53. Dick
And Jane: The Underground HIstory of American Education by John Taylor Gatto
from archive.org
Dick
And Jane
As many before him, Huey missed entirely the
brilliant Greek insight that reading and
understanding are two different things. Good reading is the fluent and
effortless cracking of the symbol-sound
code which puts understanding within easy reach. Understanding is the translation of that code into meaning.
It is for many people a natural and fairly
harmless mistake. Since they read
for meaning, the code-cracking step is forgotten. Forgotten, that is, by those who read well. For others, self-disgust and despair engendered by halting progress in decoding sounds sets into play a fatal chain of circumstances which endangers the relationship to print for a long time, sometimes wrecking it forever. If decoding is a painful effort, filled with frustrating errors, finally a point is reached when the reader says, in effect, to the devil with it.
for meaning, the code-cracking step is forgotten. Forgotten, that is, by those who read well. For others, self-disgust and despair engendered by halting progress in decoding sounds sets into play a fatal chain of circumstances which endangers the relationship to print for a long time, sometimes wrecking it forever. If decoding is a painful effort, filled with frustrating errors, finally a point is reached when the reader says, in effect, to the devil with it.
Another piece of dangerous philosophy is
concealed inside whole-word practice — the
notion that a piece of writing is only an orange one squeezes in order
to extract something called meaning,
some bit of data. The sheer luxury of putting your mind in contact with the greatest minds of history across time and
space,/ee/wg the rhythm of their thought,
the sallies and retreats, the marshaling of evidence, the admixture of
humor or beauty of observation and many
more attributes of the power and value language possesses, has something in common with being coached by
Bill Walsh in football or Toscanini in
orchestra conducting. How these men say what they say is as important as
the translating their words into your
own. The music of language is what poetry and much rhetoric are about, the literal meaning often secondary.
Powerful speech depends on this
understanding.
By 1920, the sight- word method was being
used in new wave progressive schools. In
1927, another professor at Columbia Teachers College, Arthur Gates, laid
the foundation for his own personal
fortune by writing a book called The Improvement of Reading, which purported to muster thirty-one
experimental studies proving that sight reading was superior to phonics. All these studies are
either trivial or highly ambiguous at best and at times, in a practice widely encountered
throughout higher education research in America, Gates simply draws the conclusions he wants
from facts which clearly lead elsewhere.
But his piece de resistance is a
comparison of first-grade deaf pupils tutored in the whole- word method with Detroit first
graders. The scores of the two groups are almost identical, causing Gates to declare this a
most convincing demonstration. Yet it had been
well known for almost a century that deaf children taught with a method
created expressly for deaf children only
gain a temporary advantage which disappears quickly. In spite of this cautionary detail Gates called this
"conclusive proof that normal children
taught this way would improve even faster!
Shortly after the book's publication, Arthur
Gates was given the task of authoring
Macmillan's basal reader series, a pure leap into whole-word method by
the most prestigious education publisher
of them all. Macmillan was a corporation with wide- reaching contacts able to enhance an
author's career. In 1931, Gates contributed to the growth of a new reading industry by writing
an article for Parents magazine, "New Ways
of Teaching Reading." Parents were told to abandon any residual
loyalty they might have to the barren,
formal older method and to embrace the new as true believers. A later article by a Gates associate was expressly
tailored for "those parents concerned because children do not know their letters." It
explained that "the modern approach to reading" eliminated the boredom of code-cracking.
With its finger in the wind, Scott,
Foresman, the large educational publisher, ordered a revision of its Elson Basic Readers drawn on
the traditional method, a series which had
sold 50 million copies to that date. To head up the mighty project, the
publisher brought in William S. Gray,
dean of the University of Chicago College of Education, to write its all new whole-word pre-primer and primer
books, a series marking the debut of two
young Americans who would change millions of minds into mush during
their long tenure in school classrooms.
Their names were Dick and Jane.
