Showing posts with label Balanced Literacy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Balanced Literacy. Show all posts

Friday, October 31, 2014

Unbalanced Comments on Balanced Literacy

Want to win an argument about literacy? Just claim your approach is “balanced.”

Balanced is a affirmative term… That’s why Fox-News claims to be “fair and balanced.” It not only makes your position sound reasonable, but implies your opponents may be a bit off, you know, imbalanced.

So it is not too surprising that school principals and district literacy leaders often tout their reading programs as balanced.
“Balanced literacy” sounds great, but what does it mean? What is being balanced?

A few weeks ago, I responded here to some arguments about reading instruction that had appeared on the Washington Post website. One of the participants in that argument, a school principal I believe, was arguing that balanced literacy referred to the balancing of text difficulty.

I’ve heard balanced literacy promoted as a balance of textbooks and tradebooks, reading and writing, phonics and comprehension, motivation and teaching, and several other pairings, but challenging and easy text was a new one on me.

That’s one of the cool things about balance… you can tailor what is being balanced to your audience. If you’re meeting with the NAACP, you can tell them that you have a “balanced literacy” program, and when they ask what that is, you can look down your nose and answer (as if everybody knows), “it means that we balance the literature selections by White and Black authors.” They’ll love it.

The same ploy will probably work at the NOW convention.

And, Common Core? It asks for 50-50 coverage of literature and informational text. So CCSS is a set of  “balanced literacy standards.” Oh me, oh my.

The term “balanced literacy” was coined by the late Michael Pressley. He even published a book on it, during the “reading wars.” Michael was a proponent of phonics (he was an author of the Open Court reading series at the time), but he wanted to heal the great divide between people like him and Whole Language advocates. His felt that we needed to balance the demands of the two groups.

He supported the explicit teaching of decoding, but believed the Whole Language folks were right when it came to motivation. He took it that Whole Language was all about or mainly about getting kids interested in reading.

He didn’t see balanced literacy as simply a political compromise between two warring camps, but as an acknowledgement about what each group had right. He himself had conducted observational studies in high success classrooms and was amazed at how motivational the teachers were (Michael, a psychologist who had never taught children or spent much time in classrooms before this so his amazement is understandable).

Of course, Whole Language advocates didn’t love this compromise at the time—let’s face it, they saw their position as being more than the dessert after the vegetables. And, many of my explicit teaching colleagues still see it as a way of avoiding sufficient amounts of explicit teaching.

I‘m probably more in the camp of the basic skills folks than the whole language ones, but not rabidly so. One school I know adopted my literacy framework (2 hours of literacy instruction each day divided equally among word knowledge, fluency, reading comprehension, and writing), but then added an extra 30 minutes dedicated to motivating kids to be lifelong readers. This included time for teacher reading to kids, student self-selection, book clubs, and other activities and discussions aimed at promoting literacy.

I had no problem with that, but I don’t see it as balanced. The two hours of explicit instruction and guided practice is supported by research and has been found to benefit kids. The motivational efforts, whether good or bad, are on thin ice when it comes to evidence that they work. I accepted as a reasonable because it didn’t interfere with a heavy dose of effective teaching.

Unfortunately, “balance” too often means that kids don’t get substantial explicit instruction in phonological awareness, phonics, vocabulary, spelling, handwriting, oral reading fluency, reading comprehension, or writing. Studies show repeatedly that explicit instruction in these is beneficial in moving kids forward in literacy learning and the idea of balancing these essentials against something else is bothersome.

It is time that we retire the balanced literacy.

Monday, September 29, 2008

Why Balanced Literacy is a Problem?

These days, I often hear a school’s approach to reading instruction described as “balanced.” What could be better? No one wants unbalanced literacy instruction, right? Oviously not.

But what does balanced really mean? It can mean that teachers provide skills instruction, but in the context of sustained silent reading, learning centers, book clubs, big book activities, minilessons and the like. In other words, it is a combination of instructional approaches that clearly make a difference in kids’ learning (as shown by research), and activities that may or may not make a learning difference (they might be good, but there is no research showing it yet).

The issue and the problem is that balance has lots of meanings or metaphors. For instance, I’m a long distance cyclist. If my bicyle is starting to fall to the left, I shift my weight to the right to stay on top. Or, there is the balance accomplished by placing equal weights on the scales of justice. And, there is the claim of many television news shows to be “balanced.” By this, they mean they will included the voices of liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, or pros and cons on their broadcasts.

Those news shows's ideas of balance really bother me. They’ll take an issue, like child pornography, where there just isn’t a legitimate pro position and put someone in that chair anyway. Why do they do such a foolish thing? Is it really balanced to have a spokesperson for a position held by the vast majority of human beings and with strong research support
counterweighted by someone who speaks for a fringy, weird, hurtful, and non-supportable position? What that does is to make the two positions seem equal. Balanced, but not really.

