October 26, 1992

Ms Jessica Johnson , Head of School

The Brooks Hill School

St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands

Re: The Brooks Hill School method of reading instruction

Dear Ms Johnson:

I enjoyed seeing you again at the Parent Association meeting Wednesday night, October 21st. It is good of the School to allow the Association to meet at the School library prior to the formalization of the Association's organization, but let me turn to another subject. I request that The  Brooks Hill  School reevaluate its policy regarding the teaching of reading. By "reading" I mean reading and writing. I request that the school consider the adoption of a "phonics-first" policy and classroom methodology for the teaching of reading. Currently,  Brooks Hill  uses the "look-and-say" method of teaching reading, supplemented with phonics. There is all the difference in the world between a phonics-first policy and a look-and-say policy incorporating phonics.

I realize that you are charged with implementing policies set by the Board of Trustees, rather than establishing or changing established school policies. As the administrator of the school, however, no doubt you would agree that an important part of your job is to encourage thoughtful analysis of basic school policies so that the need for important policy changes will be brought to the attention of the Board of Trustees. Most Board members, as intelligent and sensitive as they may be, are not generally involved in day-to-day education of children. They need and expect the administration, on behalf of the students, faculty, and staff, to bring important educational policy issues to the attention of the Board and to assist the Board in educating themselves so that informed decisions can be made. Thus, I write this letter to you, with copies to the Board. Others will be reading this letter and it is primarily for the benefit of some of them that this structure and these functions are mentioned.

I have enclosed herewith for your review the books and other materials listed as enclosures at the end of this letter. Please be wary of the tendency to dismiss this plea with the reaction, "Our school does teach phonics; it is an important part of the teaching of reading in use at The Brooks Hill School." Dr. Flesch comments on this understandable reaction by an official or teacher in a primarily look-and-say institution, in his "Letter to Johnny's Teacher," the last chapter in the enclosed seminal

Teaching children to read is the most important function of the primary grades at any school. It is the most important classroom teaching function of the school as a whole. Since there is disagreement within the educational establishment over the best method for teaching reading, the Board of Trustees must set a policy establishing the method of teaching reading to be used at the school. When one investigates this matter, it becomes clear that it is important that the specific methodology for teaching reading be consciously selected by the school and applied uniformly from class to class and grade to grade. It is possible to change, with wonderful results, from look-and-say to phonics-first as the City of Rochester did. That story is recounted by Rochester's Reading Director Mary L. Burkhardt in her foreword to Why Johnny Still Can't Read, enclosed. A good reading program, of course, does not end in the primary grades, but rather pervades all grade levels.

This letter does not set forth an exhaustive statement explaining why I believe The Brooks Hill School should adopt a phonics-first reading program. I will limit myself to a few remarks in this letter, although I would be honored to assist in any way I can in a process of reevaluating The Brooks Hill School teaching of reading policy. For starters, I would be happy to arrange for the obtaining and distribution of the books enclosed to those persons receiving copies of this letter.

Our common goal, whether we be trustees, administrators, staff, faculty, students, or parents, is to investigate, evaluate, and discover the best methods of teaching our children, when they can be identified with confidence, and to require the implementation of those methods in the classroom. Please do not misunderstand: I cherish the individuality of each of our teachers. Their enthusiasm, caring, love, and other qualities are critically important to the success of the School. I do not suggest that we stifle our teachers; rather, I suggest that when a teaching methodology in the most critical subject area is determined to be superior to the other choices, the teachers be taught the methodology and be instructed to act in conformity with that realization. This will promote the best education for our students.

In look-and-say, sometimes called the whole word method, the child is taught whole words, word by word. Although virtually every child in modern look-and-say programs is also taught some phonics, that is, the sounds of letters and combinations of letters; the primary emphasis in look-and-say is upon learning each word as a whole. When encountering an unfamiliar word, instead of breaking the word down into syllables, pronouncing the word part by part, and then as a whole, look-and-say students are encouraged to guess at the pronunciation of the word. They are encouraged to look for sound and sight cues, such as the sound of the first letter or letter blend, a familiar ending, a familiar shorter word in the middle, the shape of the word, and its context (whether it be the sentence, the paragraph, the chapter, or the pictures).

