Put Reading (not Teaching Reading) First

by David Safier

I wrote earlier about the $6 billion dollars the Feds wasted on its phonics-based, drill-and-kill Reading First program. The Department of Ed's own study concluded that students in classrooms using the Reading First materials showed no more reading improvement than those who learned reading without the benefit of the $6 billion boondoggle.

I just stumbled onto a blog by Donalyn Miller that is both wise and beautifully written, where she takes apart the entire Reading/Industrial Complex (That's my term, not hers). She's a 6th grade teacher in Texas. Her blog is called The Book Whisperer, a title that made me fall in love with her before I read the first word. Like a Horse Whisperer, a Book Whisperer gentles her students into wanting to read instead of climbing on their backs and breaking their spirits. Brilliant.

Her post on the topic is Reading First Puts Reading Last. It's worth a read. It's not long. Here are some passages.

The only groups served by current trends to produce more and more programs for teaching reading are the publishing and testing companies who make billions of dollars from their programs and tests.

[snip]

I believe that this corporate machinery of scripted programs, comprehension worksheets (reproducibles, handouts, printables, whatever you want to call them), computer-based incentive packages, and test practice curriculum facilitates a solid bottom-line for the companies that sell them, and give schools proof they can point to that they are using every available resource to teach reading, but these efforts are doomed to fail a large number of students because they leave out the most important factor. When you take a forklift and shovel off the programs, underneath it all is a child reading a book.

And it would take a forklift. Using a bathroom scale, I weighed the ancillary materials that came with our district-adopted literature book. The teacher’s edition, student workbooks, practice tests, lesson plan guides, CD-ROMs, and extension materials weighed twenty-seven pounds. Throwing on several hardcover editions just to even the odds, the forty books I require my students to read each year weigh about twenty-four pounds, and these books cost hundreds of dollars less than a textbook package. We don’t need another reading program; we need to go back to the first reading program—connecting children with books. This should always be our bottom line.

Miller has this crazy idea that students learn to read by reading, and they read when they're given lots of books to choose from and lots of time to pore over those books. Her school day begins with every student reading a book chosen by that student. You can't encourage the love of reading by putting students through reading drills, then giving them textbooks filled with pre-chosen reading selections and a few novels mandated by the state. Reading instruction is necessary, especially in the early grades. But you need to encourage students to read and to develop a love for reading. That means putting a wide selection of books at their fingertips, books they can see and touch and pick up and read.

Here's a final quote from another of her blog posts.

When I am out talking to teachers about the need to provide their students with choices in reading material at an appropriate level, one of the first questions I am always asked is, “Where am I going to get the books?” Although many schools purchase expensive program kits for all of the reading teachers in the building, I find very few schools that will fund substantial classroom libraries. The teachers I know that have the best classroom libraries have purchased most of these books with their own money.

Comments

[dhimes]

Hi David,

I agree that her post was excellent, but as I commented on her site, the NRP findings are not at all at odds with the students picking out the reading they like. In fact, it is wholly FOR applying reading strategies in authentic contexts. Free-reading would be an authentic context.

It says that what fails is JUST letting the kids 'read,' that is, measuring their reading by how many pages the kids turn. At the middle-school level (slightly older than Donalyn's students), the kids have learned the mechanics of reading but cannot 'connect the dots' to get more than superficial understanding of a story. That is where the NRP results are valuable.

[David Safier]

In an Education Week article -- http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2008/05/07/36read_ep.h27.html?tmp=777347391 -- the question about Reading First's emphasis on decoding over content is addressed. It's ironic that, while Reading First classrooms spend more time in reading instruction, they spend less time with actual reading. The conservative educators' hatred of "whole language instruction" creates an emphasis on skill mastery over the purpose of reading, which is absorbing the meaning of words on a page.

Here is a passage from the article.

"
One finding from the impact study suggests that students in Reading First schools are not getting as much exposure to a variety of reading materials as they may need. The program, the study says, has “reduced the percentage of students engaged with print.”

Such results may reflect an emphasis on the most elementary skills over others, some experts say.

“There’s been a very strong focus on the decoding side of things, and not nearly enough focus on critical thinking and understanding,” said Alan E. Farstrup, the executive director of the International Reading Association, based in Newark, Del. “I hope this report stimulates people to pay attention to reading instruction much more comprehensively.”
"

[Donalyn Miller]

As I commented on my own blog, I certainly agree that students should learn comprehension strategies, but what I see in many classrooms is kill and drill-based instruction at the expense of independent reading. When the National Reading Panel left independent reading and background knowledge building (best acquired through wide reading) off its recommendations for reading intervention programs, the implied message was that these vital components do not benefit struggling readers.

[David Safier]

Amen to that, Donalyn. And thanks for adding a comment. I love what you do on your blog. Keep "Book Whispering" to those students of yours.

I sometimes think a subtext of these drill-and-kill people is that they fear genuinely independent reading, because it's full of dangerous ideas and encourages independent thinking. Yes, authors have dangerous ideas and take us down paths that are unexpected. That's why people who love reading pick up books again and again and again.

