LinkedIn discussion - naïve or irresponsible (Part 3)

 

Here is a comment on my post and my response.

Phillip Chipping 

The Science of Reading body of science dates back 50 years with thousands of studies/researchers and millions of participants. The National Reading Panel's 2000 report showed that instruction that taught phonics made greater progress than instruction that did not focus on phonics. I'm not saying there are no other ways to teach and other ways to improve, but I know dozens of dyslexic tutors and every one of them has seen immediate and drastic improvement in children's reading ability when the method of instruction was changed to an explicit, structured-literacy, phonics-based approach. In other words, this method has been duplicated by thousands of teachers across the world and had immediate and powerful results in children's lives who otherwise could not read. The same results as what you're telling us you have with your method. Perhaps one of the reasons it's not "working" here is because most of the children who need it aren't getting one-on-one instruction. Maybe that's what makes the biggest difference.

My response:

Please answer this question – Did I at any moment say those methods have not worked or won’t work? Thousands of teachers are giving intervention classes successfully all over the world.

 

You said, ‘Perhaps one of the reasons it's not "working" here is because most of the children who need it aren't getting one-on-one instruction.’

 

I am talking about reducing the number of kids who need one-on-one instruction and you are bent on creating such a population for your benefit.

 

If the science dates back 50 years why is the number of kids leaving school as illiterates still about the same percentage over the last 50 years?

 

I am saying most kids will learn to read regardless of the way they are taught. This was the case both during the Whole Language and phonics periods. My concern is with the approximate 20% of kids who disengage from learning to read and leave school as illiterates.

 

Listen to the video clip and tell me why Tom Cruise was a functional illiterate until after he finished Top Gun. LINK.

 

Further thoughts:

The 20% of kids are bright curious kids who leave school as illiterates. These are the kids that David Brooks is looking for without knowing he cannot find them. LINK

 

Jeffrey Bowers asked the following question and referred to the National Reading Panel’s Report, and I replied but there was no response from him. LINK