by Kim Sadler

Kim Sadler and her family live in St. Petersburg, Florida. She hopes that her story and experience will encourage other parents to "step up to the plate" and help return scientific research based reading instruction to their schools.

"There were so many late nights at the computer, so many hours on the phone, and so many family dinners consisting of cheeseburgers at MacDonald's. I never doubted what I was doing nor why I was doing it, but I got tired of a lot of the time. I felt that mine was the proverbial voice in the wilderness....equipped with knowledge and a strong desire to protect our children, parents can and must make a difference in our public schools."

In August of 1992, only days after the beginning of the school year, parents of kindergarten students received a letter from their local board of education office which contained the following statements: "In the past, reading (or prereading) in kindergarten primarily centered around learning the alphabet and the sounds of letters. In conjunction, writing instruction was thought simply to be teaching children to make letters correctly. We now know there is a better way."

The letter went on to say that, because of a recent county-wide change of language arts curricula in grades K-3, parents needed to expect to see changes in the type of work that their children would be doing. Among these changes, instead of skill sheets, parents would see "real" work planned and executed by their children. No workbooks would be used. Phonetic instruction would no longer be taught in isolation but rather it would be integrated with all other aspects of teaching beginning reading. Students would be urged to write about what was important to them, even if that writing consisted of scribbles, pictures, or "inventive" spelling. Three or four times a day, teachers would read from "quality children's literature" and students in return would be allowed to "read" to their teachers, re-telling the stories and using context clues.

Most interesting about the letter were several references to the "research conducted in the last few years regarding how children acquire language and literacy telling us that children do not learn through isolated instruction but through natural language used for real purposes."

What the letter did not say was as alarming as what it did say. Hidden beneath a blanket of "research findings" and positivism was the fact that young students were being taught to read and write via a whole language-based curriculum.

The Better Way

As parents of a kindergarten student, my husband, Jim, and I were concerned about the "better way" which was now mandated throughout our school district. With our concern, however, came the stark realization of our own ignorance of the philosophy which undergirds whole language and the techniques associated with its implementation.

Believing strongly that the ability to read and to write accurately is the foundation for all future learning, and that explicit and systematic phonetic instruction must be an essential part of beginning reading programs, Jim and I began to weave our way though a maze of teacher conferences, principal conferences, the offices of curriculum and instructional coordinators, and the office of superintendent.

At every stop, we asked the same question, "Where is the statistical data (reading scores, longitudinal studies, etc.) that was used to support the decision to shift to a whole language-based curriculum at beginning reading levels?"

Not Alone

As we began to do our own research, we noticed others in the county asking the same question. Some were parents, some were grandparents, some were teachers, and some were simply interested citizens, concerned about how their tax dollars were being spent. By early October, twelve of us met for the first time to share concerns and to review information that Jim and I had collected to date. With the strong support of those in attendance and a deep breath, the decision was made at that meeting to pursue that matter with our school district. Strategies were established to determine the quality of our research, as well as the quality of our relationship with the school system as we entered into an extremely unfamiliar, and potentially volatile, arena.

Getting Help

Amazed by the school system's lack of cooperation in providing the answer to our question, we found it necessary to go far beyond our own backyard. We sought help from the U. S. Department of Education, The National Right to Read Foundation, the National Reading Research Center at the University of Georgia, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and "bell-weather" school districts across the country.

We engaged in countless phone conferences with teachers, speech therapists, psychologists, and text book publishers, to name a few. Through personal conversations, we sought the wisdom of many well-respected experts in the field of reading including Steven Stahl, Samuel Blumenfeld, and Patrick Groff.

We also began a serious reading campaign which took us through the culmination of years of research found in such landmark studies as "Becoming A Nation of Readers," "Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning About Print," and, "Learning to Read: The Great Debate."

In addition to our technical documents, we also read "lay" books on the subject of teaching beginning reading. Why Johnny Can't Read and Why Johnny Still Can't Read by Rudolph Flesch became essential references. Indeed, as our research continued, what began as a "gut feeling" emerged as a scientifically substantiated fact: children whose beginning reading experiences include explicit and systematic phonetic instruction become and remain the best readers.

Armed With Truth

Equipped with facts, not emotion, our group whose core members meeting monthly now numbered near twenty-five, continued to ask for the statistical data used by our school board to make this very critical decision. As we approached the Christmas holidays, two things became clear. First, there was no scientific data in house. Second, we were meeting with significant resistance from key members of the administration and its upper level staff as we continued to publicly press for an explanation. A decision was made to open our meetings to the local press in the hope of continuing to educate parents as well as increasing local awareness of the issue.

As small articles began to appear in the papers, the number of phone calls from interested and/or concerned parents increased dramatically, and attendance at our monthly meetings rose to record numbers. It was no surprise that the vast majority of people were concerned and confused by this "better way" of teaching reading and writing, and in many cases had questioned teachers and principals, but had received the same response we had received in the fall - "trust us."

Confronting the School Board

In light of the scientific data we had been able to amass, trust was no longer an option for most of us. As such, we requested, and were granted, a slot on the agenda at the March school board meeting.

Our goal was not, nor had it ever been, to demand anything. Nor did we ever expect to see the present curricula replaced because of the enormity of the recent expense to purchase and implement it. Our goal was simply to ensure that all children in public schools be given the opportunity to become the best readers they could be in the shortest amount of time possible.

And that meant the inclusion of explicit and systematic phonetic instruction into our present curricula by whatever means necessary.

A Crack in the Wall

We were lucky. The curriculum used at the kindergarten level as well as that used in grades one through three contained a phonetic facet; therefore, we did not face what many school districts across the country are facing today: curricula void of any recognizable phonetic aspect what-so-ever.

