New! 2014 Super Spelling
See the spelling camps page for details.
Jul 7 - Aug 1, 2014
509-946-5453 (Audrey) or 509-627-5447 (Linda)
Jun 17 - Jul 15, 2014
New! 2014 Training
Call 605-693-4454 to register
Jun 9-13, 2014
If you would like to request a seminar in your area, please visit our
seminar request page.
Spelling Dictionaries now available!
Audio Tape/Visual Aid "Overview" and full catalog available FREE upon
Online ordering coming soon!
An EQUAL and OPTIMAL educational opportunity through multi-sensory language arts.
Print this document
Estimated: 2 pages
The Reason Bill Honig and The California State Department Cannot Claim Ignorance
In California's Adoption of Whole Language Programs In 1988
Testimony before California Board of Education, 8 September 1988
Professor Richard C. Anderson, Director, Center for Study of Reading, University
"I have been asked to appear before you by members of the State Assembly's Education
Committee, who are concerned about the current textbook adoption in reading and
[Permit me to note that I am not receiving a fee for making this presentation. I
have no financial interest in any program considered in this adoption. My expenses
are being paid by a not-for-profit public service organization.]
Five years ago, the National Academy of Education and the National Institute of
Education formed a Commission on Reading, on which I served as chairman. In l985
the commission produced a small book, Becoming a Nation of Readers (BNR), that has
been widely accepted as authoritative both in the research community and among practical
educators. The California English/Language Arts Framework has incorporated a number
of specific points from BNR, as well as more broadly endorsing the whole document.
On a recent press release, the Curriculum Commission and State Department of Education
claimed, once again, to be acting in the spirit of BNR.
As someone involved in education reform whose writing has been invoked by educators
in this state, please let me make three points about textbook adoption as it is
now unfolding in California.
First, in my judgment, the English/Language Arts Framework is an appropriate tool
for reforming reading and language arts instruction in California schools. Generally
speaking, the practices and approaches it encourages are the right ones, from a
research point of view, for the state to be putting its moral force behind.
But, second, the process of actually evaluating programs appears to have been deeply
flawed. It seems to have produced a recommendation to adopt some programs, and reject
others, that is inconsistent with California's own Framework. Notably, I was shocked
to learn that Open Court Reading and Writing received a negative evaluation. I believe
this is one of the best programs available, one that comes closer than most to exemplifying
the letter and spirit of the Framework. The Open Court program features strong phonics,
good literature, integrated reading and writing, and well-designed direct instruction
in the reading and thinking strategies that promote comprehension.
I think I know why Open Court Reading and Writing was among the programs recommended
for rejection. There is a pattern among the rejected programs: All of them have
a reputation for intensive phonics instruction in the lower grades.
Educational research in the United States has consistently shown that children make
more progress in reading, on the average, when they receive systematic phonics instruction
in the early grades. Why, then, were programs known for strong phonics recommended
for rejection, especially since the Framework endorses phonics instruction? My hunch
is that the main reason is the changing winds of ideological fashion. Something
called the "whole language" movement has an enthusiastic following in California
reading circles. Much about this movement is positive; it stands for genuine literature,
integrating reading and writing, and natural approaches to teaching children to
read. However, the most zealous proponents of "whole language" are not as noteworthy
for what they are against as what they are for. They absolutely proscribe "teaching
skills in isolation," which in their minds rules out traditional, systematic approaches
Third, and most important, the adoption recommendation before you is flawed -- not
simply because of quirks this year -- but because of inherent shortcoming in the
statewide adoption process. For all practical purposes, it is impossible for volunteers,
frequently unprepared for the task, working under time pressure, to complete a thorough
review of every program that is submitted. These programs are complicated and they
are big. An entire basal reading program makes a stack of paper three or four feet
high. Place all of the programs submitted end to end and you have 40 to 50 feet
Faced with an overwhelming task, people take shortcuts. They are overly influenced
by attractive art work. They are easily swayed by anecdotes. They are prone to make
ratings based on hearsay and "reputation."
The process of statewide adoption discourages innovation, limits diversity, and
reduces local choice. It is subject to abuses, including fraud and bribery. It is
vulnerable to ideological fashion. It is expensive and time consuming. Scholars
who have studied the statewide adoption process concur that it is an unwise intrusion
in the market place. Ideally, there would be no state adoption at all:
Districts and schools ought to have the freedom to choose from a full range of available
Based on the foregoing, allow me to offer you two recommendations: First, this year,
accept all of the reading programs submitted. Second, henceforth, abandon statewide