I recently attended the 44th Annual Convention of the International Reading Association (IRA) in San Diego, California. This year, 18,187 teachers, administrators, reading specialists, and reading researchers attended. Among them, some wore special convention garb: black T-shirts with the words "Banned in California" boldly printed across the front.
Why? Because they have been banned from providing inservice instruction to teachers in that state. A new California law (California Assembly Bill 1086) restricts who may provide instruction. If a reading specialist or a researcher has a whole-language philosophy, he or she is not allowed "in." Instead, only those who emphasize phonemic awareness and decoding skills above all else are allowed to give workshops to California teachers. This McCarthy-like militance—in effect, blacklisting—is just one example of how some politicians, aided by the media's need for sensational news and topics, have kept the reading wars going.
Many politicians and reporters are well-meaning—not all are just looking for votes or headlines. Many people in good faith have endorsed proposals or laws that promote only one approach to teaching reading and are sincerely trying to improve reading education and the development of literacy. However, what most often are reported, and what appear to be the most popular positions, are the simplistic solutions: "black-and-white portraits" of one side or the other (whole language versus phonics) and contrived fights (for examples, see Flippo, 1997, 1998b, 1999).
But who has really been at war? Have the reading researchers been warring with one another? Or have the politicians and their enablers (such as private and public citizens with axes to grind, news and magazine reporters wanting a hot topic for a headline story, and researchers outside the field trying to make names for themselves) created and maintained this war mentality? I suggest the latter.
Reading researchers have always debated and argued their positions among themselves (Aaron, Chall, Durkin, Goodman, & Strickland, 1990a, 1990b; Chall, 1967; Smith, 1994). In fact, most take pride in this professional discourse, which is as much a part of the reading community's professional life as are research, publications, and presentations. They see these exchanges as opportunities to reflect on their research, articulate their reasoning, and further refine their positions. And if their debates have become famous and predictable, so much the better. They have added to the professional vigor that keeps all of us on our toes and makes teaching and studying that much more interesting. Just like in any field of study, different philosophies exist. One thing is certain: No one in the reading field would say that there is only one way to do things, let alone one way to teach reading.
The idea of a one-way-only approach, and the war that has been built around that idea, has not come from the reading community of researchers that I know. It has come from the outside. These outsiders are waging the reading wars (or literacy wars) against the reading-research community.
The Impetus for the Reading Wars
When the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reported the test results for the 1994 NAEP (Campbell, Donahue, Reese, & Phillips, 1996), California, among other states, scored very low. Some California politicians and concerned citizens looked for a scapegoat—something or someone to blame for the fact that California had tied for last place. The whole-language philosophy, incorrectly called a "method," was the easiest target. In California, and then later in other states, the simple solution seemed to be to adopt the so-called phonics method. Never mind that the NAEP scores did not assess students' proficiency in phonics (Campbell, 1997). It was easier for politicians to assume that students lacked phonic skills. So, out went the focus on meaning and reading real literature, and in came the focus on skills and phonics drills. Of course, most researchers would agree that teaching reading is not that simple. The war against reading researchers really began.
Strategic Generals or Literacy Experts?
Have reading researchers been smart and strategic generals and warriors? No. Many researchers are only now realizing that the war is against all of them. Although the philosophies of some reading researchers are currently under attack, other ideas will eventually fall out of favor. Many politicians seek simple solutions, and when they find that the current ones don't really work, they can easily switch to other philosophies, inaccurately again, still going for simplicity and "absolutes." The winners so far have been politicians, the media, and researchers outside the reading field. The losers have been all reading researchers—and ultimately the children who are now being taught as if there is only one way to teach reading (Flippo, 1998a).
When politicians started the war against reading researchers, most of the researchers were naive enough to continue to debate and argue their positions, much as they had before. But they didn't realize that they were not in peacetime conditions—that the war had been waged against them. The reading generals continued to argue and debate with one another, sometimes heatedly, not realizing that the politicians were watching, making notes, and winning the war against all of them—because the reading generals forgot to unite, strategize, and fight against the real enemy, not against one another (Flippo, 1998a).
