My thoughts on the Balanced Approach to Reading Instruction
Christina Clark, co-founder of Foundations Tutoring
Reflecting on the article “Whole Language Lives On: The Illusion of Balanced Reading Instruction” (http://www.ldonline.org/article/6394/), I am reminded of my early career in education. In 1985, fresh from completing my teacher credentialing program, I was eager to apply my newfound knowledge. At that time, I fully embraced the Whole Language approach to reading. This method seemed intuitive to me, especially because, as a student, I had struggled to connect phonics workbook exercises with actual reading. I viewed these activities as separate tasks, lacking a link between phonics and real reading.
Why bring this up? Although Whole Language may seem outdated, its principles continue to influence modern educational practices. Today, many schools advocate a “balanced
approach,” which supposedly combines various methods to create a stronger reading program. However, this approach often perpetuates ineffective Whole Language practices, causing significant harm to children who need effective reading instruction.
Louisa Cook Moats, in her report, critiques the persistent use of Whole Language. She explains why this approach fails, citing extensive research that discredits it, and discusses the continuing problems and potential solutions (Thomas Fordham Foundation, 2000).
My personal journey aligns with Moats’ observations. Initially, I resisted direct instruction methods, favoring creative lesson planning and interactive activities like big books and rhyming games. However, after twelve years of using the Barton Reading and Spelling Program and reviewing substantial scientific evidence, I realized that direct, systematic instruction is indeed more effective.
During my tenure as a facilitator at three middle schools, I witnessed firsthand the consequences of inadequate explicit language instruction. Many students, including some in middle school, struggled with reading levels far below their grade. Imagine attempting to meet sixth-grade expectations while reading at a first-grade level. Such experiences often led to students acting out or withdrawing to protect their self-esteem.
Conversely, the Barton Reading & Spelling Program proved transformative. I recall a particularly striking case: a student known for disruptive behavior and low performance. After receiving targeted instruction, this student’s phonemic awareness jumped from the 16th to the 84th percentile—an extraordinary 425% increase in just five months. His newfound confidence and engagement were evident to everyone around him, showcasing the profound impact of effective, scientifically backed reading instruction.
In summary, while the “balanced approach” to reading instruction may seem like a compromise, it often fails to address the fundamental issues of effective reading education. Evidence-based programs like Barton Reading & Spelling can provide the clarity and structure needed for significant academic and personal growth.