Nancy Bailey read a list of organizations who were blaming teachers for not adhering to the “science” of reading and thus blaming teachers for NAEP reading scores.
She got steamed and pointed out that none of these individuals or organizations criticizing teachers are known as teachers themselves.
She got so steamed that she names names in this post.
These are the organizations, she says, that have the sheer audacity to blame teachers for what they themselves can’t do!
They write the policies that constrain teachers but take no responsibility when their policies fail.
Busybodies! When are they held accountable?
After listing the groups, she concludes:
This conversation should take place, because something is wrong when parents are unhappy with their child’s schooling. It isn’t a debate that will be won by yelling at each other on social media, but by working together at the school level.
It should include a state department of education in each state that investigates problems and isn’t about getting rid of public education. The U.S. Department of Education should also be working to better address the controversy surrounding reading and what’s behind denying students with reading disabilities their IDEA rights.
Universities should review how they teach reading, but they also shouldn’t be forced by these groups to destroy reading practices that have worked for years.
It is, however, difficult to do this at this time. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, and the previous education secretaries, never taught, never studied reading in a university setting or worked to remediate student difficulties, and have themselves been about the business of destroying schools and de-professionalizing the teaching profession.
If you think the NAEP scores are poor, look at the groups mentioned here. It has been a rigged game for years!

The guilty suspects are the same “reform” foundations and a think tanks that are paid for by the dark money of the 1%. They have the same vested interest in flogging public education ad nauseum. In addition to this post from Bailey, one of her other posts in which describes in detail the rigging of the National Reading Panel. “Classrooms must follow the conclusions of the National Reading Panel, a blue-ribbon panel assembled by Congress in the late 1990s to determine the “status of research-based knowledge, including the effectiveness of various approaches to teaching children to read.” They call it “scientific” reading, but I think of it as applied linguistics. Decoding is not the only thing students need in order to learn to read fluently. They also need to encode and comprehend. Perhaps part of the interest in discrete phonics it that it is easily adapted to a computer based platform. https://nancyebailey.com/2019/10/16/problematic-scientific-based-phonics-the-flawed-national-reading-panel/
Bailey makes a convincing case against ‘explicit systematic phonics’ taught in isolation. As I have said before, students can learn to read from various approaches. Phonics taught in isolation is no more than “barking at sounds.” It is only when those sounds and symbols are connected to meaning that the learner understands what to do with them. Students must master the sound-symbol system in order to become efficient readers. When students learn sounds in context, the system begins to unfold for them. Students need to engage in actual reading for part of any reading lesson. As Krashen has shown, students learn to read by reading, and recreational reading allows students to enjoy it.
LikeLike
« As Krashen has shown, students learn to read by reading, and recreational reading allows students to enjoy it » is so true and due to the deformers – many children especially the most needy no longer have a school librarian and school library. Thanks to deform measures such as « student based budgeting » in Chicago, technology push and elimination of experienced in qualified staff in many places. Sad for children.
LikeLiked by 1 person
When students enjoy reading, they will be much more likely to continue to read throughout their lives. Deform is an anathema to sound practice.
LikeLike
elimination of experience and professional wisdom followed by endless, loud, denigrating blame for those who follow: there is no way to satisfy this vicious attack
LikeLike
The lose of school librarians across all states must have a bearing on the decline of the reading scores. How can children learn to read when reading, and writing instruction, is taught with the final goal being to pass “the test”? Multiple studies have shown that well stocked libraries ran by professional librarians have a positive impact on student achievement – and not just passing the test.
LikeLike
“Perhaps part of the interest in discrete phonics it that it is easily adapted to a computer based platform.” I expect you’re right on the money there (pun intended).
LikeLike
Sorry, BA, I will not allow this insult to a retired teacher to go past moderation.
Retired Teacher earned her stripes in service to children. Where did you earn your right to criticize him or her?
LikeLike
LikeLike
BA,
Sorry, I will not allow you to insult and smear a teacher who comments on this site. You do not know the teacher. You have no right to call him/her names.
