For the sake of clarification—I didn’t give any impassioned “defense” of the teacher. I don’t think any “defense” is called for when the employee is fulfilling his or her duties as directed. I’m sure I’m not the first to notice there is some incongruity here—demands for “accountability” seem to mean, “I demand accountability for teachers delivering the curriculum and they should be held to a high standard of meeting those curriculum expectations—except, of course, for those parts of the curriculum that I abhor and reject.”

Hmmm.

My impassioned point was on behalf of the parent and student who were being given very poor advice. To suggest that changing from one classroom to another (strictly on the basis of what was reported) would address the child’s difficulty with the Ontario Curriculum was unfair and misleading to the parent.

However, your question, for once, is pretty easy to answer. Why don’t teachers rise up and demand systematic phonics? Why don’t they “know” it works?

(1) Most of the teachers with experience of this kind of instruction have retired, and those hired after, say, the middle to late 1980’s have had no exposure to good phonetic programs and materials. They have no idea what the results can be.

(2) The current situation is not so bleak (on the individual child level) as you paint it. Teachers don’t see “half the kids” failing.  They see kids learning, progressing and developing confidence and skills—at different rates, but steadily and surely. I’ve been in totally Whole Language schools where almost all kids developed reasonably strong literacy skills.  Some teachers gave some phonics supplementation, some didn’t, but the correlation—if there was one—was definitely not obvious. Where would teachers have seen what something like Reading Mastery can do? Nowhere.

(3) Many students who have “reading problems” have them for reasons little related to phonetic decoding: difficulty with vocabulary, background knowledge, understanding of grammar, syntax, language structures, academic English in general.  While a significant subset of delayed readers are so because of inadequate phonological skills and knoledge, their problems in this area are often co-morbid with other language difficulties, so the issue is by no means transparent.

(4) No testing that identifices weaknesses in phonemic decoding, per se, are regularly used in Ontario schools. EQAO doesn’t measure it. The Developmental Reading Assessment doesn’t measure it.  The Fountas and Pinnell assessments don’t measure it.  How would teachers know that this was a problem?  Unless the student is referred for testing by a psychologist or SLP it is unlikely to be officially flagged.

(5) Seeing is believing. When you see a student jump 6 grade levels in 2 months because of systematic phonics instruction, you never look at “reading” the same way again. Few of today’s teachers have had that experience. It is life-changing.  I had the good fortune to have that experience my first year of teaching and never looked back, but most Ontario teachers are not so fortunate.

The research does not support a Great Divide between “whole language” and “systematic phonics”—what it does is better illuminate WHAT is appropriate WHEN. Early, systematic and intensive decoding instruction (coupled with a rich ORAL language classroom culture) sets the stage for all the “authentic literacy experiences” the Literacy Secretariat people like to promote. Schools like Morningside Academy in Seattle know this well. The early grades are heavily “instructivist” with a code-emphasis in beginning reading, and explicit instruction in phonemic awareness and processing skills. But gradually the emphasis shifts to one more like “Whole Language” where skills are embedded in contexts of themes, issues and subject matter. The problem is that the Ontario Curriculum omits that essential first stage, or relegates it to incidental learning.

There need to be models out there—videos, schools to visit, books—that show how the optimum sequence and balance can be structured and achieved.  Teachers need to SEE it.  Where, realistically, can that happen?  The best examples I can think of are all schools in the USA or UK.

That’s why some parents who favour good systematic phonics instruction need to start an alternative school, as a model of what can be achieved.  Don’t wait for “the board”—any board—to do it.  The bureaucrats will swallow hard and allow some pretty wacky alternatives to flourish, and they would allow a phonics-first alternative, too. Some friends of SP need to get the ball rolling so that teachers AND parents AND other interested citizens can see what is possible.

Why aren’t more teachers sneaking in systematic phonics?

Oh, and by the way, “sneaking in” systematic phonics is becoming pretty well impossible, due to the level of scrutiny from higher up. I can’t do it any more, either. Too closely watched. The inspectors even come into your room and check all your drawers, closet and bookbags to see what materials you use.

Your passion is stultifying.

I have 6 Remediation Plus explicit systematic synthetic phonics classrooms at DSBN-whole class teaching-they are brave.

