Re: Many Americans can read but can't comprehend

["Karen Canty" <kvscanty@pacbell.net>]

But good lord Peter, it sounds like "whole language!"  and that couldn't
possibly be could it?  That children not only need to know how to sound
out words but actually have some "context" for reading?  I haven't
looked recently but the last time I checked the scores at Nancy
Ichinaga's school in Inglewood showed exactly that...high scores in 2nd
and 3rd grade and dropping off thereafter - when kids really have to
READ - in all its glorious definitions....

Karen

-----Original Message-----
From: arn-l-owner@interversity.org [mailto:arn-l-owner@interversity.org]
On Behalf Of Peter Farruggio
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 1:18 PM
To: arn-l@interversity.org
Cc: ca-resisters@interversity.org
Subject: [arn-l] Many Americans can read but can't comprehend 


Many to the left of Dr Hirsch criticize his particular definition of 
"cultural literacy" (favoring the eurocentric Western canon over the 
people's histories; e.g. Robert E. Lee vs. Harriet Tubman as a focal
point 
for studying the US civil war); but in this op-ed in USA Today he is 
clearly on the side of teaching context and comprehension in reading 
pedagogy, as opposed to atomized, scripted phonics. (Yet he sticks with 
fellow conservatives in defending multiple choice tests as accurate and 
adequate measures of comprehension)

http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20040225/5954180s.htm
Many Americans can read but can't comprehend

By E.D. Hirsch Jr.

Back in the 1970s, I had a ''Eureka!'' moment as I reviewed the results
of 
reading comprehension tests. The community college students we tested
had 
done almost as well as students at the highly selective University of 
Virginia -- as long as the passages the community college students were 
asked to read dealt with familiar, everyday topics. But when they 
encountered passages that required historical background, they faltered.

These Richmond, Va., students had difficulty understanding a passage on 
Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee because many of them were unfamiliar 
with the Civil War. That shocked me.

These students had been cheated. They hadn't acquired important general 
knowledge in their homes and communities, and their schools hadn't 
compensated for that. Their basic intelligence was sound. They simply
did 
not have the knowledge they needed to make sense of many texts.

Since then, I have argued for a deeper understanding of reading.
Successful 
reading requires more than an ability to decode, or ''sound out,''
words. 
It also requires adequate background knowledge, or ''cultural
literacy.'' 
Without background knowledge of history, literature, art, music, science

and math, students will read -- but without comprehension.

Gap widens

For years, reading scores have remained low. The achievement gap between

advantaged and disadvantaged children is not only dishearteningly wide,
but 
also grows bigger the longer students stay in school. These dismal facts

help explain the bipartisan agreement Congress mustered to pass the No 
Child Left Behind Act, with its provision that federal grants be
contingent 
on all children making ''adequate yearly progress'' in reading.

That provision sent shock waves through schools and prompted more 
complaints about standardized tests -- misplaced complaints, because 
standardized reading tests are valid and reliable. They measure the 
real-world ability to read, and they reliably predict the ability to
become 
good learners, earners and citizens. The tests aren't the problem; it's
the 
scores our children are making on them.

As a consequence of that law, some localities have mandated that schools

devote large chunks of time to reading in early grades. In California,
for 
example, it's 150 minutes per day. You'd think such an intensity of
effort 
would yield proportionately big results; yet, test scores have risen
only 
modestly or not all, and the reading gap between groups remains large.

Why? Recall those community college students. They had mastered decoding

skills. They may have been taught to read by phonics techniques, which
are 
now regarded by most educators as the most effective way to teach
reading. 
But they hadn't been exposed coherently to important knowledge, such as
the 
history of the Civil War. They hadn't developed the broad vocabulary
that 
comes with general knowledge.

Time vs. knowledge

Their deficiencies underscore what is missing in the way we teach
reading: 
We expand the time spent on reading but don't examine what is being
read. 
Most of the precious hours spent on reading should be devoted to
history, 
science, literature and art, not bland stories about ''José at the 
supermarket,'' or ''Janice and her new friend.'' Content-rich reading 
selections should be part of an integrated curriculum that builds up the

broad knowledge and varied vocabulary required for true reading
comprehension.

''Some people may ask why first-graders need to know Hammurabi's Code or

Queen Hatshepsut, or why fifth-graders should read Don Quixote,'' wrote 
Kathy Schaub, a Catholic school principal in San Antonio. ''Why not? . .
. 
I have never seen so much enthusiasm for learning.''

History and literature, interesting and exciting in their own rights,
also 
will be useful to these students when, for instance, they come across a 
description of someone ''tilting at windmills.'' Because these students 
possess not just decoding skills, but also wide knowledge and cultural 
literacy, they more likely will be strong readers and full participants
in 
our democratic society.

E.D. Hirsch Jr., the author of Cultural Literacy and The Schools We Need

and Why We Don't Have Them, founded the Core Knowledge Foundation, whose

curriculum is used in more than 600 U.S. schools.

------------------------------------------------
Direct list questions to listmom@interversity.net