Reply to the ministries' reactions to the Canadian Psychological Association's position paper on beginning reading instruction.

Abstract

AbstractReactions to the Canadian Psychological Association's position paper on beginning reading instruction were received from eight ministries (departments) of education. Despite widespread media and public support for the Association's claim that the level of instruction in whole language is insufficient to meet the needs of many beginning readers, the majority of the ministries took issue with this claim. The purpose of the present article is to clarify the Association's stand by drawing attention to the differences between the exercises that research shows should be employed in beginning reading instruction and the exercises that teachers are being encouraged to employ as a result of the ministries' endorsement of whole language. The article concludes with four additional measures, approved by the Board of Directors in July 1994, that the Association now asks the ministries to adopt in order to avoid having more children suffer the consequences of improper beginning reading instruction.BACKGROUNDIn November 1992 the Board of Directors of the Canadian Psychological Association approved a position paper that called upon the ministry (department) of education in each province to provide a balanced selection of offerings on the province's authorized list of Language Arts (reading) text - books. This call for balance meant that both bottom - up, code - emphasis programs, as well as top - down, meaning - emphasis programs, should appear on the lists of approved text - book (Simner, 1993). The call was prompted by evidence, summarized in the paper, which showed that in the majority of provinces the dominant approach to reading instruction was based on a top - down, whole - language, philosophy which deemphasizes the importance of phonics. The Board's concern over this matter stemmed from further evidence, also summarized in the paper, which showed that such an approach may not be appropriate for all children and that for some children, in particular, those from disadvantaged backgrounds or those who lack prerequisite literacy skills, it may even lead to serious reading problems.The paper was mailed to a number of professional organizations, educational reform advocacy groups, media representatives, as well as to the ministry of education in each province. Although the Board's concern received very favourable coverage in thepress (Hatton, 1993, Nikiforuk, 1993a, 1993c), on television (Rehak, 1993), and was endorsed by groups that ranged from parent/teacher organizations (e.g., Hastings County Chapter of the Organization for Quality Education) to major professional associations (e.g., Canadian Association of School Psychologists), this concern did not seem to be shared by the ministries themselves. Of the eight ministries that responded to the paper, seven claimed that a balanced approach to teaching reading was being followed and that teachers were being encouraged to use a variety of techniques in the classroom. In fact, five of the ministries specifically noted in their responses that is included among these techniques.The letter received from Alberta Education even stated that all of the whole - language programs approved for use in that province include explicit instruction in phonics and to illustrate this point the letter contained several pages from the teacher's manuals for three of the programs (Impressions, Journeys, and Networks).If the ministries' claims are correct and is not deemphasized in whole - language but, instead, forms an integral part of whole - language beginning reading instruction why then are there so many Canadian parents, columnists, and academics who believe otherwise (e.g., Cumming, 1992; Herman, 1993; Nikiforuk, 1994; Stanovich, 1993/94; Vanderwolf, 1991; Willows, 1991, 1992; Young & Quinn, 1993)? Also, why are there Canadian school boards and principals who, according to some reports, flatly refuse to allow teachers to use materials in the classroom (Hatton, 1993), and why are there letters to the editor as well as commentaries from Canadian teachers who feel threatened when they employ these materials (Beek, 1990; Coad, 1994; Walker, 1992)? …