Yes, I have supported the teaching of phonics. No, I have not supported a phonics-only approach to teaching reading. The best writer on the subject is the late Jeanne Chall. She supported the teaching of phonics allied with engaging reading material with students moving quickly into the latter.
LikeLike
BA, you troll other readers of the blog. You constantly smear the teaching profession and all teachers. Please stop.
LikeLike
Jeanne Chall, where did she get the idea of phonics-first? Ah, she is native Polish, of course she learned how to read using phonetic method. Rudolf Flesch, where did he get the idea that phonics is the way? He is German, so of course no stupid look-say or whole language in his country. Don’t even mention Russians, they have been using phonetic method for millennia. You suggest late works of Chall? Like The Academic Challenge: What Really Works in the Classroom, published in 2000, after her death? From wikipedia: “In it, she divides American instruction into “child-centered” and “teacher-centered” approaches, suggesting that the 20th century was dominated by the former (discovery approaches) in spite of the research that supported a later theory (explicit teaching).” In this I wholeheartedly support her. But it seems that she did not write anything important regarding phonics after her 1967 Learning to Read: the Great Debate. This book, as wikipedia says, “quickly became a classic. Major textbook publishers reacted by emphasizing more phonics earlier in their series.” So it if phonics first. But no one says that phonics excludes good literature. So, I am on the same page with her.
LikeLike
Jeanne Chall did not learn about phonics by being born in Poland. She first started school at the age of 7 in the New York City public schools. When she started public school, she didn’t speak any English, only Yiddish, the language of her home. She learned to read in the public schools.
LikeLike
I wrote the blog post and worked with children with reading disabilities for years in a resource class. I like Chall’s book Learning to Read: The Great Debate which I think was first written in 1967. It is a classic. I believe phonics is helpful to students with learning disabilities, although I’m not so sure about students with auditory discrimination difficulties. Most children likely benefit from some phonics, but some more than others. I practiced phonics sounds in third grade AFTER I learned to read. I do pretty well and love to read.
Also in the Reading League tape a special ed. teacher says he only learned about whole language. I had an entirely different experience in the 80s and early 90s. Every new phonics program was rolled out as being the miracle program in my school district. Herman, SRA, Morphograph Spelling, and more. It might have been somewhat helpful, but I found other methods to work too, especially getting children excited about reading. I liked Scholastic materials which included Scholastic Scope magazines. My students couldn’t wait to read those stories. My point is, phonics hasn’t been missing in all school districts. This controversy has been around for years.
LikeLike
Sandy Dixon Forrest Recipe for sucking in public tax money and making obscene profits on the backs of public school teachers and students: FINANCE inappropriate “standards” to be implemented by all teachers, REQUIRE the use of products which financially benefit the creator of the “goals,” SMILE as hired “cheerleaders” tout the benefits of the mandated program, BEAM proudly as profits roll into the companies producing the “magic” solution, CRINGE privately at dismal results, REWRITE the “cheerleader” script, AND THEN…drum roll, please.. BLAME the teachers for disappointing results of the non-educators’ (but obscenely wealthy) magic elixir to cure the problems of all public school students. RESULTS?! The sponsors of this hoax made buckets of money! Wave goodbye to the career teachers; TFA folks are cheaper and more (desperate) cooperative anyway. Don’t worry about the kiddos; just give them a double dose of grit. It’s all good…right?
1
LikeLike
Like!
LikeLike
Well said.
LikeLike
The perfect dose of sarcasm for the big hoax!
LikeLike
No campaign contributions?
LikeLike
Please, please, please, can we stop using the word “kiddos”?
LikeLike
You do realize that the use of “kiddos” fits in with the decidedly snarky tone of the response. I went through the entire post looking for the term only to find it used perfectly appropriately in a response to the post. Is that really the only thing of value you had to say?
LikeLike
I’m sorry –I just find the term cloying. I’d love to see it taken out of use.
