Beyond the Smoke and Mirrors

Abstract

Ms. Garan hopes that readers will use her analysis as starting point; take long, hard look at National Reading Panel's Teaching Children to Read; and draw their own conclusions - without - based on research alone. WHEN IT released in April 1999, report of National Reading Panel (NRP) on research on phonics instruction splashed down in midst of wave of controversy. In ensuing philosophical turmoil, I reread with interest Editor's Page in March 1989 issue of Kappan. At that time, many readers vehemently objected to publication of Debunking Great Phonics Myth, Marie Carbo's critique of research base for Jeanne Chall's Learning to Read: The Great Debate. I found it fascinating that respondents tended to react to Carbo's challenge in ways that were in line with their basic philosophies rather than to critique merits of her analysis. For many readers, central issue whether they agreed or disagreed with Chall's findings, rather than whether or not those findings were based on sound research protocols. Indeed, some readers believed that it inappropriate for Carbo to challenge Chall's research at all. They viewed critique as personal attack on Chall herself, and chastised Kappan for publishing article. Editor Pauline Gough responded, It is entirely proper - indeed, essential - for profession to examine its knowledge base at periodic intervals. Without prejudice. . . . We expect physicians to examine their knowledge base - not to rely on intuition - and then to modify their practices accordingly. Should we expect less from educators? . . . Knowledge advances through just such thoughtful give-and-take.1 I remind readers of this advice at outset. Please try to set aside your own beliefs and thoughtfully and without prejudice critique with me research summarized in NRP's subgroup report on phonics. My purpose here is not to engage in never-ending debate over whether code-first (i.e., phonics) or meaning-first instruction works best in teaching reading, perennial issue that bubbles at white-hot center of interminable Reading Wars. Nor do I wish to take sides in ancillary debate over relative merits or demerits of quantitative versus qualitative methods of research. Rather, I request simply that we approach our mission as responsible professionals and ask only, Is NRP report on phonics based on sound research? The following critique answers this question. Background of National Reading Panel In 1997 Congress asked director of National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) to appoint panel to conduct comprehensive investigation of research in field of reading. The NRP charged with compiling report assessing the status of research-based knowledge, including effectiveness of various approaches to teaching children to read, and, if appropriate, with designing a strategy for rapidly disseminating this information to facilitate effective instruction in school. In its 13 April 2000 press release, NRP members and Duane Alexander, director of NICHD, hailed NRP report as landmark contribution to education that clearly articulates most comprehensive review of existing reading research to be undertaken in American education. Donald Langenberg, chair of panel, states that NRP was committed to identifying most reliable research so it can be put into practice in all classrooms in America. The NRP report certainly seems destined to have considerable clout. Backed by Congress and NICHD, it has an unprecedented potential for affecting reading instruction in U.S. Before recommendations of NRP report are put into practice in classrooms, it is vital, then, that we carefully examine its analysis from research perspective and resist temptation to react to findings alone. …