone: 225-4101
>> Fax: 225-0279
>>
>> Ron Paul
>> Texas
>> rep.paul who-is-at mail.house.gov
>> Phone: 225-2831
>> Fax: 226-4871
>>
>> Bob Schaffer
>> Colorado
>> rep.schaffer who-is-at mail.house.gov
>> Phone: 225-4676
>> Fax: 225-5870
>>
>> John Peterson
>> Pennsylvania
>> bob.ferguson who-is-at mail.house.gov
>> Phone: 225-5121
>> Fax: 225-5796
>>
>> Fred Upt
>>
>
>
>
>