LikeLike
i can relate to that.
LikeLike
Gosh, you have this down, Ms. Forrest!!! With such a profound understanding of Deform methodology, you could be pulling down the big bucks working for Achieve or Chiefs for Change or Thomas B Fordham or The Emerson Collective or the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (“All your base are belong to us”)!
LikeLike
Right on the money!
LikeLike
To repeat myself (I’ll have to pay myself a royalty, eh):
“Why care about the completely invalid NAEP scores? So much blather about a nothingness.”
LikeLike
Love the CCSS-ELA cite in Baiey’s blog post– she underlines its foolishness by refraining from comment. But I will! It’s a perfect example of what’s wrong with those stds.. Not because it’s “phonics” per se, but because here (as everywhere, right up to 10th-11th grade stds), an organic process is broken into teeny pieces, each elevated to “skill” level. Learning as seen through the eyes of a software developer.
LikeLike
I love that pt. Thank you.
LikeLike
Had just thought of CCSS as Skinner and task analysis resurgency. Your point about making standards computer ready really resonated with me. Gives a practical reason for this nonsense.
LikeLike
Hi, Diane, you asked whether I know about every teacher. No, I do not. But I know at least eleven of them who cannot tell phonics from crap that does not work.
LikeLike
So you have actually met 11 teachers and that gives you the right to smear every one of America’s millions of teachers.
Very poor example of critical thinking.
As I earlier said, substitute “Jews” or “gays” or “blacks” or “Hispanics” for the word “teachers,” and you qualify as a bigot,
LikeLike
It gives me right to question the system. Look-say aka whole language aka balanced literacy is a system promoted by NCTE and used in many schools. Groupwork, calculators and inquiry is a method promoted by NCTM and used in many schools. Common Core is followed in many schools. NGSS is followed – it is hard to follow it really, but still – in many schools. For the lack of central Ministry of Education these half-baked theories and “standards” are used throughout public schools. They are crappy. They don’t work. This means the system is broken. Teachers are the part of this system. They are educated, however badly, by the system. They promulgate the wrong or non-working ideas of the system.
LikeLike
I don’t care if you criticize methods or systems. I care very much when you smear all teachers as incompetent and all American students as stupid. And when you smear other readers of the blog.
I won’t have it.
LikeLike
Where is the best chance to meet anti-vaxxers? Duh, in a pharmacist’s office.
LikeLike
Where is the best place to meet ignarrogant teacher-bashers? (Apart from Betsy DeVos’ office)
Duh. On Diane Ravitch’s blog.
Ignarrogance
I know eleven teachers
And that’s what makes me smart
I yell at them from bleachers
But never take a part
LikeLike
Thanks, SDP. I bet you could find many more on other blogs, such as The 74 and Education Post. Or even in the comments on Valerie Strauss’s blog, which are horrible.
LikeLike
“It seems to me a plain fact that the word method consists essentially of treating children as if they were dogs. It is not a method of teaching at all; it is clearly a method of animal training. It’s the most inhuman, mean, stupid way of foisting something on a child’s mind” (Rudolf Flesch, 1955, p.126).
LikeLike
Some children learn to read well by the word method, others do not.
A wise teacher knows a variety of methods and when to use them for different children.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Are we talking about rote memorization of words as a method of learning to read? I know I started with Dick and Jane back in the day, but a lot more went on than memorizing, “See Spot run.” When my ability to read “took off” it wasn’t because I had developed some magical ability to recognize visual patterns and apply them to all written language. Reading requires attaching sounds to symbols. It also requires that we attach meaning to those sounds. However, I find the whole war between phonics and whole language silly. Each emphasizes the importance of a different aspect. Both teach all elements if a child is ever to really learn to read.
LikeLike
I learned to read from the Dick & Jane readers when I was in public schools. They worked for some, not for all. No single method works for all. That’s why teachers need the flexibility to use different approaches and methods to fit the needs of their students. Some will learn easily with one method, some with another, and some need individual tutoring.