This method of approaching unfamiliar words is strongly discouraged in a phonics-first reading program. Instead the emphasis is placed, and significant classroom time is spent, upon the child learning well the sounds of the letters and combinations of letters, and the other rules of phonics, so that the child can decipher and correctly pronounce any word he or she encounters on the page whether or not previously seen. The meaning is garnered from previous familiarity with the word in our spoken language and from the context, if one decides not to consult outside sources such as a dictionary.

Look-and-say proponents put great emphasis in justifying its use on the presence of non-phonetically pronounced "irregular" words in the English language. Over 97% of English words are phonetically pronounced "regular" words. I believe that a good phonics-first reading program greatly assists students in their learning of irregular words as well. They are given a frame of reference, the phonetic pronunciation of the word, to compare against the actual pronunciation of the word. This makes the learning of irregular words a fascinating study in variance, unlike the look-and-say method, which emphasizes raw memorization. In a phonics-first program, the student is first exposed to the fabric of our largely phonetic language, within which to view the individualized design of the irregular word.

One of the great tragedies (and I use that term advisedly) of the look-and-say method of reading instruction is that it is based upon the conviction on the part of those setting educational policy that our children are not intelligent enough to learn and understand the basic principles for the encoding of our spoken language into the symbols of the written word. In the face of our phonetic language, it is the equivalent of the educator throwing up his or her hands and saying "Our children will never get it; it's too hard." This is simply not true. Dr. Flesch analyzes extensively studies comparing the results of look-and-say teaching instruction versus phonics-first teaching in his writings submitted to you. Study results demonstrate that phonics-first is superior to look-and-say. I have provided you with a more recent reporting on comparison studies in the Science News article I have enclosed.

I do not maintain that proponents of look-and-say reading instruction are lacking in intelligence; or are uninformed, when compared to other educators. After all, The Brooks Hill School is not unique. Most schools in the United States do not teach reading through a phonics-first program. As a result of the entrenchment of look-and-say reading instruction, the United States faces an educational crisis whose proportions are difficult to exaggerate caused by the prevalence of poor readers. Please see the article "Teaching for Millions," enclosed, as well as the other enclosed materials.

The look-and-say program is seductive. Little children are generally able to memorize words, whole word by whole word, through repetition. Since in look-and-say, frequently occurring irregular words are taught right off the bat, students are often able to read simple books with carefully limited word selections early on in the instructional program. Teachers can see this and conclude that look-and-say is an efficacious reading program. Brooks Hill uses the look-and-say Ladybird series in kindergarten. Although at first the results of this method can appear good, it establishes insidious reading habits difficult to erase.

Since look-and-say students are primarily taught words as whole units, rather than taught to read every word by putting together its sounds, when an unfamiliar word is encountered, the children are often unprepared for the task of correctly and exactly reading the word. To learn to read well, students should be taught from the beginning as their primary reading instruction, and throughout their education, the rules of phonics, and should be encouraged to use these rules consistently to decode the written word. They should be taught the opposite of the look-and-say basic principle, that is, they should be taught never to guess at unfamiliar words; rather, they should be taught the skills to actually figure out by themselves the pronunciation of each written word. The correct pronunciation of an irregular word is then a relatively easy task for the reader to divine. It becomes fascinating, subtle detective work for that 3% or fewer of the words that are irregular.

Whether a student is perceived as being a "visual" learner or an "auditory" learner, the student should be taught reading in a phonics-first program. Dr. Adams, the author of Beginning to Read (enclosed), points out while many studies have been conducted on this issue, the data do not support the use of different instructional methods with children classified as "auditory" and those classified as "visual." This issue is also addressed by Dr. Flesch in Why Johnny Still Can't Read.

