Thank you for Michael Petrilli's article on the Reading First brouhaha ("Reading Last," September 28). I am a parent in Arlington, Virginia. I've interviewed all the key players involved in this issue, and read every piece of research I could get my hands on.
The journalists who report on reading instruction almost never get this complicated story right. They get too caught-up in the polemics--especially the complaints of the Whole Language establishment and the false claim that research-based reading instruction is a "one size fits all" program.
I've researched schools that experienced radical turnarounds in reading and found common threads. They include strong principals; community/parent involvement; and rigorous, research-based, direct instruction for reading taught by trained teachers. This evidence cuts through the politics.
What about schools that ask, "Why drop programs that are ‘working' for ones the government says are better?" Well, I've witnessed what constituted "working" in the eyes of some school communities. In certain cases, student reading scores were so bad that their districts applauded even marginal improvements. When it comes to reading, "good" programs are not enough. Only the best will do. Reading is too important, and the window of opportunity to learn is too short. The new, research-based programs of reading instruction, taught by trained teachers, simply offer children the best chance to learn to read.
Thanks for helping set the record straight. The cause needs all the help it can get.
Penny Kiser