IV Communications to-Continued Stafford, Robert T., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont, from- Page Antonelli, George A., Ph.D., dean, division of education, University of 235 Mobley, Laurie S., Louisiana State chairman, Reading Reform Foun- 236 Herzer, Ann, MA, June 5, 1984 (with attachments) 239 ........................... 261 Sheppard, Sharon L., Maryland State chairman, Reading Reform 265 Zorinsky, Hon. Edward, a U.S. Senator from the State of Nebraska, from: Dallabetta, Patrick M., Ed.D., assistant superintendent, Crane Elementary School District, June 5, 1984. 263 Rubicam, Bettina Hall, June 5, 1984. 269 Toolan, Claire (with enclosures).... 270 Mobley, Laurie S., Louisiana State chairman, Reading Reform Foun- 280 NATIONAL COMMISSION ON TEACHER EDUCATION ACT THURSDAY, JUNE 7, 1984 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION, ARTS AND HUMANITIES, Washington, DC. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in room SD-430, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Robert T. Stafford (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Senator Stafford. Also present: Senator Zorinsky. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR STAFFORD Senator STAFFORD. The Subcommittee on Education, Arts and Humanities will please come to order. Today, the subcommittee meets to consider Senate Joint Resolution 138, a bill to establish a National Commission on Teacher Education. Our lead-off witness today, a most valued and able colleague, Senator Zorinsky, introduced this legislation, and the Chair wishes to recognize the significant time and effort our distinguished colleague has devoted to this question. The magic of the classroom occurs between pupil and teacher, and nowhere should we look more closely than at the quality, creativity, and health of the teaching profession. Nineteen hundred and eighty-three was a banner year for evaluation of all facets of our educational system, and a review of our teacher corps was a strong component of these national reports. Under the leadership of Secretary Bell, the very fine report, "A Nation At Risk," was released. Its reverberations are still being felt. Indeed, among the many examples of declining student performance and enthusiasm, the report cites some disturbing trends with respect to teaching: teachers drawn from the bottom of academic ranks; teacher preparation curriculas weighted with courses in educational methods; inadequate salaries; severe shortages in certain disciplines, and in some cases, unqualified instructors. As chairman of this subcommittee, I must say that these warning signals are a matter of grave concern to me. Yet there are signs of improvement. Secretary Bell's leadership in publicizing our Nation's educational plight has been followed by his wisdom in documenting the responses our Nation is making. "A Nation Responds," recently published by the Education Department, demon (1) sweeping the country suggests that, once again, our teachers, parents, administrators, students, and citizens realize that the strength of our Nation lies with the education of our people. And, as "A Nation Responds" makes plainly clear, this wave of reform has changed teaching in our schools. Several States, including many represented by members of this committee, have proceeded to raise admissions standards to their schools of education. Some states now require more courses for teacher certification. Arkansas, New Jersey, West Virginia, and Connecticut, for example, now require teachers to pass an examination in their areas of specialization. Throughout the country, special scholarship, apprenticeship, and internship programs have helped to elevate the profession of teaching to its rightful place. I should also like to note that teacher education continues to receive thorough national evaluation. Through his discretionary fund, Secretary Bell has made funds available to the American Association for Colleges of Teacher Education to create a national commission to examine, in a bipartisan way, reform strategies and proposals for teacher education. Yet concern for an independent evaluation of this issue remains, and the legislation before us reflects that concern. Today, I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses. Your thoughts carve out a cross-section of views on teacher education. The Chair realizes that many of the witnesses before us feel very strongly about this topic, and I want to assure you that the subcommittee will give serious consideration to everything that is said here today. As I said earlier, I am delighted that the author of this legislation, my able and distinguished colleague, Senator Zorinsky, is here. Senator, do you have an opening statement? STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD ZORINSKY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA Senator ZORINSKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and at the outset, I want to thank you very, very much for taking time from your busy schedule in order to enable us to hold this hearing. I know the time constraints that are placed upon you, especially in this short session that we are involved in right now. With all of your numerous obligations and responsibilities, I think this is certainly indicative of where in the priorities you rank education, and I want to thank you for that. Senator STAFFORD. Thank you. Senator ZORINSKY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate having this opportunity to address the subcommittee about the legislation I introduced in July 1983, Senate Joint Resolution 138, the National Commission on Teacher Education Act. The response to this legislation from around the country has been highly favorable. This resolution was introduced as a result of the findings of the National Commission on Excellence in Education, which noted deficiencies in teacher training. It provides for a general study of teacher education, with special attention to be focused on two areas: First, the causes of illiteracy as they relate to how teachers