LikeLiked by 1 person
speduktr, whole language is not a method. At best, it is a philosophy: “Highlight authentic speech & literacy events; provide choices for learners; communicate a sense of trust in the learners; empower all participants as teachers and learners; encourage risk taking; promote collaboration in developing the curriculum; be multimodal in nature; capitalize on the social nature of learning; encourage reflection.” Ugh, it is a soup of edu-jargonisms and cannot be used for instruction. Phonics, on the other hand, has clear steps that teach reading. Not comprehending, but reading, that is, decoding. Comprehending is not part of reading. If you don’t know what acetylsalicylic acid means, it does not matter whether you’ve read it or heard it. But if you can decode you can at least pronounce it.
LikeLike
“If you don’t know what acetylsalicylic acid means, it does not matter whether you’ve read it or heard it. But if you can decode you can at least pronounce it.”
Have you heard of echolalia? Look it up. Phonics is NOT reading. Reading without comprehension is akin to visual echolalia.
I was trying to figure out what you were trying to say with the whole word approach. The closest I could come was whole language, a “philosophy” you apparently have neither studied nor practiced.
LikeLike
There’s also no reason to ignore sight words while teaching sounds and their connections. I’d give every child a copy of Richard Scarry’s Best Word Book Ever.
LikeLike
Sight words are an essential part of learning to read since not all the most frequently used words follow neat phonetic rules. As I said before, I really don’t understand the war between phonics and (here in the Illinois, BA)whole language (not whole word). Since my work was with special ed students who frequently struggled with reading to some degree for a myriad of different reasons, you name it, I have probably used it. My oldest son loved Richard Scarry!
LikeLike
Thanks for pointing to Jeanne Chall, I did not know about her.
— quote starts
In 1983, Dr. Chall wrote a blistering review of a scholarly book, ”On Learning to Read” (Knopf, 1982), by the psychologists Bruno Bettelheim and Karen Zelan.
The Bettelheim-Zelan book, which had been almost universally praised by other professional educators, argued that the ability to decode words need not be taught but instead was intuitive, resulting without effort from the reading of imaginative, interesting stories. Accordingly, the authors said, the cure for the decline in reading scores was more entertaining and engaging primers.
Dr. Chall scorned that argument, maintaining that ”comparisons of different beginning-reading methods over the past 70 years have found that methods that teach decoding earlier and more systematically produce better word recognition as well as better reading comprehension.”
Dr. Chall also vigorously supported phonics, the method of teaching beginners to read by having them associate certain letters with the sounds those letters represent.
Many experts have de-emphasized phonics over the last two decades and instead adopted the whole-language approach, in which reading is taught through context rather than recognition of the alphabet. But Dr. Chall said her research showed that knowledge of the alphabet and familiarity with the sounds that make up words were crucial.
— quote ends
Oh, and regarding her starting school in the U.S. She was 7 at that time. I could not find that she knew only Yiddish and learned to read in an American public school. I bet she learned to read at the age of about 4. I am also sure that her parents knew phonetic method and taught her accordingly, just like any Eastern-European immigrant parents do.
LikeLike
You can read Jeanne Chall’s bio on Wikipedia.
She spoke only Yiddish until she started at a NYC public school.
“ Born in Poland, Chall migrated at the age of seven to New York City with her family. Unlike her older siblings, Chall began her schooling in the US and ultimately helped to teach her parents English so that they could pass their citizenship exams.”
Jeanne Chall was a dear friend of mine. She was a scholar, not a zealot like you.
I agree that phonics is important. However my own children learned to read at the age of 4 as a result of being read to again and again, by me, every night. They loved reading and being read to. They learned without phonics. So did I. I learned from the Dick and Jane readers that Rudolf Flesch despised.
Take it easy. BA. Give your crusade a rest.
