My previous post (http://tucsoncitizen.com/tired-tucson-teacher/2012/04/19/why-we-teach-what-we-teach/) discussing the concept of teaching facts over beliefs came up again for me in an entirely different subject: reading. Stephen Sawchuk writing in Education Weekly (1) discusses the movement across many states to implement a more rigorous teaching reading curriculum.

The foundation of the curriculum is in the areas of phonics, phonemic awareness, vocabulary, comprehension, and fluency. While I hold that these are all important to the process I feel that something is missing here. Unfortunately many research professionals are ignoring an obvious dichotomy that I see existing within the list. Phonics and phonemic awareness and separately vocabulary do not equate with comprehension and fluency.

To be an effective reader, a student must not simply identify the words by sound but by meaning and then string those words together with others to arrive at understanding. Reading means understanding what is read, the implications and the expected intuitions. When evaluating students as to their reading ability the only true measurement should be whether they understand what they have read. It doesn’t matter how fast, or slow, or how fluent or if they recognize the words and what they mean. If the reader cannot put it all together to understand what the writer is saying it means next to nothing.

Sawchuk states that the basis of the reading instruction support for teachers can be found in a study from Wisconsin. (2) The first stated goal is that “comprehension is the ultimate goal” and in that I agree. But pursuant to the premise is the understanding that without comprehension there is no reading. Personally I love Pavarotti’s various renditions of “Nessun Dorma“. As a bathroom baritone I may be able to teach myself how to pronounce all the words in Italian without understanding what a single one of them means; doing simple mimicry, without comprehension. Pavarotti can convey the passion of the moment with his voice but I have no understanding of the reasons for his transcendent emotions if I have not read a translation or learned how to actually read in Italian.

A study by Betty Hart and Tood Risley, from 1995 states that children living in poverty have as much as a “3 MILLION words heard” deficit by the age three. That means that they have heard 3 million fewer words than their peers in more affluent families. Yesterday, I was holding my 8 month old granddaughter, Annabelle, when she began the mewling that precedes her crying for something. My wife sitting across the room asked if she needed more of her bottle. Annabelle, sitting looking to my right at my wife instantly swiveled her head to look at the bottle sitting to my left. I borrowed a line from Jurassic Park, and said, “Clever girl!” A few seconds later I repeated the experiment with the same result.

My point is that, as in architecture where form follows function, in reading, phonics follow understanding. It comes down to the basic question of whether I would rather have a child able to figure out words by understanding content or discern content by knowing words? Both are important to the emerging learner but in the final analysis the former must supersede the latter because without meaning there is no communication and the purpose of reading is to communicate, just as I hope I am doing with you right now.

Which means what? It dictates that our focus should be on developmental education, rich in content and meaning for all children. If we want our children to be fluent readers, we must speak fluently to them, often and with a richness that makes them participants in language. We should be investing in appropriate early education, for all children, not drills and tricks but true language-rich environments that seduce the young child into learning language just as television, computers and hand-held game devices have seduced so many into the non-interactive world.

(1) http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2012/04/18/28teachertest_ep.h31.html

(2) http://165.189.60.210/Documents/Read.pdf

(3) Hart, Betty and Todd Risley, “The Early Catastrophe: The 30 Million Word Gap by Age 3!”. Meaningful Differences in the Everyday Experiences of Young American Children, 1995.

I like my house; I’d better like it, I have lived here over thirty years. But if I were to change just one thing I would have insulated it. My house has no insulation. It is built of brick, plywood and all the other necessary items but I have found through the years that not one scrap of the original building materials were specific to insulating the walls or the roof.

Now I know in Arizona we only have the four seasons: early summer, summer, late summer, and what we laughingly call winter. Still, some mornings it gets a bit chilly. Yesterday my daughter, the almost doctor came in and said, “It’s warmer outside than in here.” Well of course it is, that is where our heat is going, with no insulation, we’re warming the outdoors. She bought my wife a space heater for Xmas. When we turn it on, it knocks out all the lights. (Some day I will write about my house’s electrical system.)

By now you’re asking yourself, “Where is he going with this?” Thanks for asking.

My editor, Mark Evans, forwarded me an article this week. Normally I glance at these, say “Thanks” and go ahead and write about what I am interested in. Fortunately I took a good look at this one and saw that it mirrored much of what I have been screaming about lo these many years.

The article from First Things First, is – “National Expert: Raising Reading Test Scores Starts Where Language Begins – In the Crib”. 1 The expert, Dr. Kathy Hirsh-Pasek said it includes six principles.
“They are:
·         Children learn what they hear most – frequency matters.
·         Children learn words for things and events that interest them.
·         Interactive and responsive environments build language learning.
·         Children learn best in meaningful contexts.
·         Children need to hear diverse examples of words and language structures.
·         Vocabulary and grammar develop together.                                                                                                                                                                                                What those principles boil down to is that children need to be talked to often, in meaningful ways and by adults in their lives.” 2

I have no argument with any of these, in fact I laud the effort to focus on early childhood education. However, I must offer a caveat. Some parents might think that any voice speaking to children is acceptable. I heartily disagree. What children hear and from whom they hear it, is just as critical as the volume of discussion in formulating their appropriate development.

Allowing a child to hear adult conversations or be subjected to adult concerns is unnecessary and possibly damaging. We seem to think that more is better in terms of what our children know and again I demur that content is as important as frequency. There are things a child does not need to know; things that are confusing and too complicated for their still developing minds.

This does not mean that I am endorsing acceleration of reading or writing skills. I do not advocate escalation of skills that children show no aptitude for. As Hirsh-Pasek says in her second point above, they must have interest in what they learn. It does not say that their parents must be interested in them learning it. As an educator I sometimes hold curriculum demands in check in favor of encouraging success. This is simply good practice.

Her third principle is my favorite. Children learn what they do. Give them a chance to do what kids do, not what adults want them to do. Let them explore, learn, get dirty in child-centered activities. Hopefully you had the opportunity to be a child, now give your offspring that same opportunity. Talk to them, talk to them often but talk to them as an adult speaks to a child. Give them the benefit of your experience and script their lives. And finally, listen to what they say. Answer their questions, as a teacher answers a student.

We need to carefully insulate our children. They deserve to be nurtured. We need to ensure that they hear those things they need to know but also that they are not subjected to language and intent that is endemic to adult conversation and concerns alone. Let children be children. As a career educator and a parent I know that lessons are best learned by experience; repetitively, simply and by slowly increasing complexity.

Our children deserve the chance to develop as children before they are forced to consider the world as adults.

1 http://www.azftf.gov/Why/LearningLibrary/Documents/                                                                                          Language_for_Reading_KathyHirshPasek.pdf

2 http://www.azftf.gov/