Legislature(1997 - 1998)
02/20/1998 09:08 AM Senate HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 203 - PHONICS CURRICULUM
SENATOR TAYLOR, sponsor of SB 203, asked the committee to adopt the
proposed committee in lieu of the original bill.
SENATOR LEMAN moved to adopt CSSB 203 (version H). SENATOR ELLIS
objected for the purpose of an explanation.
SENATOR TAYLOR stated the crucial element of the bill is twofold.
First it makes the statement that Alaskans want to make certain
that our children know how to read and that this be done in a
specific way that has been proven through 30 years of test results.
SB 203 provides a method to ensure that Alaskans know how our
children are doing by testing them for the first three years. To
identify the 25 percent of students who score below average, Alaska
should give nationally-normed tests to students in grades 1-3, and
then provide individualized instruction in whatever method works
best for each child identified. If the results of those tests,
which are conveyed to parents and to the school administration,
show that a child is having difficulty, then that child will
receive special attention at an early age to avoid the tragedy of
being pushed through a system handicapped by his/her inability.
SENATOR TAYLOR informed committee members that paragraph (c) was
not included in the committee substitute. That section would have
required all teachers to receive phonics training in order to be
retained in the profession. He removed that provision because he
believed it would cause a serious reaction.
[NOTE: ACCORDING TO SENATOR TAYLOR'S STAFF, PARAGRAPH (C) WAS IN
A DRAFT VERSION OF SB 203, THEREFORE THAT PROVISION WAS NOT IN SB
203 OR CSSB 203.]
CHAIRMAN WILKEN asked if Senator Taylor's explanation applied to
the difference between the original version and version H. SENATOR
TAYLOR said it did. SENATOR ELLIS removed his objection to the
adoption of the committee substitute.
SENATOR TAYLOR read the following sponsor statement.
"The purpose of SB 203 is to provide foundation blocks and
tools necessary for good reading skills; phonic awareness,
decoding skills, and word attack skills. It is the goal of
this legislation that every child should be reading at their
grade level by the end of the third grade or earlier, if
possible. All other subject matter taught in our schools is
dependent upon the student's ability to read and write.
According to the National Right to Read Foundation, at the
beginning of the 20th Century, the literacy rate was almost
100 percent for those who had attended school. You think back
to your grandfather's or grandparents' generation. Many of
those people had fourth grade, fifth grade, eighth grade
educations. That was all they were able to obtain. Everyone
of them could read. About thirty years ago the whole language
approach was introduced into our public school systems. The
results have been devastating. Reading skills have gradually
deteriorated to the point where 50 percent of kids are reading
below grade level in the fourth grade, and it doesn't get any
better as they advance through the system. We need a balanced
approach, not eliminating literature, but need to add
intensive, systemic phonics. Early assessment and intensive
one-on-one instruction at first and second grade levels for
those in the lower 25 percent will have dramatic results.
Intensive one-on-one instruction in the first grade will
usually require for that lower 25 percent about 40 hours of
actual work. At the end of that time, they usually have
brought up those young people to their full grade level. If
you wait to do this, and wait to identify these young people
until they are in the fourth grade, national studies have
shown that even with one-on-one instruction it then takes 80
hours, or twice the amount of resources time and effort to
bring that same child up to that grade level. Teachers are
not the problem, they want to do a good job and they want kids
to learn to read. They just need to have the right tools
available to them. Many teachers in our system today do not
know or really understand phonics. They will need some help
and they'll need some training. Phonics works, and if you
have any question, look at page 4 of the material -- the
backup material, under the National Right to Read Foundation,
and the National Institute of Health Research Studies show
that systemic required phonics instruction results in more
favorable outcomes in reading than does a context-emphasis
approach. On page 7 you'll find national statistics that are
very disturbing and Alaska is part of those statistics.
Several other states have already passed legislation
reintroducing intensive systemic phonics instruction back into
their school systems and there are excerpts that can be found
on page 19 of your backup material on those states.
