Texas is at a critical juncture. On November 4-5, 1999, the Texas State Board of Education will be voting on which K-3 reading books should be available for local school districts to adopt. For over five years, Texas has been trying to decide which reading approach to take — the continuation of whole language or a move toward phonemic awareness/decoding skills (phonics). Let's consider the issue.

What do a football player, a pianist, and a baby all have in common? All are learning through a sequence of repetition the ability to react automatically. The football player learns to zone step before learning to zone block. The pianist learns to play a scale of three notes before learning to play a scale of four notes. The baby learns to roll over before learning to sit up.

Life is filled with examples of skills which we must learn sequentially through repetitious drill. A neuropsychologist that I interviewed stated, "Neurochemical connections are made stronger through repetitive action. When an action is repeated, the firing pattern of the neurotransmitters is strengthened and so is the likelihood that the firing pattern will occur the next time. Reading is something which must become a rote task that involves neuromuscular memory — something we do subconsciously without having to think about each part. To get to that level, repetition is critical." A child has to become automatic at sounding out the words before a large portion of his brain will be free to think about the meaning of the selection.

Because the scientific/medical research is now so overwhelming, almost everyone, except for whole language advocates, has admitted three things: (1) good readers read almost every single word, (2) children must first learn to manipulate the subsounds (phonemes) of the English language before they can learn to decode, and (3) decoding skills are best taught through explicit, systematic instruction.

The key to the entire issue is decodable text — sometimes defined as "text which includes only phonetically regular words all of whose phonemes students have practiced, and only those phonetically irregular words that they have practiced." This means that for children to become automatic readers, they need to practice their new-found knowledge on words they can successfully sound out without their being slowed down or confused by a large number of irregular words. If there are too many irregular words, children will start guessing and predicting (whole language) instead of learning to sound out words (phonics).

The Texas Center for Reading and Language Arts at the Texas Education Agency (TEA) stated in the Academics 2000 grant application, "Readers should be able to read easily 90 to 95 percent of the words in a text, and after practice should be able to do so quickly, accurately, and effortlessly. As children learn to read words, sentences, and stories accurately and fluently, they no longer have to struggle to identify words and are free to pay closer attention to meaning." The Texas curriculum requirements, the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS), state that decodable text should be required for Grades 1, 2, and 3.

Here is where it gets sticky. Apparently the bureaucracy at the TEA (not reading experts) told the textbook publishers that since the TEKS said "most" of the words must be decodable, 51% decodable would be sufficient and that the decodable standard only applied to Grade 1 reading materials.

The publishers were also told by the TEA bureaucracy that a reading textbook would be acceptable for adoption if the student were given only two reading selections of decodable text.

The textbook publishers should have followed the reading research from the scientific/medical community instead of listening to the TEA bureaucracy. Instead, some of the publishers chose to ignore the research and produced decodable text selections with even lower than 51% decodable text, not even extending their decodable text emphasis into Grades 2 and 3.

At least eight of the Texas State Board members are upset because the TEA created their own definition of decodable text without even consulting the board members who are charged with setting curriculum requirements and approving textbooks.

Since $90.5 million is at stake, it is not hard to see that tremendous pressure will be exerted in the coming weeks. It is the taxpayers whose money pays for the textbooks. It is the taxpayers whose children will be the most effected since the K-3 reading adoption will determine the reading abilities of the next generation of Texas' children.

Surely the public cares about the future of its children. Is being a good reader important? Is it important to be able to read medicine bottles, recipes, airport procedures, technical manuals, web pages, baseball cards, newspapers, IRS forms, novels, research reports, health warnings, building codes, campaign literature, historical records, and textbooks?

Gov. George W. Bush, Texas State Board of Education members, Texas legislators, and the Texas Education Agency should be contacted; they all have a responsibility to protect the next generation of Texas' children. The time is very short.

For more information on this situation, see this Texas news article: State Board Says Books May Need More on Phonics - Angry Publishers Insist They Meet Education Panel's Requirements— An article by Terrence Stutz in The Dallas Morning News 10/14/99

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.