National Reading Panel Erred; Letter Incorrect
Published in Education Week, May 9, 2012
To the Editor:
I was astounded to read Linda Diamond's revisionist view of the last decade in literacy research ("Common-Core Standards in Reading Not 'Flawed,' " March 28, 2012).
Ms. Diamond maintains that the National Reading Panel's conclusions supporting explicit and systematic instruction "in the reading-foundation skills" is "well supported by research." Either Ms. Diamond is not aware of the furious criticism that emerged after the panel's report was published or she is ignoring it.
In a series of books, papers (published in the most respected journals in our field), and letters published in Education Week, Elaine Garan, Gerald Coles, and I, among others, argued that the National Reading Panel erred in its analysis and reporting of studies, omitted studies, ignored major issues in the field, and violated basic principles in appraising experimental research.
Despite its claims of being "scientific," the National Reading Panel report was simply bad science. Ms. Diamond is free to disagree with our conclusions, but she is not free to ignore them.
Stephen Krashen
Professor Emeritus
University of Southern California
The Naked Truth about the National Reading Panel Report
Stephen Krashen's letter to Ed Week in the previous post has motivated me to post the following review here for all those young teachers who are reading the deceptive, revisionist crap by those who want to impose another generation of the mind-scrubbing literacy tactics based on ideology rather than pragmatic practice grounded within good research and sound principles.
I did the following review of Gerald Coles' book in 2003, which examines the manipulations and strong-arming that produced the NRP Report and the failed Reading First initiative that followed. The review was published by Gene Glass at Education Review. Please excuse the short history lesson at the beginning.
Please buy and read the book.
A hundred years ago in America the contestants in a new conflict were fortifying their positions for the opening battles in a war for the control of American schools, a war that would see no lasting truce even to this day. While not the only contenders in a lengthy conflict that has seesawed back and forth over the generations, both of the primary combatants claimed progress as their cause and science as their main weapon. Their definitions and aims of science and progress, however, represented two very different and increasingly-polarized conceptions that were reflected in acrimonious differences on the aims and proper methods for schooling. One side, the hard progressives, wished to extend the goals of prediction and control from the hard sciences to efficiently manage social problems and maintain social stability through proper school training; the other softer progressivism blended philosophical romanticism with the emerging social sciences in an attempt to map and understand child development as the natural beginning point for designing
I did the following review of Gerald Coles' book in 2003, which examines the manipulations and strong-arming that produced the NRP Report and the failed Reading First initiative that followed. The review was published by Gene Glass at Education Review. Please excuse the short history lesson at the beginning.
Please buy and read the book.
Coles, G. (2003). Reading the naked truth: Literacy, legislation, and lies. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. $24
October 12, 2003
A hundred years ago in America the contestants in a new conflict were fortifying their positions for the opening battles in a war for the control of American schools, a war that would see no lasting truce even to this day. While not the only contenders in a lengthy conflict that has seesawed back and forth over the generations, both of the primary combatants claimed progress as their cause and science as their main weapon. Their definitions and aims of science and progress, however, represented two very different and increasingly-polarized conceptions that were reflected in acrimonious differences on the aims and proper methods for schooling. One side, the hard progressives, wished to extend the goals of prediction and control from the hard sciences to efficiently manage social problems and maintain social stability through proper school training; the other softer progressivism blended philosophical romanticism with the emerging social sciences in an attempt to map and understand child development as the natural beginning point for designing