Although The Brooks Hill School has produced many outstanding graduates, one cannot conclude, from that fact alone, that the reading methodology used at the school is the best. No matter what method of reading is used, some students will understand the phonetic nature of our language and will, despite their instruction, learn never to guess, and always to use the rules of the code of our written language to read well. Other parents besides me, no doubt, in discovering with a shock that their child is doing what the teacher instructed in guessing at words not yet specifically taught, instead of sounding them out, embark upon their own phonics-first program, pleading with their child to ignore the teacher's advice, and instead syllabicate (when needed) and sound-out unfamiliar words. This is the proverbial swim up stream. Although the last statistics imparted to me, from two years ago, were that Brooks Hill combined verbal/math SAT scores were about fifty points above the national average, and far above the rock bottom overall Virgin Islands scores, the Brooks Hill combined score average of under 1,000 (out of a maximum possible of 1,600) leaves room for improvement I suspect.

The question is: can we improve the overall ability of our students to read well and to think clearly by changing our method of teaching reading? As Dr. Adams points out in her book, skillful readers visually process virtually every individual letter of every word as they read, and this is true whether they are reading isolated words or meaningful, connected text. Good readers decode rapidly and automatically. Weaknesses in basic decoding skills may be the most common and can be the most serious source of reading difficulties, Dr. Adams reports. A good history of methods used to teach reading can be found in the Mitford M. Mathews (one "t") book, Teaching to Read, Historically Considered (The University of Chicago Press, 1966).

I have heard, although I have not confirmed, that perhaps as many as twelve of the Brooks Hill first grade students this year have been referred to a resource teacher to give them supplemental reading instruction because they are not sufficiently familiar with a number of the common words that other students who have had a look-and-say kindergarten system already know. It would be wrong to conclude, from this information alone, that the students referred to the resource teacher come from an inferior pre-school program. A phonics-first program does not emphasize early on the learning of the commonly used irregular words; rather, the phonics-first program limits the student's initial exposure to regular, phonetically pronounced words, and leaves the learning of the most common irregular words until a little later. Our goals for our children are long-term. We want them to develop into excellent readers for life. Students can even become interested in the richness of the variations in English language pronunciations and spellings. The origins of most of our encoding variations (coming from several feeder languages) are well known and make an engrossing subject of study.

I suspect that in many cases look-and-say instruction results in far more problems than simply the individual human tragedies of children who could have been great, enthusiastic readers, and who instead are halting, uncertain readers with little interest in reading. Phonics-first instruction is based upon the premise that children can learn and truly understand the structure of their language and can decode words and read without errors confidently, freeing the students to concentrate on the meaning of the written material, which is the goal of the act of reading. Look-and-say instruction is based upon the premises that our children are not capable of truly understanding the structure of our language. They are taught, tragically (forgive the repeated use of this apt word) each word, word by word because of the variability of the spelling of English language sounds. The children are taught, in essence, that reading is a guessing game; that it is too difficult for them to make consistent use of our written language's encoding principles. This basic flaw lessens the likelihood of our students developing an awareness of the magnificent and surprising extent of their own intelligence. Students may then underrate their ability to analyze with confidence and to discover answers to the problems they confront not only in decoding words, but in all other subjects taught at school, and in the larger problems of life itself. I know that I hold myself up to ridicule for commenting in this context on the deeper issues in the philosophy of reading, but to promote effectively the development of our children's confidence and abilities, and their competence as human beings, we must understand the full effect of our policy choices. We would be ill advised to allow ourselves to be seduced by the thrill of kindergarten reading of vocabulary-controlled look-and-say books, mastered through the development of habits (memorizing whole words through repetition rather than mastering the codes for the deciphering of 97% of our written words) that will impair reading ability in the long run.

