by Dr. Patrick Groff
NRRF Board Member & Senior Advisor

Dr. Patrick Groff, Professor of Education Emeritus San Diego State University, has published over 325 books, monographs, and journal articles and is a nationally known expert in the field of reading instruction.

The reading achievement crisis that now engulfs California schools is an unnecessary educational calamity. It was caused by the adoption by schools of the empirically unverified reading development scheme called "Whole Language" (WL). The guiding principle of WL is that children best learn to read in school in the same way they previously learned to speak at home, as preschoolers. However, there is no experimental evidence that supports this erroneous notion.

In the aftermath of the WL-induced reading catastrophe there has been a fallout of events of significant importance. The WL reading disaster has lead to the passage of state laws that mandate direct and systematic teaching of phonics information in public school reading programs. Since the basic purpose of WL is to convince teachers to disdain such instruction, there now obviously exists an irreconcilable conflict between California state laws and WL practices.

Although this clash between the law and WL readily is apparent to any perceptive observer, there nonetheless have been attempts by the California Superintendent of Public Instruction and the California Department of Education to downplay the discord. What the new state laws on reading truly mean, they attempt to explain, is that WL instruction and direct and systematic teaching are not incompatible propositions. These prominent school officials thus would have us believe that a "balanced and comprehensive" reading development program can accommodate both WL and direct, systematic teaching.

Why does the state education establishment feel it proper to take this illogical position? Why is it so important to convince teachers and the public that WL and direct and systematic teaching are mutually inclusive ideas? Why the blatant efforts in this regard to forgive WL for guilt in denying millions of California children full opportunity to learn to read?

First, it must be remembered that public school officials constantly are on a quest to absolve themselves of responsibility for the results of their faulty decisions. Hence, they never express personal shame or humiliation, nor apologies to parents or the public, for the reoccurring academic child abuse that they heap on defenseless students. To publicly confess that WL is a particularly destructive form of this child abuse therefore would be inconceivable to school managers.

Second, the tactic typically used by the educational establishment to cover- up grievous academic harm it periodically inflicts on students is to attempt to stall, and/or to evade or filibuster to death the charges to this effect that are raised. School officials repeatedly have learned that time is on their side in this matter. Thus, these officials are confident that if efforts made to inform parents and the public that WL is incompatible with effective teaching can be obstructed, or if the issues over WL simply can be dodged or avoided, and/or if the falsehood that WL practices pose no educational problem is declared incessantly enough, there is a likelihood critics of WL will give up their efforts to expose its failings.

Third, there is no provision in the new state laws on reading instruction for penalizing those in high office who deliberately misinterpret their intent, that is, who incite teachers to disobey them. Unfortunately, this is a usual shortcoming of many of the laws on public education. While this legislation often is well-intended, its details frequently are unenforceable since they can be ignored with impunity.

These conditions make clear that the next vital piece of educational law should be that which removes the decision-making power over what are balanced and comprehensive reading programs from state-level educational officials, and reassigns it to local schools districts. Half the states now provide that local option by allowing local schools to choose the reading instruction materials that fulfill their particular needs. The more that each individual public school has autonomous authority in this respect, the better that students learn to read, the experimental research indicates.

In the meantime, The National Right to Read Foundation will continue to serve as a watchdog to warn parents and the public of future derelictions of their duty to enforce the new state reading instruction laws by school officials. The NRRF welcomes documented reports of examples of such malfeasance. In this way, parents, other concerned citizens, and The NRRF can join together to bring to bear the force of public and judicial disapproval on the unwillingness of school administrators to obey the new laws on reading development.

BR05

Home | About Us | About Phonics | Resources
Research | Topics | Reading Reform | Links | Search

Unless otherwise noted, you may copy and distribute any information on this site as long as The National Right to Read Foundation at www.nrrf.org is given credit. The National Right to Read Foundation is a 501(c)(3) publicly supported organization.