Unfortunately, the notion of balanced literacy is something like that. The late Michael Pressley put forth the idea of balanced literacy as a kind of political agreement between warring factions in the field of reading education. Since one group of teachers want lots of explicit teaching in phonological awareness, phonics, oral reading fluency, vocabulary, comprehension, writing, and spelling and this other group wants to free kids to “experience” literacy with minimal adult mediation so they can enjoy themselves, can’t we just give each side equal coverage in the classroom? I guess the thinking is, we’ll balance these interests of adults and the kids will be fine.

The problem is the same as with those talk shows; this make the two positions seem equal and if they are truly equal they obviously should be balanced. That this isn’t the case, upsets those who know they have the stronger evidence supporting their proposals. They see balanced literacy as a trick to keep teachers from finding out what the research really says and to sabotage efforts to make reading instruction more rigorous.

Of course, many of those who embrace balanced literacy do so, not out of any sense of political compromise, but because of their fear that explicit teaching tends to get reduced to the lowest common denominator. That is, skills instruction often perseverates on the lowest level reading skills that can be taught—rather than focusing on the more complete conception of reading evident in the research. They quite rightly fear what happens to kids’ learning when teachers put all of their time into decoding skills, while ignoring language development and the teaching of logic and reasoning.

Research indicates that kids benefit from explicit instruction in a wide range of skills, from differentiating language sounds to matching sounds with letters to making text sound like language to interpreting word meanings in context and thinking about a wide range of texts with an extensive and complex set of intellectual tools. We need the teaching of a complete conception of literacy. We are more likely to accomplish this by following research than by some political compromise, however.

Unfortunately, there is still too much of a gap in the research record: those who are so passionate about high level thinking and critical reasoning should be conducting research studies into how to teach these successfully. No matter how strongly one asserts that these are important, it is still necessary to test the assertions through empirical study. The phonics people, to their credit have done that, and their work makes it clear that readers should be taught explicitly how to decode. The “higher level thinking” folks, sadly, have not bothered to make their prescriptions entirely practical or proven; they have acted like all they need to do is avow their claims and teachers and policymakers should fall in line with their wisdom. It doesn’t work that way. From the existing work, I have no doubt that it is possible to teach higher level thinking and to help students to develop more sophisticated language, but there are far too-few studies to be able to tell teachers how to do this well (I can give them much better advice on teaching fluency than on comprehension).

So, let’s leave the political compromises and code language of “balanced literacy” behind. But let’s also commit ourselves to teaching literacy thoroughly and completely—and researchers can help realize this vision, by exploring more thoroughly those aspects of reading that we don’t yet understand very well (passionate exhortations aside).

Wednesday, March 19, 2008

Letters, We Get Letters...

Here is a letter I recently received, and my response to it. This is such a common problem, I thought I would add it to my blog.

Dear Dr. Shanahan:

With the pressures and concerns about NCLB and working in a low socio-economic neighborhood, our school district has implemented some mandates to try to ensure the success of our students. It is sort of an interesting imbalance. First they chose to mandate the use of the SAXON phonics program. It is required of all teachers of students in K- 2. The program teaches phonics in isolation and it takes 40 to 75 minutes to teach each day.

The second interesting situation is that we are given 4 aides that come in to our rooms for an hour each day to teach fluency in small group direct instruction. We use programs such as Reading Mastery and Read Well. The idea was to meet the needs of all students on their level. The reality is that only 2 of my 23 students are in an intensively low situation. Then I have 2 more who are only slightly below benchmark. The vast majority of my students are READERS! and good ones at that. They do not NEED interventions in fluency. They need comprehension, vocabulary and writing!!! Because about two hours a day is taken up by fluency and phonics- there is little to no time left for vocabulary, comprehension, or writing. I try to work these into my social studies and science lessons- but it is very lacking!

I was able to cover these areas at the last school I taught at. When I mentioned this, our reading facilitator answered, "Yes, but that was NOT a title one school !" We (our second grade team) has finally gotten enough courage to approach the school district about our concerns that we are not teaching with a balanced literacy approach.

Dr. _________ told of the success you had in Chicago, I felt that you could give me information and ideas to bring to the table to help our district people understand better the value of a more balanced literacy approach.

My response is printed below:

Dear Judy:

Say hi to Dr. _________ for me. What he was telling you about my work in Chicago was not research, but practice. I had left the university to be the director of reading for the Chicago Public Schools, the third largest school district in the U. S. I was not there to collect data or write research articles, but to see if I could make instructional changes that would raise reading achievement. Chicago, like many large urban districts, is challenged: 85% of our 437,000 kids are living in poverty; more than 25% come from homes where English is not the home language; more than 2/3 of our kids read below grade level.

First, I have no big problem with the Saxon phonics program. It might not be my favorite choice (there are many phonics programs out there), but research doesn’t suggest big outcome differences due to which phonics program is being used, so there is nothing unreasonable about that choice. I also have no problem with its daily use being mandated in Grades K-2; research clearly shows that young children benefit from explicit, systematic phonics instruction included in programs like Saxon’s and such instruction not only improves decoding and spelling skills, but comprehension (kind of hard to get at what an author is saying if you can’t read the words easily and efficiently).