LikeLike
Phonatical
BA’s a phonatic
Zealot for the phonics
Really quite emphatic
After gin and tonics
LikeLike
Incidentally, as far as we know (unless she was faking) , Hellen Keller also learned to read without phonics.
Of course she also learned without the sight method.
She is probably the best argument that there is no one best way to learn reading for everyone.
LikeLike
Agreed. Different children learn in different ways. Wise teachers know this. Members of Congress and state legislatures do not.
LikeLiked by 1 person
BTW, I also dislike Dick and Jane and love Dr. Seuss (bet you can’t tell), but that’s just me.
LikeLike
Among the highlights of my life was attending a dinner at the home of the publisher of Random House and sitting next to Theodor Geisl, aka Dr. Seuss.
LikeLike
A note of clarification.
My dislike is for the Dick and Jane readers, not Dick and Jane personally (although there might be something about being named Dick that tends to make people behave in a certain way: Tricky Dick, Dick Cheney, but one probably can’t read too much into a name. After all, Donald is also the name of a beloved duck.
LikeLike
WWHKS?
Helen Keller learned to read
Not from phonics, not from tweet
Not from any standard way
What would Helen Keller say?
LikeLike
Same with deaf children. I don’t know sign language, so I have no idea of the process of translating it into visual symbols. Helen Keller would have been translating Braille using a kinesthetic method. Fascinating!
LikeLike
I and my siblings might as well have had Dr. Seuss over for dinner at our house every night. We all grew up on his books.
In my opinion, he is the greatest American poet.
LikeLike
My children’s first book, as they learned to read at home, was Dr. Seuss’s “Hop on Pop.” They memorized it with no prompting by me. One of my favorites is Dr. Seuss’ “Happy Birthday to You.” I can recite the opening lines from memory. I cited “Solla Sollew” in one of my books as a reformer fantasy that somewhere out there is a place they “they never have troubles, at least very few.”
LikeLike
Robert Frost is no slouch, but comes in second.
LikeLike
The Twitter Writing Method
Donald Trump has learned to write
Stupid tweets in dead of night
Hopefully it ain’t a sign
Of things to come, it ain’t benign
LikeLike
Language Regression
Cavemen didn’t have a lot to say
But they had a better way
Grunts and moans can beat the tweets:
Murmuring of nothing sweets
LikeLike
Language Regression (take 2)
Cavemen hadn’t much to say
But they had a better way
Grunts and moans can beat the tweets
Murmuring of nothing sweets
LikeLike
I don’t know anyone who looks to Bruno Bettleheim as an authority on reading, nor do I know anyone who teaches reading without even teaching the alphabet. Ridiculous.
LikeLike
Any child that learned to read from Dr. Seuss learned phonics. They just did not (necessarily) have direct instruction in it. They internalized the sound symbol relationship without instruction. That’s why most preschool programs spend so much time on rhyming activities, among other pre-reading skills. The whole language approach used in my school district incorporated a slew of such activities. Believe it or not, they also had some direct instruction in phonics! Guessing at words from context was not seen as the path to reading.
LikeLike
Great pt. speduktr and Diane. Rhyming with Seuss. It’s a FUN way to learn phonics keeping a child coming back for more.
Bruno Bettleheim was discredited for his ideas on children with emotional difficulties. He blamed mothers for autism, calling them “refrigerator mothers.”
Here’s more. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruno_Bettelheim
LikeLike
Dr. Seuss was a great educator.
In my home, we all loved his books, starting with Hop on Pop and on to the Cat in the Hat.
Nice world, when kids could watch Mr. Rogers on TV and read Dr. Seuss at home.
And no one brought guns to school.
LikeLike
I am surprised that someone is surprised by this. Whole Language is just the same faith-based teaching, has been used for decades. Nothing new.
