Knowledge Deficits: The True Crisis in Education

Abstract

You have accessThe ASHA LeaderFrom My Perspective1 May 2007Knowledge Deficits: The True Crisis in Education Alan G. Kamhi Alan G. Kamhi Google Scholar More articles by this author https://doi.org/10.1044/leader.FMP.12072007.28 SectionsAbout ToolsAdd to favorites ShareFacebookTwitterLinked In There has been no shortage of explanations and solutions for the persistently poor reading levels of our nation’s school children over the last 30 years. Although some progress has been made—reading levels were lower in the early 1970s than they are today and the gap between Hispanic, black, and white children has decreased over the last 13 years—the proportion of children reading below the basic level has hovered around 35% in the last 25 years, and 70% never attain reading proficiency (NAEP, 2007). As Congress prepares for the reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, everyone with any interest in our nation’s students is offering opinions on who or what is to blame for the continuing lack of progress and how to fix the problem. The most frequent targets are teachers (poorly trained), schools (not conducive for learning), students (large numbers who are disadvantaged, are second-language learners, or have learning disabilites), assessment instruments (low state standards), and instructional methods. The respective solutions are to provide better teacher training and school learning environments, devise more rigorous assessments, and use evidence-based instructional methods. These solutions might have some impact on reading achievement levels, but as long as the “broad view” of reading is reflected in high-stakes assessment, our efforts to dramatically improve reading levels in the United States will have the same lackluster effect as our efforts over the last 25 to 30 years. The broad view of reading is familiar to most people and accepted by almost everyone. Reading, according to this view, consists of two basic components—word recognition and comprehension (Perfetti, 1986). “Thinking guided by print” is a succinct definition of reading according to the broad view. The fundamental problem with the broad view of reading is that it encompasses two very different abilities—word recognition (word-level reading) and comprehension. Word recognition is a teachable skill; comprehension is not a skill and is not easily taught. Word recognition is teachable because it involves a narrow scope of knowledge (e.g., letters, sounds, words) and processes (decoding) that, once acquired, will lead to fast, accurate word recognition. There are numerous evidence-based instructional programs that effectively teach word-level reading to all students except those with the most severe disabilities (cf. National Reading Panel, 2000), and some of these students can be taught word-reading skills with intensive phonic programs (cf. Torgesen, Otaiba, & Grek, 2005). Comprehension, in contrast, is not a skill; it is a complex of higher-level mental processes that include thinking, reasoning, imagining, and interpreting. Comprehension is difficult to teach because these processes are domain- or content-specific rather than domain- or content-general. This is why the best predictor of comprehension is familiarity with a content domain (Hirsch, 2006; Willingham, 2006), not strategy-based instruction as many people believe (NRP, 2000). Familiarity with the content of a passage is, in fact, so important that poor decoders do better than good decoders when they have more knowledge of the topic (e.g., Recht & Leslie, 1988). Because comprehension is knowledge-dependent, instructional approaches that target general strategies will have limited impact on measures of reading that include diverse content domains (Willingham, 2006). Hirsch’s (2006) solution to address the nation’s reading crisis and improve reading performance is to provide elementary-school children with a knowledge-based core curriculum. His Core Knowledge Foundation has made inroads in developing and implementing a core curriculum in schools throughout the country. The results of these programs are promising, but our nation is unlikely to embrace a core curriculum. As the response to NCLB as shown, most federal initiatives to mandate curriculum changes are met with resistance at state and local levels. My solution to the reading crisis is no more likely to be embraced than Hirsch’s or any other, but unlike other ones, mine costs nothing, requires no significant changes in teacher training, new measures of reading, new instructional programs, or new legislation. It simply requires rejecting the broad view of reading and embracing the “narrow view” of reading. Unlike the broad view, which conflates reading and comprehension, the narrow view restricts the scope of reading to word recognition. By limiting reading to word recognition, the focus is on a skill that can be taught to every typically developing child and to most students with language and learning disabilities. By embracing the narrow view, we can eliminate our nation’s obsession with something that cannot be easily taught—domain-general comprehension and reasoning. Comprehension and reasoning will remain important educational goals, but they will be taught in domain-specific content