National Reading Panel Report on Phonics Notes by Constance Weaver

Sources and recommended 4 National Reading Panel Report 4 Articles in Phi Delta Kappan: Most issues from March - Nov. 2001; January Cunningham, article in Reading Research Quarterly, July/Aug. 2001

Recommended from Heinemann and forthcoming Gerald Coles, Reading Unmentionables: Damaging Reading Education While Seeming to Fix It 4 Elaine Garan, Resisting Reading Mandates: How to Triumph with the Truth

What was—and wasn’t—asked? 4 “Their strategy has been to increase their comfort by reducing the questions one is permitted to ask, and the ways one is permitted to answer them.” —James Cunningham, in Reading Research Quarterly, July/Aug. 2001

What did the NRP examine? 4 A select group of experimental research studies that would allow for statistical manipulation 4 Studies that isolated for consideration one of six topics: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, comprehension strategies, vocabulary development, computer technology and reading instruction, teacher preparation to teach comprehension strategies

False advertising-- from the NRP summary booklet “... systematic phonics instruction produces significant benefits for students in kindergarten through 6th grade and for children having difficulty learning to read.”

How was reading defined? 4 “Reading was defined to include behaviors such as the following: reading real words in isolation or in context, reading pseudowords that can be pronounced but have no meaning, reading text aloud or silently, and comprehending text that is read silently or orally.”

What about real reading? 4 76% of the comparisons involved reading or spelling single words 4 Only 16% of the comparisons dealt with “comprehension” 4 On tests for first graders, “comprehension” only required word identification

What else? 4 “Reading achievement” means scores on standardized tests 4 In the NRP study, “reading growth” meant higher scores on word-reading skills, and little else

Who DID benefit from phonics, according to the detailed report? 4 “At risk” first graders (benefited most) 4 “At risk” kindergartners 4 Normally achieving classes of first graders, with heterogeneous populations

How did these K-1 students benefit? 4 In reading lists of words and pseudowords 4 On “comprehension” passages consisting mostly of one short sentence 4 In spelling phonetically regular words and pseudowords 4 NOT in spelling commonly used “sight” words conventionally

But what about the 2nd–6th graders who were also said to benefit? 4 Normally achieving readers didn’t benefit 4 Low-achieving readers in general didn’t benefit 4 Only the “disabled” readers did better on measures of word reading skills 4 Even they showed no significant improve- ment in comprehension or spelling

What are some signs that a school or classroom program overdoses kids on phonics? (Based on the NRP) 4 Children above first grade are routinely taught phonics 4 Phonics is taught to K-1 graders who don’t need it or can’t yet benefit from it 4 Children are taught more than 20 hours of phonemic awareness TOTAL 4 Phonemic awareness lessons last more than 30 minutes maximum

Other warning signs based on the NRP 4 Children are taught phonemic awareness separate from phonics 4 Children are not learning to write--and to spell the sounds they hear 4 The teaching and mastery of phonics has become all or most of the reading program for young children

Still more warning signs 4 Teachers are required to teach a “one size fits all” program 4 Teachers are not allowed to deviate from the program 4 Children are required to master “decodable” texts 4 Children are held back because they can’t do well on tests of phonics skills

From Gerald Coles’ research 4 Even considering just the studies the panelists examined, the conclusions about teaching phonics aren’t warranted —Coles, G. (2001). “Reading Taught to the Tune of the ‘Scientific’ Hickory Stick.” Phi Delta Kappan, 83 (Nov.):

Specifically... 4 In all of the studies where control groups of students who were taught phonics skills in an “as needed” program were compared with students taught these skills through a packaged training program, the test outcomes on skills and reading measures were comparable for both groups 4 In none of these studies did the training group have superior results

Furthermore... 4 All of the studies comparing “whole language” with systematic phonics showed that the test outcomes on skills and reading measures were comparable for both groups. In no study did the training groups have superior reading outcome results.

Who should determine how to teach reading? 4 The federal government? 4 Researchers who teach phonics mostly to individual children or in groups of 2 or 3? 4 Teachers acquainted with a wide spectrum of reading research and with the children they teach? 4 Knowledgeable teachers, administrators, parents, and other community members?

NRP documents 4 Minority report: Reports of the subgroups Summary booklet

Prepared by 4 Dr. Constance Weaver, Professor of English, Western Michigan University 4 Author or editor of more than a dozen books, including Reading Process and Practice (3rd ed., 2002); Reconsidering a Balanced Approach to Reading (1998); and Practicing What We Know: Informed Reading Instruction (1998) 4 Past director and current member, Commission on Reading,National Council of Teachers of English