(Re)Writing English: English teaching in the public sphere.

For some time now conservative commentators and politicians have been arguing that there is a literacy crisis in this country. Claims of falling standards have been widespread. With regards to the teaching of reading, the argument that there needs to be a renewed focus on phonics has been put forward. The Australian newspaper, in particular, has been very vocal in support of this argument. This recent opinion piece, for example, was supported by an approving editorial. Its author also approvingly refers to another commentator, who regularly writes for the newspaper.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20735845-13881,00.html


Support for an extreme phonics based approach in this country has come despite increasing evidence from the US which shows that students drilled in phonics are not learning to effectively comprehend what they read as they move into high school, and are not well equipped to cope with extended texts and content area reading.
http://www.carnegie.org/results/10/


The OECD PISA results confirm that Australian 15 year olds are achieving higher reading comprehension test scores than their US counterparts.

All of this makes what follows a laughable but timely cautionary tale.

Last Saturday, I submitted to The Australian the following letter to the editor. This was written in response to the suggestion made in that day's editorial that the Australian arm of the US publishing giant Scholastics is left-leaning in its policies and practices.

Saturday’s editorial on censorship left me alarmed. It appears that the long march of the left through our cultural institutions has extended to Scholastic, the world’s largest publisher of children’s books.

This multinational has a corporate mission to help children around the world to read and learn. But parents and teachers should be alert to the dangerous, left-leaning propaganda it is pedalling. Two titles given prominence on the corporation’s US web site give the game away: ‘Clifford the Big Red Dog’ and ‘I Spy’. And could that be a stick of gelignite ‘Captain Underpants’ has down the front of his jocks?

I was beginning to think that the editor’s criticisms of the ‘soft left’ were beginning to verge on the paranoiac. Not now. Where do I enlist for the culture wars?

This is what was published on the following Monday:

Your editorial on censorship left me alarmed. It appears that the long march of the Left through our cultural institutions has extended to Scholastic.
This multinational has a corporate mission to help children around the world to read and learn. But parents and teachers should be alert to the dangerous, Left-leaning views inherent in the publishing world.

I raised the issue of my argument being entirely altered in the editing process with the letters editor on the Monday. (It must be said that he had not been working over the weekend.) I received the following reply:

You are quite right (How the tone of yr letter was so completely misread puzzles me, to say the least).

I'm happy to publish a clarifing letter tomorrow. I can compose something and send it to you for your approval or you can send something to me. Whichever suits

Regards and apologies

To its credit, The Australian did publish a clarifying letter (but not an apology).

There is a clear message here about the place of comprehension in the reading process. Reading is so much more than word recognition and the blending of sounds.

There is probably also a parable to be found about having your own house in order before you start talking about falling standards elsewhere.