I'd like to call your attention to an article on page 23 from
the Seattle Times, dated February 15, which states 'This much
is decided. The question is no longer whether to teach
phonics but how often and how much.' Also on page 26 of your
backup material there's an article about the use of the MRI in
determining how the brain works. The scientists, lead by Yale
physicians, have identified the parts of the brain used in
reading. By observing the flow of oxygen rich blood to
working brain cells, they have found that people who know how
to sound out words can rapidly process what they see. The
Dallas Morning News, January 23 this year, notes that Texas is
spending $79.12 million on remedial reading classes for its
Texas high school graduates that are entering their university
system. According to the University of Alaska Vice President
Wendy Redman, 40 percent of Alaska students entering our
university system are enrolled in remedial reading classes.
We don't have the cost figures yet on what that truly is, but
think of the cost in lost opportunity. We're only talking
about the kids that are actually enrolling in college. What
about those that have such poor reading skills they know they
can't go to college and don't even want to try -- that came
out of our educational system. Shouldn't we better spend this
money up front in those first three years when the kids are
going through their educational process and learning the
skill, not the art, of reading.
A good example of what intensive systemic phonics instruction
can do is a school in Skamania County, Washington, who scored
in the 20th percentile in reading on their test scores. That
school was almost closed over that result. Instead they hired
a half-time teacher to teach first, second, third, and fourth
grade teachers. They brought in a mentor to teach the
teachers how to teach reading. Test scores went to 84.4
percentile. They were the top reading school in the entire
State of Washington. Skamania --I've been there, it's a
little town down in the South end of the State, down next to
the Columbia. They went to the top school in the State by
hiring a half-time teacher to instruct their instructors on
how to teach reading. Thank God they did. What were they
doing with those kids before that?
Since we are somewhat limited on time, I'd like to have the
committee hear testimony from the two expert witnesses who are
on line with us this morning. The first is Dr. Eldo Bergman,
Executive Director of the Texas Reading Institute in Houston.
Dr. Bergman is also a consultant in child neurology and
developmental medicine in Houston. He was the recipient of
the prestigious Jefferson Award in recognition of outstanding
public service, presented by the American Institute for Public
Service, Washington, D.C., in 1991. Dr. Bergman has an
impressive curriculum vitae which is part of your back-up,
page 32. Also on line is Mr. Jimmy Kirkpatrick who was the
Coordinator of Community Programs and Advisor for Reading and
Reading Disabilities for the University of Texas at Austin.
These two gentlemen have been working with states around the
nation on this problem and are well versed in the subject and
I would commend them to you."
DR. ELDO BERGMAN, testifying via teleconference from Houston,
Texas, stated his support for SB 203. He informed the committee he
is a child neurologist who became interested in this area when his
second son was having difficulty learning to read in the first
grade. At the age of 23 his son reached an adult level of reading,
after a personal struggle of some magnitude. For the last 15
years, Dr. Bergman pointed out he has been involved with two non-
profit organizations as a non-paid executive director: the
Foundation for Independent Learning, and the Texas Reading
Institute. In Texas 85 percent of high school seniors pass the
state proficiency test, yet 54 percent of students enrolling in
four year Texas universities need to take classes in remedial
reading, writing or math. In the community college system, the
percentage is about 73 or 74 percent.
DR. BERGMAN indicated that over the last ten years there has been
a growing consensus among professionals about what is needed within
the child to have reading instruction stick. Available data is so
outstanding now that studies show that approximately 95 percent of
our general population could be reading at grade level; some of
those children would require 40 to 80 hours of one-on-one work. He
is optimistic that the internet and computer technology will become
more sophisticated and available to people who generally are not in
a position to pay much and might provide the intensity of
instruction that will be available to between 20 and 25 percent of
the population. He stated he has been involved in using talking
computers as an aid in the classroom to teachers to increase the
amount of personalized instruction.