You have learned to be compromising-I think it`s TDSB staff that is severe in their whole language adherence-with all those ESL children,they should be.(:

You tell us that most kids are doing fine -

I also doubt very much most kids are doing fine-look at the EQAO scores for Grade 3-and as my friend said-a speech path-we aren`t even counting the LD`S-
Hmm is right-

I won`t be apologizing this time-And I know Doretta and Malkin will ask me to leave.
Yes,you have a right to your opinion-start an alternative school for phonics?

You tell us that most kids are doing fine -

Um, no.That is NOT what I said.  You clearly choose to “construct your own meaning.” BL people will love you!

I said I had been in 2 schools where most kids were doing fine.That is an empirical fact.  I have also been in ghastly, abysmal schools where the total opposite was true ( and I posted about this recently. Guess you missed it)

Overgeneralizations, exaggeration and name-calling and denigrating those who fight for change is not the way forward.  Advocates for effective instruction need to reach a wider audience and get the public on board.

I actually had a strategy to propose in response to your query on the previous thread—why are the activists for change in the medical field so successful and we are not having the same impact?—but obviously you perceive me as a quisling and, oh yes, “stultifying” so I won’t “stultify” you with a well-thought-out plan to get phonics the appropriate place in the curriculum it should have to improve children’s learning and life opportunities. 

You, obviously, can do it all. Great! I wish you well.

And what’s wrong with an alternative school featuring systematic phonics? Why not show people what can be done with the right instruction? Are you afraid it won’t work? I’m not. I have data on precisely such schools and know it would be a great success, properly done. What better way to win friends and influence people than to SHOW them?

Reluctantly, I conclude that some posters here are more interested in venting than problem-solving: not true of Malkin and Doretta—I know Malkin well and she can’t help expressing frustration at times, but she genuinely wants answers in order to understand what goes on and why. You do not demonstrate the same. I have students to teach, and I have enough trouble bucking the system without trying to share information with naysayers who respond to everything with mudslinging.

Meanwhile, those of us who work in Ontario public education and believe in research-based practice will just have to work underground, as now, without expecting any encouragement even from so-called “friends” of systematic phonics.

Malkin won’t have to ask you to leave, I’ll leave instead. Live long and prosper.

I wanted to jump in with something for which I have been fighting in my own board.

First, I don’t believe that, when it comes to early reading strategies, one approach necessarily benefits all children. I would be very upset as a parent if my child came to school knowing how to read and was subjected to hours of direct instruction in phonemic awareness. So, to me the idea of whole class “anything” isn’t the answer.

I agree that we need to make sure that all students have a solid foundation in reading and writing (not much talk these days about writing) before we can move into the type of “real/authentic” work that reading and writing allows us to do. We must do everything to ensure that this happens by the time children move from primary to junior grades (even those these are arbitrary designations).

So, I’m advocating for a wider space in the primary grades—an opening up of the learning environment so that we can truly meet the literacy needs of all students. Those that need a more direct instruction program could get it; those that are ready to move forward can do that.

There is no reason why we cannot totally redesign the first three years of elementary school to allow us to take advantage of all of the research on what works with children of this age.

My point is that we can no longer afford to leave students behind when it comes to learning how to read and write. But we must also have the courage to develop spaces where students that have progressed beyond (and I’m not talking about “gifted” children) the need for various strategies can also continue to develop.

That’s what I’m fighting for, and that’s what I hope will happen. But it won’t if all we do is fight about who is right and who is wrong.

TDSBNW, what are the reasons you have an alternative school would work, given the political and power structures within the education system? Why wouldn’t the Toronto school board, and the staff at that level strive to keep the status-quo, than to risk their status with the ministry of education?  Should it not be an one-two punch getting support from the parents as well as support from key positions within the ministry of education? 