Does that make the reading researchers wrong about their research, ideas, and philosophies? No. The fact that they are not good war strategists has nothing to do with their expertise regarding reading and literacy. Most researchers have not learned to be political outside the field or to pull together during combat, but they do have expertise and credentials, as proven by their achievements, research, and publications in the field of reading. They know that no one method or approach is best, that many contexts and practices facilitate students' reading development, and that many others would make learning to read difficult for some students. In other words, reading researchers know a lot about reading. Conversely, politicians know a lot about politics. Whom would you want making decisions about your children's reading instruction?
Experts' Agreements and Common Ground
What do the reading experts agree on? In my 10-year research study (Flippo, 1997, 1998b), I found that reading experts from diverse philosophies agree on many contexts and practices regarding reading instruction (for the complete list of agreements and classroom examples, see Flippo, 1999).
Although common ground exists, none of it points to any single best way to teach reading. In fact, all evidence points to the need to allow teachers the flexibility to select the methods, approaches, and materials to fit the particular child and the particular situation. Reading development and instruction is far too complex and involves too many variables to simplify and prescribe it for all children in all situations. Further, the 1st grade studies from the 1960s have already shown that no one approach is best. Although at that time reading researchers were instructed to look for the "best" methods, what they actually found was that no one method could be identified as best (Bond & Dykstra, 1967).
Instead, the main finding of those studies was that what mattered most was the teacher, not the method that she or he used (Bond & Dykstra, 1967). More recently, the International Reading Association has issued a new position statement, "Using Multiple Methods of Beginning Reading Instruction" (1999), in which it reiterates, There is no single method or single combination of methods that can successfully teach all children to read. Therefore, teachers must have a strong knowledge of multiple methods for teaching reading and a strong knowledge of the children in their care so they can create the appropriate balance of methods needed for the children they teach. This common understanding among reading professionals, combined with the agreements from my study, represents a common ground.
My study involved 11 diverse experts whose philosophies range from traditional to whole language. I asked these experts to indicate which classroom contexts and practices would facilitate reading development and which would make learning to read more difficult for children. Each went through the lengthy process of generating lists of contexts and practices, and scrutinizing one another's suggestions, editing, deleting, modifying, and adding to them. This process continued for 10 years, at which point all 11 had agreed on many things (Flippo, 1999).
- They are telling them to be flexible in their classroom instruction. (For example, teachers should provide multiple, repeated demonstrations of how reading is done or used.)
- They are telling them that there are no absolutes. (For example, teachers should use a broad spectrum of sources for student reading material.)
- They are telling them to consider students' interests, motivations, self-perceptions, and expectations. (For example, teachers should create environments in which the children become convinced that reading does further the purposes of their lives.)
- They are telling them to give students lots of time and opportunity to read, write, and talk about their reading and writing.
- They are telling them not to isolate reading from the other language arts. (For example, teachers should use every opportunity to bring reading, writing, talking, and listening together so that each feeds off and into the others.)
- They are telling them to avoid, whenever possible, a focus on isolated skills, isolated letters, and isolated sounds.
- Finally, they are telling them to be professional decision makers and to use their knowledge about reading and literacy to provide meaningful, purposeful, and rewarding literacy experiences for each child.
- Children are all different, and if teachers really respect their individuality and listen to what they say about their own learning, the answers to how to instruct each of them will become much clearer (Fawcett, 1999).
- Classroom teachers have a very specialized knowledge of the children with whom they work. This knowledge and expertise regarding the individual students' specific needs should guide instruction (Monzó, 1999).
- A philosophy that allows teachers the flexibility to balance their literacy instruction will facilitate reading development (Boothroyd, 1999).
- Teaching reading is a complex and difficult task. The more you understand about the process and the more you understand children's diversity, the more you will realize that "it's harder than you think" (Berry, 1999).
A Message for Teachers and School Professionals
The idea of common ground can be elusive. Holding common ground doesn't mean that we can give simple answers to all the complex questions that arise as we work with children. As professionals, we know that there are no simple answers. Learning to read is complex. Nurturing reading development is complex. One major understanding of the common ground that reading professionals have articulated again and again (Bond & Dykstra, 1967; IRA, 1999) is that no one method or approach fits all needs and situations because reading is far too complex for simple answers and one-way-only approaches (Pearson, 1996).
Yes, we have some common ground. But we need to become more vocal; we need to realize that the war is against all of us; we need to strategize, to work together, and to articulate our most common understandings as reading professionals. Until we do that, we will continue to lose the war being waged against all reading professionals and against all our children.
