Many of the issues related to reading discussed in Regie Routman’s Literacy at the Crossroads are brought to life in Patrick Shannon’s and his daughter Laura’s experiences which are described in his article “Politics of Reading: Every step you take.” In an email that Mr. Shannon wrote in response to my question to him regarding standards, he expounds further on the issue. By the way, he says hello to you Bob. Additional articles that I found also reinforce the lessons that Routman offers. Clearly, the waters are pretty muddy in regards to reading. As Routman asks, “Are schools better or worse than in years past? … Yes, no, and maybe.” (3)
    First Routman explores the wide held public view that there is something rotten in the public school system. She says many things that really resonated with me, and rather than summarize those things in my own words, I am going to simply string a bunch of quotes together from her. “When things inevitably appear to go wrong – groups and individuals look for a scapegoat rather than work together toward a solution.” (3) “Today the criticism seems to focus particularly on reading and writing and how they should be taught.” (3) “There are some terrible schools in America…this is ‘largely true because those schools lack resources and must contend with some of society’s worst social problems.’” (4) “There is hard evidence that the United States government suppressed ‘good news’ about our public schools during the Reagan and Bush eras.” (4) “People seem to be drawn to the notion of intellectual decline and things getting worse.” (4) “Then, as knowledgeable and responsible practitioners, we can and must add our reasonable voices to the escalating debate and criticism.” (4) “’Thus, evidence suggests that students today read better and write better than at any other time in the history of the country.” (5) Now for my summary: it’s not as bad as it seems, the media often blows the problems out of proportion because bad news sells.
    Routman identifies “four critical instructional needs: more reading instruction, more difficult texts, more critical analysis and synthesis of information, and more emphasis on meaningful vocabulary” (5) The problem is not so much that students cannot read, but that they cannot think critically. “U.S. students do not do well when asked to apply knowledge. No doubt, this is because teachers and textbooks have failed to emphasize a higher level of learning.” (5) “The largest national assessment of reading confirms that U.S. students are competent at literal levels and incompetent at critical and analytical levels.” (6) “They cannot think and make knowledge from the information they’ve read.” (6) A new definition of reading is needed. “Reading now means reading, understanding, and thinking. If we just get better at teaching kids how to read without giving at least equal attention to teaching them how to think, we will see few if any gains.” (6) What I really liked about this idea was the change of perspective about reading, especially the idea that it is “’no longer learning to read, but reading to learn.’” (20)
 These ideas are seen at work in the incident about Laura’s paragraph. The teacher was following a standard type of paragraph, and failed to value Laura’s critical thinking so evident in her work. The reason teachers teach this way is a belief that they must prepare students for the work world. Shannon writes, “That reasoning begins with the assumption that schools should prepare graduates to enter the economy with sufficient skills to enable the U.S. businesses that employ them to compete successfully within global markets.” He gives a scathing critique of such logic when he writes, “Think about the marketable skills metaphor.  Picture a child standing in front of a mirror, staring at themselves while wondering ‘what piece of me can I sell for a living.’  Is that the way we want to live together?”(email)
    Thus Routman writes “Despite the public outcry that we are not teaching the basics, the irony is that we are overfocusing on discrete skills and superficial learning at the expense of not teaching our students how to interpret, evaluate, analyze, and apply knowledge for Information Age learning.” (6) Laura is now doing just such an exercise in Information Age learning. “She is currently making a documentary on a local controversy surrounding the inclusion of sexual orientation in the school's harassment policy.  It's about how language works and control of representation.  Good stuff.  Lots of high skills. Tim's band gets to play the music in the background for the film (Walk on the Wild Side and stuff like that).”(Shannon-email)
    Routman also discusses the phonics-whole language war, and proposes an armistice. “The reality is and has always been that phonics is part of whole language.” (9) She writes that “parents received and bought the message that kids learn to read through heavy phonics drills.” (10) “In many cases, the news media fuel the whole language versus phonics controversy as well as misinform and excite the public.” (10) “Part of the problem … is that people reporting on education are often not educators." (13) “We must do everything in our power to ensure that the media represent what is going on in education fairly and accurately.” (13) She discusses some of the reasons that whole language was not always well accepted by the public, and sometimes not effective. Teacher training, funding for everything from books to buildings, and factors outside of teacher control such as LEP and poverty all come into play. “It was not whole language that failed. It was the implementation of a set of practices without adequate funding, staff development, community support, and understanding.” (22) “The number of teachers fully and effectively trained in a literature-based approach is proportionally low.” (19) “If students do not have books to read, they are not likely to become readers.” (22)
    So what is her solution to the war? It is not surprisingly in the middle. “We who actually teach reading know that most of our children need some explicit instruction along with immersion in wonderful literature.” (20) Many other educators agree with her, for example, the new book  Reading and Writing, Grade by Grade, Primary Literary Standards for Kindergarten through Grade Three “fuses the best of whole language and phonics, the two approaches to teaching reading that have been doing war against each other for far too many years. This new book represents a triumph of common sense, after years of ideological battling.” (NEA Today January 2000, p5)  The middle ground is quite comfortable to me, as on most issues I also tend to be a middle of the road sort of person. Yes, it can be dangerous, and you might go “Squash like grape” as Pat Morita says in “Karate Kid,” but I prefer being able to look at each oncoming issue and decide whether I want to go left or right of that particular problem. I am daunted by Routman’s challenge to “successfully educate all the children who come to us, no ifs, ands, or buts.” (22) How can I live up to that if my first year in the classroom I have 23 kids, 15 of whom are LEP and only 3 of whom can really read?