I'm not against drilling, though I never did it in my class (I'm just not good at it). I know young people love repetition and chanting and rhymes. An eight year old neighbor sang me a song the other day with every state and its capital, then another with all the Presidents in order. She was having a great time. But things like that are a first step toward acquiring knowledge and understanding, not ends in themselves.

I'm sure some teachers who emphasize phonics break out the books and say, "Now let's put some of what we learned into practice folks. Go find a book and start reading!" I'm sure those teachers help create successful, lifelong readers.

[dhimes]

The drill-and-kill approach is wrong for any learning (at the very least, you have to stop before you get to "kill"), but it also was not advocated by the NRP. It may be being bought by the schools as an all-in-one solution, but that is not the fault of the NRP. Interestingly, the one of the latest textbooks for reading teachers point to the NRP results, but say that with the quality of today's "canned" (my word--too lazy to look up the author's) passages and text that they are ok to use. Although this contradicts what the NRP says, I assumed it was because the textbook publisher is also a canned solution publisher.

[JC Michaels]

If you keep "drill" segments short, have a variety of drills, and keep groups of 5 or smaller for K-3, you can actually make it a fun and learning experience for 30 minutes or so. Any longer and you may reach burn-out. Once students achieve an independent reading level, more time needs to be spent enjoying books, but there needs to be a direct instructional period daily that focuses on skills, and also guided reading at an intructional level. If we go too far in the direction of the whole language approach, then we try to run before walking, which can frustrate readers. Until the sight vocabulary and decoding skills are developed, most instruction should be differntiated and in small groups. It also helps in the early grades for learning activities to have a game-like quality. That way students are able to have fun while they learn. We use a program for small groups of first graders that cost a whopping $34.95, and with that, in conjunction with a large selection of leveled books that we share, we spend a half hour in small groups four days a week. This, in addition to the Houghton Mifflin basal reading program has been very successful. The secret, however is in ongoing assessments so that you are focusing on the needed skills, and not wasting your time. In case anyone is interested, the program we use for small-group instruction is called The Reading Teacher's Plan Book by Marjorie Conrad. For 35 bucks, it is amazing, and I'm sure you can find it on google with the title and author's name. When we started using it we were able bring up our scores 8% the first year on the end of level testing. Good Luck!

[David Safier]

JC, where do you teach?

[JC Michaels]

Utah (first grade). I was searching for comments on Reading First schools and found your comments. I think you bring up a lot of excellent points which need to be taken into account. It's so important not to get lost in the skills and lose the joy of reading a good book. I almost fell through the cracks as an elementary school student in the late 60's but my mother (who didn't quite finish 10th grade) gave me a fairly easy, but fun book to read. I never looked back, and I still, in addition to my work and family, find time to read for enjoyment almost every day. The skills came while reading. Though "Dick and Jane" gave me the fundamentals, and a 33 rpm record set called "Listen and Learn with phonics" by Dorothy Taft Watson helped too, actually reading for enjoyment got me to the level I needed to reach.

Upon re-reading my post, I've decide to edit and re-post what I said earlier. I hope you don't mind.

The trick to drill segments is to keep them fast-paced, engaging, and targeted to the actual needs of your students. There needs to be a direct instructional period daily that focuses on these skills, and then students need to be shown how these skills are applied in "real reading." If we go too far in the direction of the whole language approach, then we try to run before walking, which can frustrate readers. Small groups are key in differentiating instruction and are the perfect setting for developing these needed skills. It also helps in the early grades for learning activities to have a game-like quality. That way students are able to have fun while they learn. We use a program for small groups of first graders that cost a whopping $34.95, and with that, in conjunction with a large selection of leveled books that we share, we spend a half hour in small groups four days a week. This, in addition to the Houghton Mifflin basal reading program has been very successful. The secret, however is in ongoing assessments so that you are focusing on the needed skills, and not wasting your time. In case anyone is interested, the program we use for small-group instruction is called The Reading Teacher's Plan Book by Marjorie Conrad. For 35 bucks, it is amazing, and I'm sure you can find it on google with the title and author's name. When we started using it we were able bring up our scores 8% the first year on the end of level testing. Good Luck!

[David Safier]

Thanks for the follow up. I agree. All phonics or all whole language might help some students, but a balanced combination gives students a variety of ways to pick up reading skills.

I also agree that students like drill -- in short doses and done with energy and enthusiasm. Kids love call and response,and they like performing tasks where they can succeed. Drill-and-kill is shorthand for turning the classroom into a military boot camp by overemphasizing repetitive skill building until students learn to hate the subject matter.

I'm moving your comment -- the revised paragraph -- to the blog. Others might want to respond, and/or learn about the material you mention.

[Mariana]

I remember my experience in elementary school: we took turns reading the text loudly, two-three sentences per student then we TALKED about said text; for homework, we answered simple questions or wrote a litlle composition. Everyday.