Return to Index of Topics - Notes: 1) This page is a work in progress and does not yet comprehensively cover its topic or include all the COTC and web resources its topic deserves. 2) Bold is used to emphasize our [COTC] sense of importance and does not necessarily reflect gestures or tones of emphasis in the original source. This color indicates COTC edits for brevity or flow. See referenced original for exact quotes.
Share this: Tweet
Share this: Tweet
we look at the kids who are having a tough time learning to read and we went
through the statistics, thirty-eight percent nationally, disaggregate that,
seventy percent of kids from poverty and so forth hit the wall. Ninety-five of
those kids are instructional casualties. About five to six percent of those kids
have what we call dyslexia or learning disabilities in reading. Ninety-five
percent of the kids hitting the wall in learning to read are what we call NBT:
Never Been Taught. Theyíve probably been with teachers where the heart was
in the right place, theyíve been with teachers who wanted the best for the
kids, but they have been with teachers who
cannot answer the questions: 1) What
goes into reading, what does it take? 2) Why do some kids have difficulty? 3)
How can we identify kids early and prevent it? 4) How can we remediate it?
problem is instructional confusion.
So, we have a difficult code, we have a neural system that for some children
is not optimal for dealing with this code, and then we throw them an
instructional system, a teaching system; teachers who donít understand what
the code really is or how it needs to be conveyed. And so the teacher is
suggesting you should do this when in fact the child should be doing that.
You can sample first or second grade classrooms around the country and you will still find, despite what we know about the process of reading and have learned over the past twenty years, you will still find that teachers for a first grader who is struggling to sound out a word who will discourage the child from doing that, and encourage the child to look at the pictures in the book and guess what that word means. Good readers donít guess, good readers sound out almost every word on the page. And so the teacher is saying you solve the task this way when in fact the task has to be solved in an entirely different way. And that can not help but confuse children. So, non-optimal instruction, and in some cases simply misleading instruction, is a significant part of the problem.
The fact of the matter is most of our kids at risk are kids who did not have these interactions that built the fundamental, foundational linguistic building blocks. They come into kindergarten, first grade, and if they then get instructional approaches that donít take advantage of what we know about the code, if they get instructional approaches that are philosophically based, holistic and so forth, theyíll never get it. Because theyíre coming for clarity, and if theyíre expected to discover these kinds of things without all of those previous building blocks how are they going to do it? Itís like me being sat in front of a piano listening to Mozart without any musical background and then being expected to induce these things, expected to pick it up naturally. It just doesnít happen. So, youíve got all these kinds of cultural, instructional language things moving at one time, which all can be helped and adjudicated by just knowledge.
arguable, and certainly in my position, that well designed instructional
materials, by well designed I mean taking into account what we know about the
code and how difficult it is, how to make it simpler and more transparent in
particular stages in learning to read, well designed instructional materials,
teachers who know how to support children as they are exposed to those
instructional materials and periodic assessments so we know when children are
falling behind. Standard packages of materials as preventive
strategies may be sufficient to move us
substantially ahead in terms of solving this problem. It will not get us the
whole way, but itís going to get us, I think, a long way there. One
of the principle problems here is instructional confusion. If we can reduce that
confusion weíre going to generate more successes in learning to read.
(Russ) Whitehurst, Ex-Director (2002-08),
Institute of Education Sciences,
U.S. Department of
Education. Source: COTC Interview:
Grover (Russ) Whitehurst, Ex-Director (2002-08), Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Source: COTC Interview: http://www.childrenofthecode.org/interviews/whitehurst.htm#SyncvsSystematicInstruct
sat in on a session that a colleague of mine was doing on phoneme grapheme
mapping. She has designed an instructional procedure for phoneme grapheme
mapping which is a nice little supplement for teachers. In the workshop I saw
the same thing happening that I see all the time when Iím working with
teachers which is the rather profound confusion that exists even among people
who have degrees and
certificates in reading instruction - how many aspects of the code are unclear
to them and they go merrily along teaching their programs and teaching kids
without ever resolving the questions that come up in a formal presentation. I
saw this colleague of mine leading them through the phoneme grapheme mapping
exercises and it was fun for me to see somebody else encountering the same
questions and areas of confusion in the teacher audience that I experience all
of the time.
universality of those confusions was impressed on me again and how totally
oblivious the teacher certification process is to equipping teachers with that
knowledge base. Schools
typically donít take it on as a responsibility; they typically donít teach
it very well if they teach it at all. The instruction is not well conceived even
if it is there. People leave those certification programs with the
responsibility of teaching kids but without the tools to really make any of
these English code issues clear to kids.
Director, Professional Development
and Research Initiatives at Sopris West Educational Services; Author, Speech
to Print: Language Essentials for Teachers, Parenting
a Struggling Reader, and LETRS
(Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling). Source: COTC
Louisa Moats, Director, Professional Development and Research Initiatives at Sopris West Educational Services; Author, Speech to Print: Language Essentials for Teachers, Parenting a Struggling Reader, and LETRS (Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling). Source: COTC Interview: http://www.childrenofthecode.org/interviews/moats.htm#InstructionalConfusion
My humble opinion is the problem with learning the code is not really with the code, itís with the teaching of the code. We have long periods in the history of reading instruction in America where the code wasnít taught or was taught in such a boring, offensive or misleading way that it didnít do much good. I could even be more extreme and say that teaching the code probably was a negative factor. Drilling kids to death on letter-sound correspondences probably is as bad as not teaching them at all. Or almost so.
So, the first problem that I see is that itís difficult to find a time when the code was seriously taught and taught well. And I canít explain why it is that even today there is such enormous resistance to deal with the code among the college faculty who teach reading methods to pre-service and in-service teachers.
good research that points to the dramatic efficacy of good instruction. It is
true that not enough good instruction is getting to kids. Kids just donít have
the benefit of it. Teachers need to be trained in order to carry out the kind of
instruction that is effective. And,
there is good research to show that up to ninety-five percent or so of reading
problems, reading difficulties can be effectively addressed if that instruction
is there and delivered in the right way. That still leaves about four to six
percent of the student population that is not responding, that is still
struggling, that needs some other kind of intervention, some other kind of
And interestingly, the percentage of children in the school age population who have learning disabilities right now is about five percent. And they need even more intensive, individualized instruction in order to address their underlying problems. Not all the problems are going to be solved simply because we get classroom teachers up to a certain level.
I think there is a difference between a student who is an Ďinstructional casualtyí; in other words, a student who has not flourished in the schools, who has not had access to the right kind of teaching, a student whom the schools have failed in some way. Thereís a difference between that kind of student and a student with an underlying neurobiological disability. Learning disabilities are not acquired; they are there - they are life long - they are real. They can be expressed in any number of ways early on; they could appear later in a school career, even as late as high school or adulthood.