Not every second-grader needs an equally heavy dose of phonics, but given that this is a Title I school it is probably lower achieving than average, so I suspect most of your kids are benefiting from this teaching. I do take exception to the amount of time devoted to phonics that you describe; it sounds high to me. I would limit such teaching to 30-40 minutes a day (not because phonics isn’t important, but because time is limited and other things must be accomplished too). In Chicago, I mandated 2 to 3 hours of daily reading and writing instruction in all classes. In a school like yours and at your grade level, 3 hours would be a good choice. I wanted 25% of that time devoted to word knowledge instruction, so that would be 45 minutes a day. Word knowledge instruction isn’t entirely about phonics, however. In K-1, some of this time goes to phonemic awareness; at your grade level some of it might be for spelling (though that is best done in coordination with phonics), and at all grade levels, some of this time would be used for explicit vocabulary teaching. If most of this time was spent on phonics (as I think it should be in your classroom), you’d be talking about 30-40 minutes per day of phonics teaching. That’s a lot, but it sounds like less than you’re spending now.

Fluency instruction is not just for remedial readers, it is for everyone. The National Reading Panel found that such teaching helped average and above average readers, too. I required 30-45 minutes of daily fluency instruction (it is 45 minutes in the 3-hour plan noted above). Reading Mastery and Read Well are good programs and it is terrific that you are getting help in delivering this instruction as it can help kids to make faster progress. Like the research for phonics, research on fluency teaching finds reading comprehension outcomes for children at your grade level. Again, it sounds like the district might be going overboard on the amount of such teaching, but they’ve got the right idea in ensuring that students make real progress in this important area.

I do wonder when you say that 19 of your 23 students are hitting some benchmark: what benchmark may that be? It sounds like a pretty high level of attainment, which makes me suspect that the standard may misleadingly low (in other words, the kids might be reaching your benchmark, but may not actually be on track, normatively, to make real continuing success in learning to read). Often teachers set standards that are too low to ensure real long-term success for these kids.

Your students absolutely do need instruction in vocabulary, comprehension, and writing, and in my approach that is used in Chicago (with high poverty kids) we spend about a quarter of the 3 hours on reading comprehension and another quarter of that time on writing (I would love to have more time for thorough, explicit teaching of vocabulary; my scheme only allows a little of that during word time in the primary grades, and some less-systematic coverage of vocabulary within fluency, comprehension, and writing lessons; however, when most phonics instruction is completed for most kids, by the end of 2nd grade, most of the word time shifts over to this additional vocabulary instruction).

During comprehension instruction, students should be reading text with guidance from teachers and learning how to apply various thinking strategies to making sense of those texts (the research sketches out some key areas of thinking that can profitably be addressed during such instruction including teaching kids to summarize, ask questions, monitor their understanding, summarize texts graphically, use story maps, etc.). During writing, students should be learning how to compose their own texts for various purposes and audiences (the National Reading Panel pointed out, writing is important and valuable phonics practice time at your grade level). Some districts think that if they only invest heavily in decoding and fluency early on, they will have solved the learning to read problem for these kids; the research doesn’t support that claim, however.

It sounds like your school has made some good choices—and some bad ones, too. I’m not worried about “balanced” instruction as much about complete instruction. The federal government had a group of independent scientists review the research on reading to protect schools from unscrupulous or uninformed gurus, vendors, consultants, etc. That panel, after two years of publicly analyzing the existing research, determined that students benefit from explicit and systematic teaching in: phonemic awareness (Grades K-1), phonics (Grades K-2, and for remedial readers beyond that), oral reading fluency, vocabulary, and reading comprehension strategies. School districts might latch onto any one of those findings, of course, and ride it like a hobby horse, but it won’t change the fact that kids benefit from teaching in all of these areas. Research out of the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development has shown that when you spend inordinate amounts of time successfully solving kids’ early decoding problems, they still will struggle in future years because of gaps in vocabulary or other aspects of reading. A complete or thorough approach is the best bet for your kids when it comes to their daily classroom instruction.

In Chicago, I took the thorough approach that I described. Our district saw its biggest achievement gains in district history, our kids are reading at the highest levels they ever have (still have a long way to go), and our lowest achieving schools and kids have managed to make remarkable progress (learning as fast as everyone else for a change). As I say this wasn’t a research study, it was a practical effort to improve achievement. I think district reading statistics can be found on the Chicago Public School website. They initially adopted this framework in 2001, so comparing scores from 2002-2007 with the scores obtained prior to that time would allow you to see how Chicago kids have been affected by the changes (unlike in a study, we can’t control for other changes that might be taking place simultaneously—we don’t have a control group, we made all of these changes in all 600 schools).

You can find the Report of the National Reading Panel here.