Richard Allington comments on NCTQ

[Peter Farruggio <pfarr@cal.berkeley.edu>]

Note: the NCTQ is a lash-up of right wing think tankers and phonics 
fanatics.  Their recent report is a propaganda hit-piece that bashes 
university teacher ed programs as the source for reading failure in 
US public schools, because the university reading instructors refuse 
to teach the "scientifically-based" research touted by the Nat'l Rdg 
Panel.  Along with the US Dept of Ed's recent demand for 
"accountability" of college instructors via standardized tests, this 
is part of the corporate standardistas' coordinated attack on the 
universities as the last bastions of intellectual and academic freedom.

Pete Farruggio



From Stephen Krashen:


> As some of you are aware, a report was issued by the
> National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) condemning
> teacher education. The report assumes that the
> conclusions of the National Reading Panel are correct.
> Here are Richard Allington's remarks on the NCTQ
> report. He has said it can be shared with "any and
> all."
>
>
> ALLINGTON's COMMENTS:
>
> The kicker in the NCTQ report for me, at least, is
> their assertion aboutthe report of the NRP that: "No
> subsequent work of serious scholarship has challenged
> its findings" (p.8).
>
>  What about these published challenges?
>
> Almasi, J. F., Garas, K., & Shanahan, L. (2002).
> Qualitative research and the report of the national
> reading panel: No methodology left behind? Elementary
> School Journal, 107(1).
>
> Camilli, G., Vargas, S., & Yurecko, M. (2003).
> Teaching children to read: The fragile link between
> science and federal education policy. Education Policy
> Analysis Archives, 11(15), Retrieved, May 20, 2003.
>
> Cunningham, J. W. (2001). The national reading panel
> report. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(3), 326-335.
>
> Garan, E. M. (2001). What does the report of the
> national reading panel really tell us about phonics?
> Language Arts, 79, 61-70.
>
> Hammill, D., & Swanson, L. (2006). The nrp's
> meta-analysis of phonics instruction: Another point of
> view. Elementary School Journal, 107(1), 331-339.
>
> Hiebert, E. H., & Fisher, C. W. (2005). A review of
> the national reading panel's studies on fluency: The
> role of text. Elementary School Journal, 105(5),
> 443-460.
>
> Krashen, S. (2001). More smoke and mirrors: A critique
> of the national reading panel report on fluency. Phi
> Delta Kappan, October,  119-123.
>
> Pearson, P. D. (2004). The reading wars. Educational
> Policy, 18(1), 216-252.
>
> Pressley, M., & Allington, R. L. (1999). What should
> educational research be the research of? Issues in
> education: Contributions from educational psychology,
> 5(1), 1-35.
>
> Pressley, M., Duke, N. K., & Boling, E. C. (2004). The
> educational science and scientifically based
> instruction we need:   Lessons from reading research
> and policymaking. Harvard Educational Review, 74(1),
> 30-61.
>
> Samuels, S. J. (2002). Reading fluency: Its
> development and assessment. In A.
> Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to
> say about reading instruction (3rd ed., pp. 166-183).
> Newark, DE:  International Reading Association.
>
> Strauss, S. L. (2003). Challenging the NICHD reading
> research agenda. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(6), 438-442.
>
> Edmondson, J., & Shannon, P. (2002). The will of the
> people. Reading Teacher,
> 55(5), 452-454.
>
> Yatvin, J. (2002). Babes in the woods: The wanderings
> of the national reading
> panel. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(5), 364- 369.
>
> Each of these blistering critiques was published in a
> leading peer reviewed journal, something the NCTQ
> cannot claim.
>
> Then there are the book length critiques, published
> after peer review by leading academic publishers
> (again something NCTQ cannot claim).
>
> Allington, R. L. (2002). Big brother and the national
> reading curriculum: How ideology trumped evidence.
> Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
>
> Coles, G. (2003). Reading the naked truth: Literacy,
> legislation, and lies. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
>
> Smith, M. L., Miller-Kahn, L., Heinecke, W., & Jarvis,
> P. F. (2004). Political spectacle and the fate of
> American schools. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
>
> I don't know how many research excellence awards these
> various authors have received but I'll bet there are
> at least 10 award recipients on the list. I don't know
> how many of these folks have received funding from the
> USDE/NICHD for their research but again I'll bet at
> least 10  have (I know for a fact that at least 8
> have). Virtually all of these authors serve on
> editorail advisory boards of educational research
> professional journals.
>
> So what would the NCTQ authors consider "serious
> scholarship"?  These
> authors criticize the methodology of the NRP from
> several points  of view (meta-analysis incorrectly
> done, meta-analysis results not  correctly
> interpreted, restriction to experimental methologies,
> missed studies, etc.).
>
> Perhaps the most common criticisms of the NRP report
> are; the meta-analysis, done incorrectly yielded a
> "small" effect size (ES)  not a"moderate" effect size
> as the report states (systematic phonics accounted for
> only 4% of the variance in achievement using their
> data and for only 1% of the variance when the
> meta-analysis is done correctly. But neither suggests
> phonics instruction as shown by
> the NRP report produces much difference in reading
> outcomes; most outcomes
> for phonics were observed only when subjects read
> nonsense words or
> regular words from a list (no effect on readinmg
> fluency or  comprehension); thatmost studies reviewed
> involved add-on, pull-out interventions not reform
> of classroom lessons and so few inferences can be
> drawn about what effects might result from adding
> systematic phonics, or phonemic awareness lesson to
> classroom instruction; that the NRP reviewed only a
> subset of the research available although they noted
> some dozen or so areas of research that they felt
> needed to be reviewed.
>
> So, in my view, you've got a poorly designed and
> conducted study based on a widely criticized federal
> report. Then, that "study" was sent directly to the
> press and to deans with no peer review.
>
> What the NCTQ did not investigate, but I would, is how
> many of the people teaching these courses met the IRA
> standards for reading/literacy professors (e.g.,
> doctorate in reading/literacy) and how many were
> education "generalists", graduate teaching assistants,
> adjuncts, and so on?
>
> Shame on AACTE for uncritically promoting the
> distribution of this
> fundamentally flawed piece of propaganda.
>
> Dick A