Changes in Reading and Writing Curriculum and Instruction

1960s – mid 1970s Skills Based Russia’s launching of Sputnik (first unmanned rocket in space) threatened national security Why Johnny Can’t Read (Flesch, 1957) argued American education system was not adequately preparing students and that we were falling behind our international rivals.

Learning to Read: The Great Debate (Chall, 1967) – Concluded that “a code emphasis method of reading, based on phonics, produced better results than a meaning-emphasis approach.”

Reading instruction and materials emphasized decoding. Writing instruction focused on grammar, conventions, mechanics. Teachers directly taught every skill a student might need through drill. Mastery of “enough” skills resulted in accomplished readers and writers. Reading and writing were not integrated.

Late 1970s-mid 1990s Whole Language Reading and writing instruction started to include authentic, connected texts as the primary materials. Early 1990s: literature-based reading textbooks developed: selections first appeared as a trade book and then revised for the basal.

Emphasis was on predictability of the text structure, quality of design, and less control of vocabulary. Focused on meaning making. Students were encouraged to draw upon their own experiences and background knowledge to derive meaning from the text.

mid 1990s-early 2000s California’s plummeting scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) attributed to implementation of literature-based reading framework (whole language). The pendulum moved away from whole language to a balanced approach, some phonics and some whole language. Implementation of a balanced approach varied.

Publishers quickly marketed materials as following the balanced approach. In the late 1990s there was a return to a more systematic approach to decoding. There began an inclusion of “little books” as a supplemental source of reading instruction; 8-12 pages in length, providing practice by combining control of vocabulary and spelling patterns with predictable language patterns; little substantive content.

Currently Prescriptive Reading Programs and Materials – Perception of continued failure among students in literacy development – Distrust of teachers to make informed decisions about curriculum, materials, and literacy events.

The National Reading Panel requirements for reading methods were to be “scientifically based,” “reliable,” and “replicable”.

Reading First publication’s first criteria for state funding for materials and professional development: Must address five key early reading skills: phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, comprehension Instructional decisions must be informed by scientifically based reading research. (Linda Hoyt, Regie Routman, Patricia Cunningham)