From the radical middle...

On The Voice of Literacy Dr. P. David Pearson describes himself as a member of "the radical middle," meaning that he is an advocate for balanced literacy.  Dr. Pearson is an expert on Reading First, the literacy component of NCLB.  His review of the literature suggests mixed results for Reading First with state-funded research claiming success and national research noting very modest gains in children's ability to decode nonsense words (think DIBELS) and no gains in actual comprehension.  These facts are made more distressing by Pearson's claim that there is no research which actually suggests any correlation between an ability to decode nonsense words and an ability to read real text.  Furthermore, the trend of teaching skills such as these (and the "big five" of the National Reading Panel's 2000 report in general) in isolation is, says Pearson, like teaching players to dribble, pass, and shoot without ever actually letting them play a game of basketball.  

How is it then that we arrive at a point where so many educators are teaching skills in isolation?  Do administrators and policy-makers put too much stock in the NRP's report at the expense of balanced literacy?  According to Pearson, no.  In fact, a close reading of the report would inform us that the types of skills identified by the report (Pearson uses the particular example of phonics instruction for K-1) have only been shown to be effective when they are part of a more holistic reading program.  That is to say, the document that people who advocate teaching skills in isolation point to as evidence supporting their approach doesn't support this approach at all.

Call me cynical, but I have to wonder how much these kinds of educational fads are the result of private companies' salespeople doing their jobs a little too well.  A quick look at the webpage for Dynamic Measurement Group (the producers of DIBELS) suggests the money to be made (money coming from Reading First) on professional development alone.  It's pretty scary when we take our cues on what to teach from the companies selling the products we would teach, all of which begs the question: do we teach products or concepts?