It\u2019s important for principals (and teachers) to stay informed about emerging educational issues \u2026 especially current \u201chot topics.\u201d This not only allows us to talk intelligently about the issue, but also to clearly understand what is and is not good practice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
And right now, nothing is hotter than the so-called Reading Wars<\/strong>!<\/p>\n\n\n\n On one side, you have the \u201cbalanced literacy\u201d crowd. On the other, the \u201cscientific-based reading\u201d tribe. The first group models their approach on the historic research and practice of Marie Clay, Fountas and Pinnell, and others. The second relies on a body of work by Lousia Moats and certain psychologists and cognitive scientists.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This article<\/a> provides a good overview of the situation. Please note the comments by Lucy Calkins and Wiley Blevins near the end. Though coming from opposite ends of the spectrum, there are some surprising commonalities there.<\/p>\n\n\n\n My thoughts? Despite what you may have heard in Science of Reading<\/em> workshops, there are dangers in using either of these approaches in a completely exclusive way. Like the old Reese\u2019s Peanut Butter Cup commercials, there are times when a careful combination can result in something better than both.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Yes, I\u2019ve heard the arguments (from both sides) that this has to be an \u201ceither or\u201d proposition. But frankly, those are based more on theory than practice (and the efforts of publishers to sell books). I\u2019ve personally seen schools greatly increase students\u2019 early literacy skills by combining a structured leveled reading program with explicit phonics instruction, then backing that up with additional focused interventions (as part of RTI) for students who need additional support.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Of course, experienced educators know that effective implementation and balance are often far more important than rigid adherence to a specific curricula. In the examples above, a significant amount of time was spent training teachers to focus on basic reading skills (like phonics and phonemic awareness) while simultaneously <\/em>promoting activities that encourage a love of reading (a vital motivational component).<\/p>\n\n\n\n This common-sense combination is described in a recent article<\/a> by Carol Ann Tomlinson. The third paragraph under the \u201cIndividual Differences Matter\u201d section is one of the most balanced, insightful, comments I\u2019ve seen on this subject<\/strong>, and reflects what\u2019s happening in real-world classrooms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There\u2019s also this ASCD article<\/a> by Benjamin Riley (executive director of Deans for Impact) that specifically mentions Arkansas as one of five states that have passed \u201cScience of Reading\u201d legislation. In it, he states that he\u2019s encouraged by the renewed interest in reading instruction, but that \u201ccaution is warranted\u201d when it comes to implementing SoR.<\/p>\n\n\n\n One final note: The use of the NAEP as an assessment in this area is deeply troubling. As this article<\/a> points out, many researchers not only find the NAEP system seriously flawed, but also find NAEP results tragically misleading. Yet NAEP results are still reported extensively (primarily due to political factors) \u2026 even though there are much more effective ways to assess student progress in Early Literacy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n And sadly, poor assessments not only lead to poor conclusions \u2026 but ultimately to bad decisions.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n For those of you who want to go deeper into this topic, this document<\/a> from the International Literacy Association offers sound advice on how to approach this controversial subject. It\u2019s definitely a \u201cmust read\u201d for anyone directly involved with Early Literacy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n You may also want to review my earlier post on Scientific Reading Instruction<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n