My second point: In many cases the political naivite of academics causes
them to become part of the problem. It's one thing for a group of
linguists to publically argue agains twhole language and meaning
construction in written language. It is quite another for them to go
directly to the Commissioner of education in Massachusettes to join a
battle being waged against the about to be adopted reading framework
including in their objections references to whole language as the
supposed reason for drops in test scores in California and asserting a
similar effect in Mass. matters for which they have no evidence or expertise.
It's one thing for experimental psychologists to argue for a word
recognition view of reading. Its quite another to turn their view into
mandated structures to be imposed on all primary teachers in California.
My final concern is that all of us apply the same rigor to how we frame
and stazte our views on schools, literacy education and teachers that we
do in our own disciplines while presenting our arguments to our peers.
Ken Goodman