areas and called by their rightful names (American/European history, biology/chemistry, geometry/algebra, contemporary fiction/drama) as they are in colleges and universities. If state and national assessments distinguish between word-level reading and content knowledge acquisition, the reading crisis will be over. Reading proficiency levels should reach a minimum of 90%. Anything less will not be acceptable, given the numerous research- supported instructional programs that effectively teach word-level reading (NRP, 2000). The benefits of the narrow view of reading are far-reaching. Teachers benefit by being able to teach content areas without concerns about how students perform on conflated measures of reading. Students benefit by the differentiated assessment of reading and content-area learning, particularly those with adequate word-reading skills who are poor comprehenders. These students will now be viewed as attaining reading proficiency, and remediation can focus on addressing the difficulties these students have in learning specific content areas. Most importantly, the narrow view will focus attention on the true crisis in American education—knowledge deficits. As a recent report (Pianta, Belsky, Houts, & Morrison, 2007) has shown, teachers spend too much time on basic math and reading and not enough time on content areas such as science and social studies. Knowledge acquisition needs to become the primary goal of education. Reading, we need to remember, is just one way to acquire knowledge. There are many others. Let our educational debates focus on the best way to assess and teach content knowledge. References Hirsch E.D. (2006). The knowledge deficit: Closing the shocking education gap for American children. New York: Houghton Mifflin. Google Scholar National Assessment of Education Progress (2005). Long-term trend: National trends in reading by performance levels. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/ltt/performance-levels.asp. Google Scholar National Reading Panel (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Washington, DC. Google Scholar Perfetti C. (1986). Cognitive and linguistic components of reading ability.In Foorman B. & Siegel A. (Eds.), Acquisition of reading skills (pp. 1–41). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Google Scholar Pianta R., Belsky J., Houts R., & Morrison F. (2007). Teaching: Opportunities to learn in American classrooms.Science, 315, 1795–1796. Google Scholar Recht D., & Leslie L. (1988). Effect of prior knowledge on good and poor readers’ memory of text.Journal of Educaitonal Psychology, 80, 16–20. Google Scholar Torgesen J., Otaiba S., & Grek M. (2005). Assessment and instruction for phonemic awareness and word recognition skills.In Catts H. & Kamhi A. (Eds.), Reading and language disabilities. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Google Scholar Willingham D. (2006). How knowledge helps: It speeds and strengths reading comprehension, learning-and thinking. American Educator, Spring 2006, 1–12. Google Scholar Willingham D. (2006). The usefulness of brief instruction in reading comprehension strategies.American Educator, Winter 2006/07, 39–50. Google Scholar Author Notes Alan G. Kamhi, is a professor in the Department of Communicative Sciences and Disorders at the University of North Carolina-Greensboro. He has published widely in the areas of speech, language, and reading. Contact him at [email protected]. Advertising Disclaimer | Advertise With Us Advertising Disclaimer | Advertise With Us Additional Resources FiguresSourcesRelatedDetailsCited ByAmerican Journal of Speech-Language Pathology24:4 (619-636)1 Nov 2015Tier 2 Language Intervention for Diverse Preschoolers: An Early-Stage Randomized Control Group Study Following an Analysis of Response to InterventionTrina D. Spencer, Douglas B. Petersen and John L. AdamsPerspectives on Communication Disorders and Sciences in Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CLD) Populations21:1 (5-21)1 Apr 2014Narrative Assessment and Intervention: A Clinical Tutorial on Extending Explicit Language Instruction and Progress Monitoring to All StudentsDouglas Petersen and Trina D. SpencerLanguage, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools40:2 (196-200)1 Apr 2009Fluency: A Key Link Between Word Identification and ComprehensionAnthony S. Bashir and Pamela E. HookLanguage, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools40:2 (184-191)1 Apr 2009A Case for the Sentence in Reading ComprehensionCheryl M. ScottLanguage, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools40:2 (192-195)1 Apr 2009Looking Through an Adolescent Literacy Lens at the Narrow View of ReadingBarbara J. EhrenLanguage, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools40:2 (212-215)1 Apr 2009Solving the Reading Crisis—Take 2: The Case for Differentiated AssessmentAlan G. KamhiLanguage, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools40:2 (174-177)1 Apr 2009The Case for the Narrow View of ReadingAlan G. Kamhi Volume 12Issue 7May 2007 Get Permissions Add to your Mendeley library History Published in print: May 1, 2007 Metrics Downloaded 1,377 times Topicsasha-topicsleader_do_tagleader-topicsasha-article-typesCopyright & Permissions© 2007 American Speech-Language-Hearing AssociationLoading ...