are trained to teach reading; and second, the training of teachers in the use of psychological techniques unrelated to academic learning. I ask at this time that my floor statement, which includes the text of the resolution, be printed with my remarks in the hearing record. Senator STAFFORD. Without objection, it certainly will be. Illiteracy today has become so widespread that it is now taken for granted. Over 20 percent of adults in this country are functionally illiterate, and another 32 percent are only marginally literate. Billions of dollars are spent every year on remedial reading by colleges, businesses, Government agencies, and the Armed Forces. Illiteracy threatens our economy, our national security, and indeed, the very future of our country. Much discussion has taken place recently about this problem and what can be done to help persons who are illiterate, but very little has been said about the prevention of illiteracy. We need to find out why students are not learning to read properly, and the obvious place to start is in how they are taught to read. But we also need to go back one step further and find out how teachers are taught to teach reading. This is not necessarily the only factor contributing to illiteracy, but it certainly is an important one. Dr. Rudolph Flesch, in his 1955 book, "Why Johnny Can't Read," stated that “* * * from about 1930 to 1950, beginning reading instruction in American schools had been radically changed by the professors of education from the traditional alphabet-phonics method to a new whole-word, or hieroglyphic system called the 'look-and-say' method." He noted that by the 1940's, schools all over the country were setting up remedial reading departments and reading clinics to handle the thousands of children with reading problems. In his 1981 book, "Why Johnny Still Can't Read," Dr. Flesch states that 124 studies have been made, carefully comparing the results of phonics-first and look-and-say. Every single one found the phonics method to be superior. Many people have questioned why reforms have not been made and why reading instruction continues to be unnecessarily complicated. Among others, Dr. David J. Yarington, author of "The Great American Reading Machine," believes that it is the financial vested interest of those associated with the reading establishment, excluding teachers, which discourages reform. For instance, a transition back to phonics would involve elimination of millions of workbooks required for the look-and-say method every year, as well as possibly extensive remedial reading programs all over the country. Some school districts, however, have on their own initiative retrained their teachers to the use of phonics, and in those instances students' language skills increased and costs decreased For example, in 1981, the Groveton, NH, schools adopted the phonetics method of teaching at the elementary level. At the end of the year, reading comprehension increased an average of one and one-half 4 grade levels, and expenditures were reduced from an average of $20 per student to $1.25. When the Benjamin Franklin Elementary School in Mesa, AZ, opened in 1978, the principal had all his teachers trained in phonetics. This was at the request of the parents, but over the objections of the superintendent. By 1981, expenditures for reading materials were under $2 per student, compared with the district average of $23.42. On the California Achievement Test, Franklin's students consistently score 1 to 2 years above the national average, and significantly above the district average. Interestingly enough, the superintendent continues to object to this phonetic approach to reading, even though this school has become so popular that last year some parents camped out for 3 days in order to enroll their children because it operates on a first-come, first-served basis. I believe that this evidence is compelling enough to warrant a study of the techniques used in teaching reading and their effectiveness. Teachers are undoubtedly doing the best job they can with the tools they have been provided, but for the most part, the methods they are using, at least for the hard-to-teach, appear to be ineffective. With respect to the second area I mentioned earlier-the use of psychotherapeutic techniques on normal children in the classroom-recent events have confirmed my belief that this area needs to be studied. In February, the Department of Education issued proposed regulations on the Hatch amendment, which was passed in 1978. It requires prior written consent of parents before students are subjected to psychiatric or psychological methods which cause them to reveal personal information about themselves and their families. The proposed regulations would simply provide procedures for handling inquiries and complaints. Seven public hearings were held around the country, and individuals from 29 States testified. In addition, written comments were received from virtually every State. Not one person at any hearing testified against the regulations, although written comments in opposition have since been received. Mr. Chairman, I am certain that anyone who takes time to become familiar with what transpired at these hearings will be deeply disturbed by the testimony of the parents. Few of these people knew each other, but their stories were remarkably similar. They spoke of psychological techniques in the context of federally funded programs being used on their children without their knowledge or consent, which in some instances resulted in emotional harm to the children. They told of sensitivity training in which students were required to reveal their innermost feelings on highly personal matters; group therapy; role-playing murder, suicide, death, hate, and anger; the teaching of moral relativism and what they felt was the undermining of their role in the upbringing of their children. Questions such as the following, which are included in the values clarification strategies, are being asked in classes like social studies or home economics: |