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.

How can noneducators, who discover that reading instruction in their public schools follows the "balanced" teaching model, act most effectively to eliminate this pernicious situation? First, educator-advocates of WL's balanced reading must be pressured to provide their critics with the list of experimental studies whose findings they claim confirm WL shared and guided reading methods. If such a list is produced, it should be submitted for critical review to reading instruction specialists who are familiar with, and honor the relevant empirical findings. The National Right to Read Foundation is able to assist in the identification of these reading experts.

Second, if public school officials who favor WL balanced reading teaching cannot or will not supply their critics a list of genuine experimental findings that defend all its aspects, these educrats doubtless know of no such evidence. In short, their adoption of WL reading instruction more than likely is based on subjective opinion, wishful thinking, and/or attempts to be pedagogically fashionable. In that event, this denial of full opportunity for students to learn leaves them vulnerable to reprimand for incompetence from their school boards.

Third, unfortunately, public school boards often are loath to become involved in any such punitive actions regarding low quality of reading instruction their districts provide students. However, as the courts often have reminded citizens who wish to sue school districts for such instructional malpractice, the people have a built-in mode of legal redress available to them in this regard, i.e., the ballot box. It thus is the responsibility of the voting public at school board election time to demand of candidates for this position what are their views on the specific aspects of reading instruction.

Fourth, citizens dismayed at summary rejections by public school administrators, or school boards to their pleas for relief from WL reading teaching must attempt to stimulate other segments of society to take up the struggle. There are many business, social, cultural, veterans, and religious organizations, that may be open to learning about this vital matter, that may be enlisted into putting pressure on school boards to remedy it. One particular thing is sure about this issue: public school bureaucrats who presently require teachers to use experimentally discredited WL reading teaching practices generally are highly resistant to the suggestion that they have used wrong judgment in this respect.

However, it should be remembered in this regard that almost all these educational officials only possess lifetime tenure as teachers. They thus are subject to demotion by school boards to the rank of classroom teachers for failing to administer effective school reading programs.

Fifth, a final means to bypass the logjam against reform in reading instruction, commonly found within the officialdom at public school district centers, has been the establishment of "charter schools." While teacher unions vigorously oppose the formation of these semi-autonomous education service centers, their appearance offers a beacon of hope for proponents of reading instruction that is based on experimental findings. Charter schools can be founded for the express purpose of protecting students from the ravages of WL reading teaching. Thus, these schools presently are the instrument of reading teaching reform that WL advocates fear the most.

References

Regie Routman (1994). Invitations. Portsmouth

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