‘Real Books’ for California Classrooms: Schools Also Need Real-World Solutions

We are in the midst of a revolution--a quiet, intellectual revolution spinning out dramatic insights into how the brain works, how we acquire language and how we construct meaning in our lives . . . . -- The 1987 California English Language Arts Framework

The literature-based reading program being introduced in California schools this fall, reflecting a revolutionary trend in schools nationwide, will fundamentally alter the way children learn to read, write and spell.

On the bright side, literature-based instruction heralds a renaissance of the love of reading. The colorful new readers are filled with classic literature instead of prose hacked out at publishing houses--progress, by anyone’s standard. After a six-year transition, all readers may become obsolete. Classrooms of the future will be filled with what youngsters call “real books.”

Parents may be surprised to find no spelling or grammar texts in their kids’ backpacks. Phonics and skill instruction will once again take a back seat, along with paper-and-pencil drill, objective tests and detailed record-keeping.

California’s new English Language Arts Framework, cornerstone of the program, is a broad philosophical document. In practice, interpretation will vary from district to district, teacher to teacher.

Ideally, the classroom of the future will be an active place where reading, speaking and writing are the main occupations. Traditional reading groups--high, medium and low--are on the way out. Children will read self-selected books, books chosen by the teacher to meet individual needs and “core literature,” selected by district committees. They will respond to reading through a wealth of language-related projects.

The new wisdom is that reading skills should be taught in context, only as needed; likewise for grammar and spelling, 50% of which will optimally be culled from readings and student writing. Any loss in continuity from year to year is deemed negligible next to the benefit of making skills relevant. According to the latest research, mastering spelling words in isolation has little relation to becoming a good speller; grammar is best absorbed through listening.

These reforms represent a swing of the pendulum away from the hyper-rationalism of the ‘70s, when behavioral scientists tried to take the guesswork out of teaching by quantifying reading into hundreds of small, measurable skills, ushering in one of the most tedious and compulsive eras in schoolhouse history. Long-term results were disappointing--and little wonder, since skills had become an end in themselves.

A pivotal 1985 national study, “On Becoming a Nation of Readers,” revealed that 70% of the reading period in elementary classrooms was being spent on rote “seatwork”--filling in blanks and circling or underlining answers on mind-numbing skill sheets.

The backlash now sweeping across the nation is founded on a radically different assumption: Given meaningful experiences in reading and writing, the majority of children will become fluent readers without intensive, skill-based instruction. Just as figure-eights and compulsories do not constitute ice skating, mastering a sequence of skills does not necessarily add up to fluent reading. Thus, the new framework states that while some phonics is necessary in the primary grades, children learn to read primarily by reading .

As anyone who has marveled at a preschooler reading a favorite storybook will tell you, children who love books and hear stories frequently can acquire reading naturally, just as they acquire language.

Nevertheless, many teachers are concerned that the pendulum may swing too far. They argue that skill-based instruction in phonics, reading comprehension, spelling and grammar are essential to a balanced language-arts program. Because children have more than one learning style, effective teachers include varied strategies in their bags of tricks.

In a way, the issue boils down to a conflict between two learning modalities of the human brain. The ‘70s were dominated by a linear, analytic style characteristic of the left brain. The current program leans toward a holistic, whole-word approach. Most teachers tend to be eclectics, recognizing that both modes of learning are native to human intelligence and thus have a place in the classroom.

One controversial feature of the program requires that all students be exposed to the core literature, whether they can decode it or not. For years, individualized instruction--assigning books according to ability levels--has been standard practice. Now, flying a banner called “equal access,” proponents argue that all children need an opportunity to grapple with age-appropriate books and themes. Teachers and peers may read aloud to low students, who will learn by “following along.”

Interpretations vary on how much classroom time should be spent on whole-group reading. There is also debate on what innovative techniques teachers can use to meet individual needs of students without assigning workbooks and readers at their functional level.

One thing is certain. Never has a program demanded more from teachers, who are gearing up to make literature-based instruction work. Extensive retraining would be desirable, but in some California districts, in part due to budget deficits, in-service training has been insufficient. California’s new framework is idealistic in the best sense: It seeks to help students “unlock the doors of language and discover the best that human beings have thought, written and spoken.” Since the benefits of producing “a nation of readers” are profound, in this age of TV, movies and video games, there is all the more reason to pause at the outset and take stock.

A global reading program in a state as diverse as California is best incorporated with balance and moderation. A renaissance is needed, not a revolution. Educators can ensure its success by embracing innovative strategies while still maintaining a commitment to structure, defined skill objectives and academic continuity.

Nor should Sacramento delude the public that pedagogic reforms will solve the crisis in our schools. The mediocre results of even excellent state programs is proof that methodology isn’t the issue. Broken families, poor discipline, poverty, transiency, apathy and lack of follow-through at home, a multilingual population, low funding for education and the resulting overcrowded classrooms and underpaid teachers are the real issues.

These conditions undermine the best methods and the best teachers. In this context, new teaching methods and texts can have little effect without attention to real-world solutions: smaller classes, more help for limited-English speakers, clear-cut standards for grade-level promotion, home involvement, tougher use of review and dismissal procedures to remove weak teachers and administrators, better pay to attract top educators to California, a uniform statewide curriculum to meet the needs of a transient population and common-sense teaching strategies.