I have observed over the years, people have very strong views on reading, filled with misconceptions on reading. The main one, being that reading is connected to intelligence, in some form or another. I have seen professionals defend the current form of whole language, because they truly think that some children will never become good readers, and therefore do not truly merit the increase costs in addressing their needs. And the other is most people remember reading as easy, and have forgotten that it was not that easy. My oldest, she read before she started school, and I did not do anything special besides the normal things. I asked her the other day if she remember anything about learning to read, and she said no. Than the conversation drifted how bore she was in school, and than to my youngest, who has all the troubles. My oldest, admitted she was puzzled by my actions with my youngest, going on and on over her learning difficulties. The oldest seen her kid sister as being bright and lively, and therefore was smart enough to learn how to read without special programs. What my oldest is just starting to get, who is pushing 40, is that learning to read can be a difficult process for some, and for others like her a relatively easy process.

I have seen this same type of thinking among the educrats and trustees with my youngest. Prior to my youngest, I only had rare contact with the upper levels of the public education system. I should add the educrats and trustees will always defend the system, the reading curriculum using talking points taken right out of the ministry of education website.

How would one overcome their objections to systematic phonetic reading, regular testing to identified weaknesses, and so forth?  Plus getting rid of the gestapo at the top, that actually prevents many of a good teacher from doing their jobs.  One more question, do you not find it insulting after many years teaching, to have someone from the upper levels, searching your office for banned materials?  Would it not be in the union’s best interest to fight for changes that would be a much improved environment for teachers without worrying about being caught with unapproved methods and strategies?  Or does it come down to video taping the inspectors, catching them in the act?

I like your idea, Stephen. Children who are on many multi-levels can moved on their own pace, without the stress and shame associated with learning how to read and write. I know my youngest would be more motivated to practice and learn, than in the present structure of the primary grades. Plus, far less tears at home, or fighting with her to go to school in the morning. The only flaw that I see, but it can be overcome too with some diplomatic and deft handling, are the parents who think their children belong in the group who are the most advance.  Actually, the environment that you outlined, would be very advantageous in costs, because there would be far less children accessing SE services in later grades, If my youngest was taught properly in the first place, it is highly doubtful that she would be accessing SE services, as she is presently doing.

I think you’re right about the need for diplomacy, Nancy. I think the key would be too make sure that good, visible assessment practices were in place…ones that were understood by everyone involved. I think that, in focusing support at the early stages, it would, as you say, take some of the pressure (and frustration) off those that we see trying to deal with problems that were never really addressed at earlier stages.

There will always be pushback, but…

Pushback: There will always be pushback, but as you have stated, make sure communication to parents is clear and understood by all. And not the edubabble that parents are faced with. On the LD sites in the U.S., there is actually sections on edubabble for parents to learn when they are being snowed. It came in handy in the early days, but in my case the educrats kept upping the ante, before they conceded that I was correct. The school and the educators caved in when my youngest was starting grade 7, and they kept on saying whatever you are doing at home, keep doing it. When she hit high school, apparently her level of writing and reading is above 60 % of the kids, and she is the one with the learning problems. The educrats won’t give in, but at least the educators in the school are changing their tactics that really benefits all. I can tell you, that last couple of years have been a dream of doing far less re-teaching, and I can concentrate on the basics of writing at home. Meanwhile, as in my last IEP meeting, the teachers will continued to work to improve the rest of the stuff, that is needed to prepare my youngest for post-secondary.

With your idea, it could be expanded into grades 4 to 6, for the core subjects of language arts and math. Even with the present crappy math curriculum. And children like mine, would not fall through the cracks.

TDSBNW, I agree with you that one of the biggest issues is that both a majority of teachers and a majority of parents have never SEEN what solid teaching methods and good curriculum can do. They simply do not understand what we are talking about.

On the other hand ... c’mon .. put yourself in the parents’ shoes. They are our kids, they are only students once and this is not a game when you can start from scratch again as many times as you want until you get it right.
Do you expect us to send our sons or daugthers to school to be exposed to this nonsense that would leave a heavy imprint on him for the rest of his life - shaky skills, a disorganized mind, guessing instead of knowing, an attitude that anything goes -and be understanding of teachers that ... my oh my poor adults, they just do what they are told?

I don’t think you are aware how polite and empty worded and gently talking down to you some teachers are. From the high level of their incompetence they gently but consistently suggest that you don’t know what’s good for your child, that the way they “teach” is very good and they have the unshakebale confidence of cultists or dimwits (hard to tell).

