Re: Talk Is Cheap

[ABurke5054@aol.com]

The excerpt cited by Campbell concerning phonics is from  a section of the 
NEP report titled "Specific Outcomes in Older  Readers."  The context is as 
follows:
 
"Because most of the comparisons above 1st grade involved poor readers  
(78%), the conclusions drawn about the effects of phonics instruction on  specific 
reading outcomes pertain mainly to them. Findings indicate that phonics  
instruction helps poor readers in 2nd through 6th grades improve their word  
reading skills. However, phonics instruction appears to contribute only weakly,  if 
at all, in helping poor readers apply these skills to read text and to spell  
words. There were insufficient data to draw any conclusions about the effects 
of  phonics instruction with normally developing readers above 1st grade." 
 

However, in summarizing the effects of phonics instruction on  beginning 
readers, the NRP said: 
 
"...systematic phonics instruction helped beginning readers acquire and use  
the alphabetic system to read and spell words in and out of text. Children who 
 were taught phonics systematically benefited significantly more than 
beginners  who did not receive phonics instruction in their ability to decode 
regularly  spelled words and nonwords, in their ability to remember how to read 
irregularly  spelled words, and in their ability to invent phonetically plausible 
spellings  of words. In addition, phonics instruction contributed substantially 
to  students’ growth in reading comprehension and somewhat less to their oral 
text  reading skill." (p.116)
 
I found two studies in the NRP database concerning Open Court.   Effect sizes 
(effect-sizes are a measure of the efficacy of a treatment against  a 
control) for Open Court vs control (Whole Language in both) were as  follows:
 
Word ID:  1.63
Decoding:  1.14
Spelling:  0.56
Comp:  0.32
Mean:  0.91
 
 
Word ID:  0.52
Decoding:  0.32
Spelling:  -0.19
Comp:  -0.19
Mean: 0.12
 
So in two studies children who received Open Court achieved  better than 
children who received control instruction (Whole  Language) on word ID and 
decoding, and better in one and worse in  the other on spelling and comprehension. 
The average effect-size  was positive in both studies, indicating an advantage 
to Open Court  relative to control.
 
Campbell's selective, incomplete, and unrrepesentative  portrayal of the NRP 
conclusions about phonics is misleading and  clearly distorts what the NRP 
said.  Furthermore, Campbell appears  to uncritically accept Garan's conclusion 
that Open Court is a waste of  time and money.  This conclusion is not 
supported by the evidence in the  NRP report, scant though it  is.                
 
Art



 
 
In a message dated 5/14/2006 7:08:53 AM Pacific Standard Time,  
campbellp@mail.montclair.edu writes:

 
On May 13, 2006, at 8:29 PM, Peter Farruggio wrote:


One suggestion: don't let Reading First and other  scripted teaching 
approaches off the hook so easily.  Yes, their  overweaning focus on basic skills 
eliminates the broader scope of a rounded  education, as you state; but we must 
all emphasize the point that these  militarized, "back to basics" programs don't 
even succeed on their own  terms.  Research is consistently showing that RF, 
et. al. are failing  to teach kids to read!!!!!!


Good point. As  Elaine Garan points out in her two books, "Resisting Reading 
Mandates: How to  Triumph with the Truth” (2002), and “In Defense of Our 
Children: When  Politics, Profit and Education Collide” (2004), the National 
Reading  Panel's own research on scripted, phonics-heavy programs like Open Court  
showed that "phonics instruction appears to contribute only weakly, if at all, 
 in helping poor readers apply these [decoding skills] to read text and to  
spell words." quoted in Garan, 2002, p. 47; taken from the NRP Report of the  
Subgroups, Chapter 2, p. 116) And, as you indicate, the NRP also  found 
research data on  Open Court that shows that after one year of intensive, expensive 
highly  focused training, the children in the Open Court program did  
significantly worse on tasks requiring authentic application  of skills for spelling 
and comprehension than those children  who received no training at all.


As Garan writes, "Consider the  cost of Open Court in terms of money and 
time. Consider the motivational  factors, the boring, routine skill and drill -- 
and for what? For NEGATIVE  results! This is worse than 'money for nothing.' It 
is money for less than  nothing." (Garan, 2002, p. 35)


Peter  Campbell
=