DR. BERGMAN believes the underlying problem in about 85 percent of
children who read poorly is that they have problems with rapid
sound processing. There is no ambiguity on that point in the
international literature. Because of that, when children begin to
try to learn to read, they cannot develop the instinct to recognize
what sounds are in words and what letters might represent those
sounds. To a beginning reader, every new word is a nonsense word
until it is decoded and meaning is attached to it. The ability to
read nonsense words is the most predictive factor of how well a
child is going to decode words. Decoding is the biggest single
factor in comprehension. At the first grade level, decoding
explains 82 percent of a first grader's comprehension, while it
explains 35 percent of a ninth grader's comprehension. It is now
known that there are differences within children that really count,
and those differences must be addressed. If the differences can be
found and measured, teachers can structure their instruction so
that the end result is a balanced development of decoding skills
and comprehension skills.
DR. BERGMAN stated the question is not how to get the job done, it
is how many children do we want to be reading at grade level. The
level that is chosen will dictate how much engineering needs to be
done to support the teachers, campuses and families to collectively
do what needs to be done. The components include phonemic
awareness, letter-sound correspondences, the more sophisticated
word attack skills, spelling, and vocabulary. Children vary
tremendously in the amount of controlled practice they need to
develop fluency. Comprehension strategies are much easier to teach
if a child can decode the words.
DR. BERGMAN informed committee members that he just learned that
the State of Alabama is going in the direction that Section 3(b) of
CSSB 203 mandates, that is toward assessment and including some of
the instruments that are worth considering. Discussions on reading
often devolve to methodology. Methodology depends upon a
sensitive, well-trained teacher working with the individual child.
There is no one method that will work for every child, however, if
we measure the right things, the instruction can be tailored to
meet the child's needs.
DR. BERGMAN thought the approach to identifying reading impaired
children as set out in Section 2(b) to be a good one. The first
nationally normed test will identify the reading impaired children.
The second individually-administered test will evaluate a student's
skills in the following areas: word attack; word identification ;
vocabulary; and reading comprehension. The problem with group
administered tests is that word attack skills and phonemic
awareness cannot be effectively tested in a group.
DR. BERGMAN stated he recently administered the Stanford
Achievement Test to students in the Houston Independent School
District. The average performance in first grade is at the 49th
percentile. The average performance in second grade is at the 40th
percentile, and the percentile drops to the 30th percentile for
middle school students. Those scores show that the first graders
are reading at grade level and are at national average. It also
shows that by the time students reach the fourth grade, almost 40
percent of the students are reading at the bottom 16th percentile
of the national norms. Ten years ago the Houston Independent
School District administered the Metropolitan Achievement Test, the
last standardized test given other than the criterion referenced
test provided by the state. The first graders scored at the
national norm. The scores declined as the grade level rose, so
that by sixth grade the students scored a full year below the
national average. A group administered test will identify, in
general, weak and strong readers but teachers need the kind of
information that will allow them to focus on a particular student's
area of weakness. That information can be provided in the second
tier of testing.
DR. BERGMAN expressed concern that Section 2(c) speaks to the fact
that teachers should get at least one course on the language basis
of reading. Two years ago only four universities out of 1100
teachers colleges provided a one semester course like that.
Teachers are working with what they have, but we have learned a lot
in the last 30 years, and especially in the last 10 years.
DR. BERGMAN stated he believes assessment is the critical issue.
One needs a clear way to identify the goal he/she was trying to
seek to ensure that the methodology worked. Predictive factors
that can be measured and tell whether a child will be able to read
well are word level, word identification decoding skills, and
vocabulary. Assessing those factors in kindergartners will
identify 90 percent of the students who will struggle with reading.
If those children get appropriate instruction in first, second or
third grade, that instruction will be much less costly than it will
be in fourth, eighth, or twelfth grade.
JIMMY KIRKPATRICK, Advisor in Reading and Reading Disabilities at
the University of Texas at Austin, testified via teleconference and
made the following comments on his own behalf. There has been much
attention being placed on the poor non-reading ability of children.
Alaska is not exempt from this national crisis. According to the
published results of the California Achievement Test, 45 percent of
fourth grade students in Alaska have below average basic reading
and language skills. Adding the numbers in special education and
limited English proficiency, these numbers far exceed 55 percent.