It’s a child’s best years that get wasted away and whose mind they are confusing into knots of fleeting and disparate bits and pieces! These years do not come back!

It is extremely hard to have any ounce of respect for an adult, who considers himself a professional and who has spent at least 16 years in school if that professional teacher cannot spell correctly in his own language or considers that building an indian log cabin out of popsicles in grade 5 for social sciences is a learning experience.

TDSBNW, you said it is impossible to teach well a class where the students are 5 grades apart!
I totally agree with you: it is impossible; and that’s one of the elephants in the room that nobody wants to touch.
On the other hand, my opinion is that at least about 3 out of 4 elementary teachers that are younger than let’s say 40 would be incapable to tutor well one on one. They would do poorly even classrooms where students are reasonably well grouped by ability. And that’s the second elephant in the room. I stopped caring about feelings and good intentions! The road to hell is paved with good intentions and good feelings!

Going back to reality, to what can be done ..
Are the teachers allowed to at least tell parents that their children will not be taught the standard multiplication and long division algorithms?
Are they allowed to at least tell the parents that in the current curicullum spelling and grammar do not matter and are not taught?
What can you tell a parent so that he at least knows that he needs to act to help his child?

Most people have a reasonable respect for authority. So obviously, when you send a child to school you expect your child to learn. You initially don’t question how or what because that’s the school’s job, you just trust it.
And if you are very busy or trustworthy or a bit of both you only wake up a good few years down the road when unfortunately your child did not manage to outgrow some of his issues.

I agree also with Stephen`s idea-
K-3 has to have latitude to catch the kids up and close the gap.
I like it.
It is important to have pragmatic ideas that will get majority buy in!

Europe,your comments resonate with me.Somebody has to stand for the child.

Suggestion-
for your conference-or another meeting-

Meet Marsha Grantham-DSBN-Speech Pathologist-and perhaps the Superintendent-and a few of the teachers doing it.

Building explicit multisensory systematic synthetic phonics classrooms,one at a time-they put these in low SES and ESL communities.

The teachers didn`t like it the first few months,Marsha said they felt put upon-however,,just a little while later they got ‘hooked on the success”.Now,they love it-why?“It works.”
They find it so enjoyable.
They see that what they did previously was just not as effective.
This method,as suggested in the Rose Report ,has to be rapid-kids reach a grade 2 level in reading by the end of Grade 1 and most just fly-
It`s called teaching Reading to the part of the brain that processes-we teach reading,spelling and writing simultaneously.

Decodable text is the written part,only for a year-oral exciting and fun stories to build oral vocab is separate and doesn`t require reading and spelling.

Eventually they merge.

Some initial thinking:

http://teachingoutloud.org/2011/02/23/degrading-the-elementary-school-experience/

Joanne, I search the DSBN site, last night looking for remediation plus and other things that the board is doing. Since this is the area that I was raised and went to school, I know that the Niagara Peninsula has a rich history in helping children who have difficulties with language. I should know, I was one of those students back in the early 60s. And of course my youngest had intensive speech therapy for two years at the child development centre. I keep telling my youngest she was lucky to get it for such a young age, compare to me that started at the age of 6.

The speech pathologists of the Niagara Region, have a large number of case files to draw from, starting back in the late 1950s. Too many success stories are in the files, where whole language approaches was used only in certain circumstances.  It never dawned on me until today, the two grade 1 classes. One class had the whole language approach, and the other class had systematic approach in reading, plus ability groupings. The class I was in, 90 % of the students were learning English, and the other 10 % were students like myself that had some type of language deficits. 

Now, I am curious if any Toronto schools were doing the same thing back in the 50s and 60s, or was it all progressive teaching methods along with whole language.

“Decodable text is the written part,only for a year-oral exciting and fun stories to build oral vocab is separate and doesn`t require reading and spelling.”

What I remember the most, are the fun stories. Although now deem politically incorrect, it was the same stories that I sought out for my youngest, who very much enjoyed them at home.I believed it help her somewhat, to become a bit more motivated in her reading.

“It`s called teaching Reading to the part of the brain that processes-we teach reading,spelling and writing simultaneously.”  Amen to that!