cient when we use the sense of what we read together with phonics instead of just using phonics alone. Not only will children become better readers when they are taught to use sentence sense, they will also learn to understand what they read better, the true goal of learning symbol-sound associations. Another weakness of a program limited to phonics becomes clear when we recall that phonics only helps the reader translate an unfamiliar printed word into its oral sound. That is an important skill when reading printed words for which the oral word sounds have meanings, such as milk. But as students grow, they will meet more and more unknown printed words for which the oral word sounds are also unknown. For example, children in the upper grades may come to such printed words as adduce and tort. Phonics may help translate those words to the correct oral word sounds, but if the reader has no meanings for those word sounds, there is no understanding. The goal of reading is comprehension Meaning and a student who uses phonics to get the oral sounds for printed words is not achieving that goal unless there are meanings for those oral word sounds. A teaching program relying on phonics alone limits students to reading and comprehending only those printed words that they would have meaning for if they heard them. That is too great a limitation. A complete reading program goes beyond phonics and also teaches students needed skills for developing unfamiliar meanings for words. 6 Another limitation to a phonics only approach is that a pu phonics program most often teaches children to give the sound each individual letter in isolation and then repeat those soun quickly, one after the other, to get the unknown word. This m work with some simple, one-syllable words. Unfortunately for phonics only, however, our students soon come to printed words that are not so easily translated into their oral word sounds t blending together the sounds for individual letters. For example, uh-el-uh-fuh-eh-nn-tuh does not readily translate into the oral word elephant, even when we know that the letters ph stand for the sound that the letter f usually stands for. Because of this, children need to learn more than the lette: by-letter sounding common in a phonics only program. They also need to be taught how to deal with longer words that are decoded most efficiently by breaking them into groups of letters that become pronouncable elements in the total word. Our letter-byletter breakdown of elephant did not take us very close to the correct word sound, but a breakdown into el-uh-funt will. Probably more important than these decoding limitations of a phonics only program, however, is that it assumes the goal of learning to read is simply translating printed words into their oral word sounds. Even if there are meanings for the words, many vital reading skills go beyond simply translating a word into its sound and meaning. Reading comprehension is more than word meaning plus word meaning plus word meaning. A seven word sentence such as, "The child is father to the man," is not truly comprehended by adding together the meanings for each of those seven words. Students how to communicate with must be taught comprehension skills - authors as well as phonics in a comprehensive reading program. - citizenship. They must also learn other skills, such as how to question that communication so they fulfill the responsibilities of adult For example, they should learn how to distinguish between a printed statement given as a fact and a printed statement that is opinion. And they must learn to evaluate the sources for opinion that try to influence their thinking. None of these is considered in a program that teaches only phonic decoding, but all must be covered in a complete reading program. 11 Unfortunately, some advocates of a phonics only program try to cloud the many issues by presenting a good guy bad guy split. The good guys are for phonics only; the bad guys do not teach phonics. They frequently contend that phonics, is not taught in our schools and that all of our real or imaginary educational ills would be cured if teachers taught only phonics. Neither of these simplistic generalizations is true. In fact, reading programs in today's schools do teach children how to read unfamiliar words and, with approaches based on research evidence, they insure that phonics is one important part of that program. These programs, however, are not narrowly limited to symbol-sound associations only. They also help children learn to use the sense of what they are reading as an important aid to decoding, how to read words that they have never heard before, and how best to comprehend, enjoy, and analyze what they read. A program that does not advance beyond phonics to the many other vital reading skills that students should learn is not fulfilling the promises of education in a democracy. ן UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA The Honorable Robert T. Stafford 625 Hart Senate Office Building Dear Senator Stafford: Office of the President 202 Morrill Hall 100 Church Street S.E. I am writing with reference to the June 7, 1984, hearing that will take testimony regarding Senate Joint Resolution 138 to establish a national commission on teacher education. I have had the opportunity to review the Resolution and to consider its implications for both higher education and, more specifically, teacher education. I At the present time, I serve as President of the University of Minnesota. am also Chairman-Elect of the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, and Chairperson for the National Commission on Excellence in Teacher Education impanelled by the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE) on behalf of Secretary T. H. Bell. It is from these perspectives that I write to express my concern regarding the proposed resolution. I would like to raise three concerns with regard to Senator Zorinsky's initiative. First, the Department of Education, through the Secretary's discretionary fund, made available monies to AACTE to impanel a National Commission to a) describe the present status of teacher education, b) identify some of the problemmatic issues in teacher education, and c) make recommendations for the improvement of teacher education to persons in higher education, various levels of government, and the K-12 schools that have responsibility for the preparation and employment of teachers. That Commission, which is a bipartisan effort to involve professionals, policy makers, and practitioners to enunciate reform strategies and proposals for teacher education, is a positive response to the call for excellence in education in this country. The Commission is in its sixth month of activity and is conducting hearings, commissioning papers, and setting an ambitious reform agenda for teacher education. I believe that a new effort would be redundant, given the quantity of work outlined for our Commission and the range of perspective and opinion included among its members. A listing of the members of the Commission is attached to this letter for your consideration. The second concern I have with Senate Joint Resolution 138 is that it calls for an independent body of lay citizens to investigate a university-based program that is the responsibility of existing Boards of Regents that both set policies and assess outcomes. Senator Zorinsky's proposal calls for "a full and complete investigation of teacher training in the United States," determination of (a) the proper balance between courses in instructional methods and subject matter, (b) the extent of training now being given in the use of psychological techniques unrelated to academic content, and (c) methods used to teach reading and the effectiveness of those methods, etc. Whatever the deficiencies of schools of education, those deficiencies will hardly be solved by a commission of outside interests impanelled to "investigate" the internal program and structure of Universities. I believe the resolution is not merely a frontal attack on schools of education, rather it is also contrary to the statutory prohibition of federal interference, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution. This is a matter of great concern to me in my role as a university President. Schools of education are accountable within the established university structure to an array of internal faculty and administrative bodies and ultimately to their respective lay governing boards. have any commission bypass these groups in order to carry on an "investigation" of the character and structure of such higher education programs is an unwarranted intrusion into university affairs. то A third concern has to do with the statement of findings and the composition of the proposed commission. I believe the statement of findings includes many statements that are unwarranted and asserts a number of things which are either fallacious or open to debate. At the same time the composition of the "investigative body" fails to specify the inclusion of professionals in education, representatives of higher education, or members of boards of regents or state higher education commissions. Because the area being investigated is essentially within the purview of higher education this seems a serious amission. While I recognize the importance of public understanding of any pubic endeavor, such as the preparation and schooling of the nation's teaching force, I remain deeply concerned about the redundancy of the proposed commission, the proposed scope of its activities and the composition of members proposed in Senate Joint Resolution 138. I urge that your Subcommittee endorse the National Commission on Excellence in Teacher Education effort which is now under way and take no further action regarding this resolution. Cordially, P. Pit haguett C. Peter Magrath CPM:kb CC: Dr. David G. Imig, Executive Director, AACTE Dr. Robert Rosenzweig, President of the Association of American Dr. Ronald W. Roskens, President, University of Nebraska Central Dr. Lattie F. Coor, President, University of Vermont and State Agriculture College Dr. Robert L. Clodius, President, National Association of State Unviersities and Land-Grant Colleges Enclosure: Listing of Members of the National Commission on Excellence in |