What does the future hold for these students in the State of
Alaska? For the fortunate ones who make it through by shear
determination and willpower, what does college mean for them to
taxpayers? Let's examine the number of students required to take
remedial classes in junior colleges and universities in both
reading and math. Texas alone spends nearly $100 million on
remedial courses each year. This number will increase greatly in
the years to come. I make this ominous prediction for what the
education system and the taxpayers of Alaska are looking forward to
in coming years if changes are not made. The numbers referred for
special education, involving reading, spelling, and writing
disabilities, will grow at uncontrollable rates. For example,
Houston Independent School District, a district of 217,000
students, is the seventh largest district in the nation, and is
seeing an increase of one percent a year in the special education
numbers. My own district, an upper middle district of 50,000
students, has seen an increase of 125 percent in the last two years
for special education. This is causing them an additional $1
million per year in the budget. As parents become more aware of
the current research in reading and reading disabilities, these
numbers will continue a steep incline. Let's remember that the
majority students with reading problems were not identified
throughout their school years. The numbers of dropouts are
increasing along with the children and their ability to learn to
read.
MR. KIRKPATRICK pointed out that data from the Alaska Department of
Education shows that $104 million was spent on special education in
1996, and a little over $107 million in 1997. There can be a
potential savings within three years of over $50 million to the
state in local districts, as well as the families these programs
effect. This is taking into account a conservative figure of
$2,000 per year spent above the normal cost of regular education
per child. The National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development showed that 50 percent of children in special education
have learning disabilities and that disability covers reading,
spelling and writing failure. Reducing the numbers of students
with reading failure in the early elementary grades is an
obtainable goal for the state. The Learning First Alliance, made
up of 12 national education organizations, including the
Association for Colleges for Teacher Education, school
administrators, school boards, elementary and secondary principals,
Federation of Teachers, National Education Association, Chief
States School Officers, PTA, Education Commissions of the States,
and the Association for Curriculum and Supervisors, has developed
an action plan for reading. This national action plan - every
child a reader - is a giant step forward by this outstanding
organization. They state that reading must be grounded in research
and that unfortunately, it is also in first grade where common
instructional practices are probably most inconsistent with
research findings. By providing a reassessment and accountability,
the much needed fuel for the engines of change can occur in Alaska.
This will enable parents, teachers, districts and the state to see
how well the students are doing. The additional testing for the
bottom 25 percent will also provide the type of information that
teachers need to be able to provide the needed intervention early.
With these changes occurring, a literate society will grow and
prosper well into the 21st Century.
SENATOR TAYLOR found it incredible that people feel threatened by
SB 203, and that teachers feel the bill is an attempt to affect
their professionalism or the choices available to them. SB 203
merely asks for a system that will have some accountability and
that will actually produce a result that has been proven time again
across the United States by testing at all levels.
Number 221
SENATOR GREEN asked Senator Taylor if he considered that she and he
might have one idea of what phonics instruction is, while teachers
might have preferred a broader definition. She said one does not
have to get into a discussion on phonics very far to be into one
particular method, which on the whole could be considered a phonics
program but is not named as such. She also asked if he contacted
the University to determine what courses it is offering within the
state to fulfill the course requirement.
CHAIRMAN WILKEN interrupted to accommodate the five people waiting
to give testimony via teleconference. He announced the committee
would schedule another hearing on this bill next week to take
additional testimony that cannot be accommodated today.
KATHY HUGHES, Curriculum Director for the Fairbanks North Star
Borough School District, stated that Fairbanks went through a
recent curriculum revision and decided to go with a more balanced
approach. For the last ten years, the school district has been
focused on a whole language approach. The new curriculum advocates
phonics, spelling, and vocabulary, and reading has been divided
into three types of components: experiencing literature, word
analysis which includes phonics, and comprehension. The school
district is also discussing the kind of staff development it will
need for successful implementation. The district is concerned that
the Legislature may mandate a particular program that requires
specific materials outside of the district's designed curriculum.
Ms. Hughes noted she spoke with Dr. Nick Stayrook, the District's
Evaluation Director, about the section on testing in SB 203. He
informed her that in Fairbanks, the school board did away with
normed testing on first graders, based on the testimony of first
grade teachers. Those teachers felt that tests like the CAT and
ITBIS were inappropriate for first graders. The Governor's Quality
Schools bill is proposing a comprehensive assessment system which
has benchmarks at ages 5 through 7 which might accomplish the same
goal. She added the increased cost of testing at a time schools
are tightening budgets will be difficult to absorb.