After Gates and Gray, most major publishers fell into line with
other whole- word series and in the words of
Rudolf Flesch, "inherited the kingdom of American education,"
with its fat royalties. Blumenfeld does
the student of American schooling a great service when he compares this original 1930 Dick and Jane with its
1951 successor: "In 1930, the Dick
and Jane Pre-Primer taught 68 sign words in 39 pages of story text, with an illustration per page, a total of 565
words — and a Teacher's Guidebook of 87
pages. In 1951, the same book was expanded to 172 pages with 184
illustrations, a total of 2,603 words —
and a Guidebook of 182 pages to teach a sight vocabulary of only 58 words!" Without admitting any disorder,
the publisher was protecting itself from this
system, and the general public, without quite knowing why, was beginning
to look at its schools with unease.
By 1951, entire public school systems were
bailing out on phonics and jumping on the
sight-reading bandwagon. Out of the growing number of reading derelicts
poised to begin tearing the schools
apart which tormented them, a giant remedial reading industry was spawned, a new industry completely in the
hands of the very universities who had with
one hand written the new basal readers, and with the other taught a
generation of new teachers about the
wonders of the whole-word method.
Mute evidence that Scott, Foresman wasn't
just laughing all the way to the bank, but was
actively trying to protect its nest egg in Dick and Jane, was its canny
multiplication of words intended to be
learned. In 1930, the word lookwas repeated 8 times; in 1951, 110 times; in the earlier version oh repeats 12
times, in the later 138 times; in the first, see gets 27 repetitions, and in the second, 176.'
The legendary children's book author, Dr.
Seuss, creator of a string of best-sellers using a controlled "scientific" vocabulary
supplied by the publisher, demonstrated his own
awareness of the mindlessness of all this in an interview he gave in
1981:
I did it for a textbook house and they sent me
a word list. That was due to the Dewey
revolt in the twenties, in which they threw out phonics reading and went
to a word recognition as if you're
reading a Chinese pictograph instead of blending sounds or different letters. I think killing phonics
was one of the greatest causes of illiteracy in the country.
Anyway they had it all worked out that a healthy child at the age of
four can only learn so many words in a
week. So there were two hundred and twenty-three words to use in this book. I read the list three times and I
almost went out of my head. I said, " I'll read it once more and if I can find two words that
rhyme, that'll be the title of my book." I found "cat" and "hat" and said,
the title of my book will be The Cat in the Hat.
For the forty-one months beginning in
January of 1929 and concluding in June of 1932,
there were eighty-eight articles written in various pedagogical journals
on the subject of reading difficulties
and remedial teaching; in the forty-one months beginning in July of 1935 and concluding in December of 1938, the
number rose almost 200 percent to 239.
The first effects of the total victory of whole-word reading philosophy
were being reflected in academic
journals as the once mighty reading Samson of America was led eyeless to Gaza with the rest of the
slaves.
9.1955
proved to be a year of great frustration to the reading combine because of the
publication of Rudolf Flesch's hostile
Why Johnny Can 't Read, which precisely analyzed the trouble and laid it at the
doorstep of the reading establishment.
The book was a hot seller for over a year, continuing to reverberate through
the reading world for a long time
thereafter. In 1956, 56,000 reading professionals formed a look/say
defense league called the International
Reading Association. It published three journals as bibles of enthusiasm:
The Reading Teacher, The Journal of
Reading, The Reading Research Quarterly. Between 1961 and 1964, a new generation of academics shape-shifted
look/say into psycholinguistics under the leadership of Frank Smith, an excellent writer when not riding
his hobby horse, and Kenneth and Yetta Goodman, senior authors at Scott, Foresman who had been
widely quoted as calling reading "a psycholinguistic guessing game." From 1911 to 1981, there were 124
legitimate studies attempting to prove Cattell and the other whole-word advocates right. Not a single one
confirmed whole-word reading as effective.
CHAPTER FOUR
No comments:
Post a Comment