LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Note from Dispatch Opinion Editor Amelia Robinson: The following letters to the editor are in response to the March 2 article “Dewine wants to change how some children in the state learn to read” by Anna Staver, who is a reporter for the USA TODAY Network Ohio Bureau.
Nothing new under the sun
The governor seems to espouse phonics as a “new science.”
During the 1960’s, I was a young first grade teacher in a large city public school district. The principal of the school advocated reading instruction by a combination of phonics (Phono Visual method) and a short list of sight words (Dolch words). This combination is not new science.
There is nothing new under the sun.
Many of this diverse student population came from homes where books were not present. None of the children had been to pre-school or any school prior to enrollment here.
None read before attending this school, but all read well by the end of the school year according to her or his ability and interests. Through second and third grades there was no indication of diminished reading skills.
Children learn to read in many ways and are influenced by ability and circumstances. There were 48 children in each of the classes in which I taught reading.
Bebe Lavin, Columbus
Why did it take so long?
Finally, someone is taking a stand against how children in the state are being taught how to read.
I don’t understand how our education system bought into the whole language learning method. Why did it take so long to figure out it didn’t work?
For generations, phonics was successful in teaching children to read.
As a parent, I knew two decades ago that it wasn’t the best way to teach reading, so I taught my own children using phonics. Just how much money did the developer of the whole language product make off our education system? Now we have to spend more money to train our teachers how to teach phonics because it wasn’t part of the curriculum at many colleges. At least this time the money will be well spent. Thank you, Gov. Mike Dewine, for taking our reading programs back to what really works.
Cindy Kiener, Columbus
Cut our losses?
Our governor wants to spend multiple millions of dollars on a curriculum that ‘”follows the science” of reading for teacher training and literacy coaches who will focus on schools with the lowest proficiency rates.
At issue is the implementation of phonetic instruction as opposed to the whole language construct.
The article cites a variety of cases in which phonetic instruction is supported, buttressed by personal testimonies by both one-time opponents of and longtime advocates for phonics.
Margo Shipp, a literacy specialist for Riverside Elementary, has now become an avid proponent of phonetic instruction and used whole language in the past because, “I did what I thought was best at the time, but now I know better.”
Some of the push back opposing converting to phonics is the financial resources dedicated to the bookshelves full of whole language instructional materials.
Might be time to “cut our losses” as the aforementioned Riverside literacy specialist says in the article, “and say this is just not getting it.”
Jim Viney, Canal Winchester