“I agree that phonics is important. However my own children learned to read at the age of 4 as a result of being read to again and again, by me, every night. They loved reading and being read to. They learned without phonics. So did I.” — the litmus test of reading ability would be to ask a 4-year old who allegedly has learned to read, to read a word like “gladiolus” or “maculature” or “absorbent” or “acetaminophen”, nothing fancy. If he cannot read it, then he cannot read, period. If you or you children were able to read these words then you and they learned phonetic properties of letters and letter combinations by experience, which is not impossible, but highly ineffective. Children with disabilities as well as ESL students are taught using phonics, as you know, I am sure. Why? Because it is much simpler to learn 44 letter combinations for making different sounds, than to learn zillion of separate words.
I am disappointed with your appeasement of anti-phonics group with “different children learn in different ways.” Labitur enitens sellis herere duabus.
LikeLike
Oops, the first paragraph should not be there.
LikeLike
It is not 44 letter combinations; it is 44 sounds. There are many letter combinations for those 44 sounds. And sometimes the same combination of letters make a different sound: ought, rough, through, though. I am sure you can come up with many more examples. That’s why a controlled vocabulary in early reading is important. You would be hard pressed to find a four year old who could read your examples even if they were learning by a strictly phonetic approach. You obviously have little idea what you are talking about.
LikeLike
Yes, I meant letter combinations for 44 sounds. I know enough to know that phonics works and look-see does not. BTW, the words that I suggested as an example have straightforward pronunciation, no “rough” or “though”. What is important that you know this, since you are a licensed educator.
LikeLike
BA, are you a licensed educator?
LikeLike
Your example words are still not words that any four year old would be likely to “zip through,” and, frankly, who cares if s/he has no idea what s/he is saying. Comprehension is a necessary component of reading. Word calling is an absolutely useless skill without understanding.
LikeLike
BA knows how teachers ought to teach but refuses to say whether he is a teacher or has ever taught or has any knowledge other than opinion.
LikeLike
BA is not speaking about reading from the place of a professionally credentialed teacher with experience in reading instruction.
LikeLike
Both approaches are important to the development of literacy. A phonetic approach, whether through direct instruction or not, is essential to learning how to read since our language is phonetic. Look-say is also essential for those sight words frequently used in early reading instruction that do not follow an easily recognizable sound/symbol pattern. “Something” is the first big word I learned. Phonics would not have led me to recognize the word as a beginning reader, but you can tell how proud I was of learning it by the fact that I remember that experience over 60 years later.
LikeLike
speduktr, I think we are on the same page. Sight words are just exceptions to a rule. OTOH, while “some” is a sight word, “something” should not be.
Regarding a claim that there may be different strategies, all kids learn differently, the teacher knows best, I am urging Ms. Ravitch to publicly renounce her support for non-phonics instruction and stop appeasing balanced literacy zealots.
Regarding professionally credentialed teachers, the credentials themselves do not mean much if the approach is flawed. Quoting from At a Loss for Words: “I reached out to the superintendent’s office to ask about [getting rid of cueing]. A spokesperson said in a statement that there’s not yet enough evidence from the pilot project to make curriculum changes for the entire district. The district remains committed to the curriculum materials it has invested in. Oakland’s situation is no different from many other school districts across the country that have invested millions of dollars in materials that include three-cueing.”
Click to access at-a-loss-for-words.pdf
https://player.fm/series/apm-reports-documentaries-1318967/at-a-loss-for-words-whats-wrong-with-how-schools-teach-reading
LikeLike
While we may agree that English is a phonetically based language, we do not agree on one and only one of teaching reading. You declared at one point that any four year old who could not decode a couple of ridiculously inappropriate words for the vocabulary of a four year old could not read. A four year old would not even use the words in speech! But if we follow your reasoning, a child who does not articulate the sounds of a word accurately (and, from what I understand you are saying, ANY word) is not speaking! You divorce the act of reading from comprehension! In my experience as a special education teacher, phonics is frequently an important part of reading instruction, but it is far from the only component and in some instances plays a subordinate role if not an unnecessary component. I have worked with people from first grade through adulthood. I hope you would agree that the needs of such a diverse group of readers might possibly be different.
LikeLike