TERRI MORRISON, a teacher with the Fairbanks North Star Borough
School District Special Programs Title 1 Office, made the following
comments. CSSB 203 contains explicit language that can be
interpreted in different ways and will affect ongoing instruction
that is effective. There are many reasons why children struggle to
acquire reading skills: readiness, oral language skills, listening
skills, vocabulary, and word recognition problems. One unifying
factor that most people agree upon is that children have to learn
to read with that voice in their head. They have to know when they
do not understand. Some children have memory or tracking problems,
use inappropriate substitutions, and sometimes children do not get
the individual attention they need. Most special programs require
students to fall behind grade level a certain number of years or
months before any intervention can be provided. Appropriate
diagnostic information is not always provided through nationally
normed or standardized tests. Regarding specific teacher training,
maybe the focus should be on how to use the data teachers collect
everyday from students while performing in the classroom. There
are very few shared understandings among large groups of educators
and parents as to exactly what phonics is. The same is true of
whole language, although she was trained to view whole language as
a philosophy rather than a method. Most people who talk about
phonics are talking about specific methods. However, no program,
including phonics, will teach itself. Emphasis has to be placed on
how teachers deliver instruction, which must be consistent and
interactive. She expressed concern about the phrase in SB 203 that
requires teachers to provide explicit systematic instruction
because a lot of people might view that as a focus on lectures and
worksheets, rather than on involvement with the student during
instruction. All learning styles must be addressed: all children
are not visual and all children do not learn through auditory
processes which many phonics programs focus on. She referred to
the phrase in the bill "incidental instruction" and expressed
concern that although it occurs, it is not the same as teaching in
context. She asked what data was used to determine the statement
in the bill that "most instruction teaches phonics only
incidentally."
SENATOR TAYLOR asked that the witnesses who just testified receive
copies of the backup materials provided to committee members.
SENATOR GREEN commented that if the Legislature succeeds in
rewriting the foundation formula, there may be greater flexibility
in how student assessments occur and in how assistance is given,
because the choice would be with the districts.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked what prompted the Fairbanks North Star Borough
School District to restructure its curriculum after using a whole
language approach for ten years. CHAIRMAN WILKEN said he did not
know.
SENATOR TAYLOR stated that he would be willing to look at any
research studies that show phonics is not the preferred method of
teaching reading skills to 70 percent of young students. He noted
that learning to read is not an art form, it is a skill that needs
to be learned through training.
MS. PAMELA JENSEN, a parent, testified via teleconference from
Petersburg, and stated she agrees strongly with the content of CSSB
203. She indicated she submitted written testimony to committee
members.
TAPE 98-14, SIDE A
MOLLI SIPE, a member of the Alaska Association for Bilingual
Education, stated some objections to the language contained in CSSB
203, particularly the phrase that refers to the English language as
the common language of the United States of America. The question
of whether English is the official language has made it to the
State ballot, but it has not yet been decided. She believes this
phrase comes a little too close and should not be in a bill at this
time. MS. SIPE pointed out Alaska has many bilingual two-way
immersion programs; CSSB 203 does not address those programs. She
also expressed concern that, from her background in applied
linguistics, that English was described as a language based on the
principle of the alphabet. English is not equal to the sum of its
parts; English is more than phonics.
DONNA MARSH, testifying via teleconference from Petersburg, stated
she is a concerned parent who supports SB 203 because if we fail to
teach our students the skills they need to decipher words, we are
doing them a great disservice. The whole language philosophy or
method does not focus on a lot of the basics. She noted she will
submit written testimony to committee members.
CHAIRMAN WILKEN announced that there was no further teleconference
testimony at this time and that CSSB 203 would be scheduled again
on Monday, February 23, at 9:00 a.m., to take testimony from
participants who had signed up to testify today. He adjourned the
meeting at 10:49 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|