Our problem was the phonetic instruction was regarded as discretionary instruction from teacher to teacher, classroom to classroom. In addition, many teachers had not received sufficient in-service training and were having great difficulty executing the curriculum (which is extremely sophisticated) on a daily basis.

In addition, we faced a more silent problem. In the name of "progressive education," teachers were directed to abandon their traditional view of isolated phonetic instruction and the value therein, and to adhere strictly to the integrated approach established by the curriculum; consequently, our teacher did not have the encouragement, the permission, nor the materials to teach reading from a phonetic perspective. Those who chose to retain the more traditional approach knew that they were placing themselves under scrutiny.

Organizing the Game Plan

For reasons beyond my comprehension, I had found myself in a position of leadership. I willingly shared much of this responsibility with my husband and a special friend named George who had a child in the first grade and who also refused to stand by and do nothing as children were being denied the right to acquire the most fundamental skill necessary to become accurate readers, namely the ability to sound out words.

As our appearance before the Board drew near, the three of us met repeatedly to build the briefing which George would give on behalf of all concerned parents. Our presentation had to be professional in nature and as non-threatening as possible. It had to be easily understood by those present who did not have a background in beginning reading programs. And most importantly, it had to be based on facts, not emotion.

Stepping Up to the Plate

On March 9, the culmination of seven months of intensive research, conferences, phone calls, parent meetings, newspaper articles and interviews came together for forty-five minutes in a standing-room-only school board chamber.

After presenting the Chairman of the School Board with a well thought out compilation of our research to be examined by all members at a later time, George carefully explained that our concern, and the concern of the 436 people who had previously signed a letter to the superintendent, was based on the overwhelming evidence that phonetic instruction had to be explicit and systematic. Because our elementary schools were implementing curricula that did not include this approach, we as parents and taxpayers could not be expected to be satisfied with the status quo. It was pointed out to the Board, however, that we agreed that a whole language-based curriculum did have a specific value in the areas of undergirding the love of reading in children and in providing a far more creative environment for literature-related education to occur.

It was our contention that, again based on solid research, the best way to teach children to read included a combination of strategies from both camps. What was not apparent in the research was that systematic phonetic instruction should be relegated to a position of discretionary. In summation, the Board was assured that parents wanted to maintain a partnership with the school system to ensure the highest quality of education for all children and that parents did, in fact, have a responsibility to do so.

The Board Reacts

To say that there was only a slight reaction to our presentation would be an understatement. Most Board members sat quietly as they chewed on the over-all content. It appeared that despite our effort to keep our briefing simple, the thrust of it had eluded them. In an attempt to respond in a constructive manner, however, our superintendent declared that a public hearing on the issue seemed to be in order and that a date and time would be announced in the near future. We were pleased that the system wanted to continue to dialog not only with parents but with teachers and community members as well.

Preparing For the Hearing

In the days and weeks that led up to the public hearing, we continued to meet with parents and members of the press who were watching carefully to see whether or not this group (which had come to be known by many names, not all of which were complimentary) was going to accomplish anything more than making noise and rattling a few cages.

During this time, we also distributed more than 400 professionally produced fliers throughout the county in an attempt to inform the public of the hearing since the school system's contribution was no more than a short paragraph in one edition of the local paper. A radio station was kind enough to do a public service announcement for us. We referred to this as our "rubber hitting the road" phase.

The Hearing

It worked. Between two and three hundred people attended the hearing that night in mid-April. Tension was high as people found their seats. The room seemed to be fairly evenly divided into the "we's" and the "they's", but that was all right because the door was still opened for dialog, and we intended to walk through it.

The hearing lasted nearly three hours during which time the crowd made its way to the microphone to voice its concern over our support for the whole language approach to teaching beginning reading. There was no doubt that the vast majority of those willing to speak publicly were very concerned. Again, the board members and the superintendent sat restlessly at times, but the tone of the evening remained civil. As the hearing drew to a close, our superintendent approached the microphone. The words, "we hear you" echoed throughout the auditorium and in my heart. He went on to say that it appeared that perhaps there were some problems in the areas of implementation, teacher in-service training, and attitudes. He agreed publicly to significantly increase teacher training, make supplemental materials available to any teacher who requested them, and make sure that the necessary attitude adjustments were made throughout the system.

It was especially meaningful to me that he and I were the last ones to leave the auditorium that night. We exchanged a silent handshake and a nod as we walked through the doors to the parking lot. And in that moment, I knew that there existed one rag-tag group of parents that had made a difference.

Looking Back

Was it a hard year? Yes. The title of this article was very deliberate. But because I strongly urge all parents to step into the arena where the meat of their child's education exists, I don't often focus on the sacrifices that are inherently a part of that level of involvement. What I do focus on are the lasting benefits that result and are left behind as a legacy to all children.

Proven methods of teaching and basic academic skills need not be abandoned in the name of progressive education. As America's public school system faces the most comprehensive restructuring in its history, it is essential for parents to understand that their formal involvement is not only reasonable but is critical. It is the key to ensuring that every child will in fact become all that he can possibly be.

It does not take a college degree to make a difference in our schools. A teaching certificate is not necessary nor is a background in child psychology. All it takes is a desire to do it simply because it is the right thing to do.

Was it an easy year? No. Would I do it all over again? Absolutely!

NRRF Note: This essay and the following essay, "A Time For Action", were originally published in the "Right to Read Report" in 1993, but we know from the first hand accounts we receive, that exactly the same circumstances exist today in thousands of schools around the country. In "A Time For Action", Kim outlines a specific strategy, based on her own experience, that anyone can follow to successfully lobby their school board.

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