June 10, 1993

Mr. Robert Roe, Chairman

Board of Trustees

The Brooks Hill School

Frederiksted, St. Croix, Virgin Islands

Dear Bob,

Thank you for taking the time to write your letter of November 4, 1992. No doubt you are aware that the Director of Lower School has also responded to my October 26, 1992 letter with her letter of November 2, 1992. That letter (for the benefit of those receiving copies of this letter) and my reply to it are enclosed.

With all due respect, Bob, I do not deserve the negative and accusatorial tone of your letter. The Brooks Hill School has a serious problem that needs to be addressed. I did not create the problem, I am working on the solution. There is no need to make this discussion about teaching reading a "personal" issue by attacking the bearer of the bad news. My crime is that I have paid attention to the Brooks Hill children's education. I want all of the children of Brooks Hill to learn to read with pleasure, feel smart, and love to think with precision.

Bob, I am not attempting to impose my views on Brooks Hill; rather, I am doing what I can to heighten the awareness of the school community on this most important matter. I first made my views known to Lower School administration almost a year and a half ago. Last school year I distributed the Science News article to Lower School administration, and the "Letter to Johnny's Teacher" since I was assured Why Johnny Can't Read was in the library and another copy was not wanted. I distributed Dr. Flesch's books and the Science News article to several Lower School teachers. The response of the Lower School administration was consistent with the Lower School Director's letter of November 2nd. After a year of quietly using gentle persuasion through "regular channels" I finally wrote my letter of October 26th. My letter deserves a respectful hearing, not invective, does it not? Certainly a parent has the right to bring an important School-wide problem to the attention of the Board when the parent has been rebuffed by the School administration, especially if it concerns the proper method of teaching reading, which is of fundamental importance

My letter is about educational policy, not personnel, who can be educated and trained to teach in a phonics-first program. Please see the Forward to Why Johnny Still Can't Read by the Director of Reading of the City of Rochester, Mary Burkhardt, previously provided.

You criticize my statement of our common goal, presumably because you rely upon the School administration, possibly with the help of faculty (but certainly not Trustees, students, or parents) to "investigate, evaluate, and discover the best methods of teaching our children." Is not this exclusive reliance upon school administration a bit nonreflective of reality? School administrators and faculty members will confirm that parents must be active participants in their children's education, especially reading. Would not parents be neglecting their parental obligations if they reasonably believed that a basic educational policy change in teaching reading was vitally needed, but then did nothing about it (or gave up after being turned down by school administration)? Is it appropriate to have the school administration alone evaluate its own policies in this most important area; that is, if any true evaluation at all is to be conducted? I agree "we need parents to help make our teaching efforts a success in every way."

I beg to differ with you on the proper role of parents in the teaching of their children to read. As you know, I believe it is important for parents to encourage their children to develop the habit of sounding out unfamiliar words, not guessing at them. This is true no matter what the school is teaching the child. This can be accomplished in the context of encouraging the child to love and respect the teacher, which is very important at our home. If a bad habit is being taught at school, the parent, in the context, always, of love and respect for the teacher, should attempt to supplant the bad habit with a good one. Believe me, it is very hard to sit idly by while a child guesses at an unfamiliar word, instead of using the tools available to figure it out on his or her own. Parents ignore school reading methodology at their child's peril. I am not one who looks for problems, but try as I might, I could not avoid this one, since as a parent I must help my children learn to read.

I suspect that very few of the children at The Brooks Hill School are in danger of leading lives of "disregard (of)...established authority." The greater concern is children adopting an unthinking acceptance of everything emanating from established authority. Sometimes established authority is right, and sometimes it is wrong. We want our children to develop their ability and confidence to think on their own.

I agree wholeheartedly with your description of the teaching profession, for which I have great respect. I am pleased that The Brooks Hill School will seek out the very best teachers, but that is not enough. We must give our teachers the support they need in providing them with the best methodology for teaching reading. As important as the teacher is, it is not the teacher that makes the most important difference in how children learn to read, but rather the method used. See Why Johnny Still Can't Read, pgs. 45, 46, and 57. The subject of my letter goes beyond the scope of questions that can be effectively handled by individual teachers. It is a matter of school policy, as it should be.

We need to address the substance of my remarks, not get sidetracked by the way I brought this problem to the attention of the Board of Trustees. The only effective way to raise the consciousness of the Board on this fundamentally important matter is to create a stir. This is especially true when the School sees itself as performing well under its look-and-say regime. I am truly sorry my letters are irritating, since I do not like it any more than you do. I am trying to be as nice as I can about all this, while still remaining honest.

It is not beyond the ken of the members of the Board of Trustees or the parents to understand the issues involved in deciding how to teach reading. Parents, if they are doing their job, are intimately involved in the process of teaching their children to read. Those of us outside of School administration cannot just wash our hands of this matter. We cannot stick our heads in the sand and refuse to think about it, labeling it as a concern of "experts." If we are not part of the solution, we are part of the problem. The School yearbook reports the Head of School has degrees in chemistry and college counseling, not primary education. Just because someone has a degree in primary education or the teaching of reading does not mean that one should unthinkingly accept that person's opinions on this subject. "Experts" in the field vociferously disagree. The question is: who is correct? Research demonstrates that phonics-first advocates are. Please see the Science News article, Dr. Flesch's books, and Dr. Adams's book for ample support for this assertion. It is too important to say glibly that we have had outstanding graduates or to tout our relatively superior performance over the Virgin Islands public schools and leave it at that. Surely, not all our graduates are academically outstanding. Our SAT scores attest to this. What would a closer examination reveal about the reading ability of our typical graduate? We should not forget the ones at the bottom of the class either. We need to focus on our children's potential for greatness and use that as our measuring stick.

On the procedural matter raised in your letter, I have not read the by-laws of the Board of Trustees, but if they provide that the Trustees may not in any significant fashion act with regard to educational policy matters, the by-laws can be revised. Current by-law impediments are not a good reason to avoid this issue. I am confident without even having read the by-laws that the Board of Trustees can act on this matter.

I understand the need for a chain of command and the division of responsibilities in any organization, but all organizations are well advised to pay attention to the substance of constructive criticism in order better to accomplish their goals. It is my hope that the Board of Trustees will treat my letter in the spirit in which it was written: that of love and concern; nothing more, nothing less.

By the way, my earlier letter was from me, not the Parent Association. I sent a copy to the President of the Parent Association out of respect for her and her office, but neither she nor the Association had anything to do with it.

Thanks again, Bob, for your letter. I really mean that "thank you." I appreciate your willingness to put your thoughts, especially your criticisms, in writing directly to me. I know how difficult it was for me to write my letters criticizing Brooks Hill School teaching methods. Although your letter is highly critical of me, it does not address the substance of my argument, that phonics-first is superior to The Brooks Hill School look-and-say method. I know that job was given to the Director of the Lower School. Now that the issue is engaged, perhaps we can effectively evaluate our reading program to see if it can be improved. I assure you we are both on the same team.

Cordially,

Edward Haskins Jacobs

cc: Head of School

Director of Lower School

Members of the Board

President of Parent Association

(The names of individuals connected with the school are fictitious.)

a