I believe it is appropriate for me to comment briefly upon the "whole language" so-called method of teaching reading, which is used in some classrooms at Brooks Hill. The whole language system rejects the use of basal readers (reading textbooks) in favor of a non-textbook approach that teaches reading (and writing, of course) primarily through reading and writing about subjects that interest the child, his family, the class, the school, and the community in general. Initially, correct spelling is de-emphasized. The theory behind the whole language method is that using student-based subjects of reading and writing and unusual and individualized reading programs will encourage enthusiasm for reading (and writing). It is seen as an alternative to perceived drudgery, sterility, and "non-relevancy" of textbook learning.

The reason I refer to the whole language approach as a "so-called" method of teaching reading is that within the context of the whole language approach, the teacher must still teach the child how to read. The teacher must choose a non-phonics-first method or the phonics-first method. The whole language approach, therefore, is not a third alternative to look-and-say (with or without supplemental phonics) and phonics-first instruction. It is, in essence, simply an attempt to make the subject matter of reading and writing stimulating and interesting to the student, and gradually to introduce the child to correct spelling in his or her own writing.

An asterisk has been placed in front of each item listed below which has been delivered to the other recipients of this letter. Please accept my enthusiastic good wishes for you as Head of School. I look forward to seeing you again soon, and to an exciting school year.

Cordially,

Edward Haskins Jacobs

EHJ:dmd

Enc: 1. Rudolf Flesch, Ph.D., Why Johnny Can't Read (Harper Collins, 1955)

2. Rudolf Flesch, Ph.D., Why Johnny Still Can't Read (Harper Collins, 1981)

3. Marilyn Jager Adams, Ph.D., Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning About Print, A Summary (Center for the Study of Reading, The Reading Research and Education Center, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1990)

*4. "A Letter to Johnny's Teacher" (Chapter XI - Why Johnny Can't Read)

*5. Bruce Bower, "Reading the Code, Reading the Whole" (Science News, Vol. 141, No. 9, pp. 138-140, February 29, 1992)

*6. Mary L. Burkhardt, "Foreword" (from Why Johnny Still Can't Read).

*7. "Teaching for Millions" (Success magazine, pg. 10, October, 1992) (courtesy of American Airlines).

*8. My letter to the Honorable Lamar Alexander, United States Secretary of Education, of December 24, 1991, without enclosures.

cc: James Savage, Chairman, Board of Trustees

Carol L. Battuello, President, The Good Hope School Parent Association

Sarah Otis, Director of Lower School

Karl W. Bauknight, Vice-President of the Board of Trustees

Douglas A. Brady, Secretary of the Board

Honorable Maria M. Cabret (Resident Trustee)

Christine A. Christle (Resident Trustee)

Jerri Farrante (Resident Trustee)

Richard Grant (Resident Trustee)

David Hamilton (Resident Trustee)

Patrick Hensley (Resident Trustee)

Jodie Lawaetz Mays (Alumna - Resident Trustee)

Nancy Marohn, Former Lower School Director

Pablo O'Neill, Treasurer of the Board

Warren Pedersen (Resident Trustee)

David Ridgway, President of the Board

Robert Schierloh (Resident Trustee)

Patricia Sullivan (Resident Trustee)

Anthony J. Ayer (Honorary Trustee)

Dr. Richard Barter (Honorary Trustee)

Peter Behringer (Honorary Trustee)

Jose Bou (Honorary Trustee)

Douglas Burns (Honorary Trustee)

Leonard Chasen (Honorary Trustee)

Betty Dale, Founding Chmn. (Honorary Trustee)

Earl Harrison (Honorary Trustee)

Oscar E. Henry (Honorary Trustee)

Hans Lawaetz (Honorary Trustee)

Sam Pivar (Honorary Trustee)

Cornelia Schierloh (Honorary Trustee)

Ed Weinman (Honorary Trustee)

Joyce McCray, Executive Director, CAPE (Non-resident Trustee)

Ruth Young, Pivar Realtors (Non-resident Trustee)