    Routman’s summary of lessons learned from around the country is very pertinent. From California: “change without staff development does not work, teacher education at the state level must be more explicit in the teaching of reading, parents need to be included at the ground level, we need to learn how to teach second-language learners more effectively, the amount of money we spend on education does matter” (22-23) From Littleton, Colorado: “the importance of teaching children to be information seekers instead of information regurgitators, mandates … don’t work. Everything we did involved school-based decision making.” I especially liked Cile Chavez’s maxims: “’Our actions will result in greater student self-esteem and performance.” (27) “’We will adapt and change resources and practices to meet the changing needs of kids.” (27) “’We will move toward greater, school-centered decision making.’” (28) “’We will explore and implement multiple assessments.’” (28) “’We will explore restructuring.’”(28) “We need to get parents involved.” (28) “We have never really looked at parents as decision makers.” (28) “Parent involvement needs to be a valued part of curriculum and decision making.” (28) “We have to help people move from opinion to considered judgement. … You have to help people understand the consequences of doing something or not doing something.” (29) All this about parents is really helpful to me, and very important as, “the attitude of many [parents] is, Prove to me that what you’re doing is working.” (30) From Fairfax County, Virginia: speak clearly and without jargon, treat teachers as professionals, reduce class size in grade one, focus staff development in reading on the primary grades, have release time for ongoing staff development.
    So how does this all work in reality. We all know about programs such as Read Across America, but as Bob Chase, President of the NEA, writes in President’s Viewpoint, NEA Today January 2000, “for America to become a truly literate nation, a one-day celebration, as we all realize, simply isn’t enough.” (5)   An excellent example of what works is a new reading reform program in Plainfield, New Jersey, reported on in “Reading and Writing Go Hand in Hand” in the January 2000 NEA Today (29). It “is designed to get kids reading, writing, and talking about books. … Elementary teachers appreciate the extensive staff development that accompanies the workshop approach. … As part of the program, elementary and middle schools are establishing classroom libraries and designating a ‘book of the month’ to be read aloud in every class – and read by every school employee. Students are likely to be asked to discuss a book by a cook, custodian, or principal.”
 I was excited at learning about all these new (at least to me) ideas about teaching reading. But I was also confused. Is it good to teach structure? Should there be standards? The answer seemed to be yes, but then what about Laura’s case and similar ones where a student’s creativity was stifled by standards? I asked Mr. Shannon this. He answered, “I'm not opposed to high standards.  I oppose standardization.  I think a community of parents and teachers ought to be able to negotiate what takes place in the name of curriculum.  I like Laura's logic on this.  I reject that the business or government can do a better job than locals of deciding what ought to be learned and how it ought to be learn.  I do think the state should be involved to insure equal opportunity through access and funding, but not through standardized teaching.” The February 2000 issue of NEA Today dealt with exactly that topic in the article “Debate: Should all teachers be trained in the teaching of reading?” Becky Pringle answered yes, and wrote, “The absence of strong reading skills can stunt a child’s entire developmental growth. … Reading is a prerequisite to advanced thinking. … Our challenge is to integrate the essential skill that is reading into our curriculum, so we can improve achievement both in reading and the content areas.” Margaret Patterson answered no and wrote “anyone who says all teachers should be trained, cult-like, in the teaching of [reading] when it is not practical to do so, given money and time constraints,” is wrong.
    What to do, what to do? With all this conflicting advice, I think I’ll have to read some more about it. I realize that I used quotes extensively in this reaction paper, but the ideas expressed were so powerful to me, and expressed so eloquently, that I was glad to have those four little strokes “”.