http://ctmirror.org/2016/12/14/troubled ... roversies/
TROUBLED SCHOOLS ON TRIAL: SIXTH OF SEVEN STORIES
SPECIAL EDUCATION DRIVING COSTS AND CONTROVERSIES
by Jacqueline Rabe Thomas
I wrote a 'reader's comment' thus:My opinion is the vast majority of kids are not disabled; they’re instructionally disabled.
— Ellen Cohn, deputy commissioner of the CT State Department of Education
There is a war in Connecticut over how to teach children to read.
On one side are those teachers, principals and other local educators who believe the so-called whole language method is best – an approach that subscribes to the philosophy that children will naturally learn to read if immersed in books, just as they learn to speak English. Advocates believe that by treating reading as a system of words in relationship to one another, unfamiliar words will be picked up from context.
On the other side are other local educators and officials at the State Department of Education, who believe the phonics method is superior – an approach that teaches students to learn letter sounds and sound out words.
“I totally disavow that children will learn to read naturally,” Ellen Cohn, the state’s deputy commissioner of education, testified during a recent school-funding trial in Hartford. “I hope before my career is over the reading wars will end, and the adults’ obsession with philosophies will stop standing in the way of what kids need.”
Thank you for this important piece which I have flagged up via the International Foundation for Effective Reading Instruction here:
http://www.iferi.org/iferi_forum/viewto ... ?f=3&t=706...
The issues outlined in this piece are very important indeed: 'Ain't been taught' (lack of evidence-informed reading instruction which includes systematic synthetic phonics) or lack of early intervention or any intervention - and who gets special education (and why) and who slips through the net (and why). So - the human cost and the financial cost!
There is a simple and immediate solution to taking a look at whether early years and infant teachers are providing effective-enough, research-informed, systematic and explicit phonics teaching - adopt a year one phonics check which can be compared universally with England's statutory Year One Phonics Screening Check results. A year one phonics check is now being considered for trialling in Australia similar to the one used in England.
If the same, or similar, phonics check was used universally wherever the English language is being taught, a snapshot of effectiveness and improvements (or regression) of teaching effectiveness and children's decoding ability would easily be achieved. This would be a wake-up call for many - but it could be used very positively indeed for continuing professional development for all teachers across the world.
This is such a rational and straightforward suggestion that one would have to ask, 'Why wouldn't every school, everywhere English is taught, adopt such a check - the more closely 'similar' or 'the same' the bettter?' You can read about this via the International Foundation For Effective Reading Instruction where recently Dr Jennifer Buckingham has published a paper about recommendations for a phonics check in Australia - another country where literacy standards are not what they could be, or should be, see here:
http://www.iferi.org/iferi_forum/viewto ... ?f=2&t=688
See IFERI's call for the use of a year one phonics check here:
http://www.iferi.org/resources-and-guidance/