Ouch! Tough day for Four Block, aka Whole-Language High Jinks

A new report (opens in a new window) came out today, authored by reading expert Louisa Moats. In it, Moats takes a hard look at reading programs that market themselves as ones based on Scientifically Based Reading Research (SBRR). The report, “Whole Language High-Jinks,” examines Reading Recovery (opens in a new window), Four Blocks (opens in a new window), Guided Reading, and programs that use a generic “balanced literacyAn instructional approach that involves a balance between teacher-led reading and writing instruction and independent learning. Typically, a balanced literacy approach consists of opportunities to read aloud, engage in guided reading, and participate in shared reading. Students receive some phonics instruction, but it is generally not a focus. ” description. It also includes a comparison of two major approaches to reading instruction (SBRR and Whole Language Derivatives).

The report says this: Some reading programs, in an effort to capitalize on Reading First funding, market themselves as programs that reflect SBBR, when in fact, they do not. Moats’ report uses strong language, for example: “Four Blocks is the best example of a whole-language program masquerading as an SBRR program…”[emphasis added]. Moats describes how a good SBRR program ‘teaches each component thoroughly, explicitly, and with planned connections to the others. Such programs build in validated assessments of progress so that students who are accelerated and those who need small-group interventionAdditional small group or individualized instruction that is tailored to children's needs so they can make progress and be on track to meet grade-level learning goals. and support are identified and taught accordingly.’ The “sheep in wolves clothing” programs fail our neediest students by sharing the following commonalities: teacher modelingAn instruction technique where a teacher explicitly demonstrates a strategy, skill, or concept that students will be learning. (not direct instruction), rely on strategies from the three cueing systems theory, reject systematic decodingThe ability to translate a word from print to speech by using your knowledge of sound–symbol (letter) correspondences. , spelling, and grammarThe set of rules in a language that governs the forms of words used in context (morphology) and how words can be combined in sentences (syntax). instruction, confuse phonemic awarenessThe ability to notice, think about, and work with the individual sounds in spoken words. with phonicsReading instruction that focuses on the alphabetic principle — the systematic, predictable relationship between spoken sounds (phonemes) and written letters (graphemes) — to allow readers to identify or “decode” words. , make heavy use of writer’s workshop and leveled books, and de-emphasize direct instruction in comprehension strategiesInstructional techniques that strengthen the cognitive skills involved in reading comprehension, including summarization, prediction, and inferring word meanings from context. .

Several of the blogs I read regularly have also blogged about the release: see Teach Effectively (opens in a new window), Joanne Jacobs (opens in a new window), and I Speak of Dreams (opens in a new window), just announcements, no commentary. I’m eager to see the types of comments that come in. I suspect we’ll hear from teachers who use the programs Moats slammed and argue for their ‘SBRRness.’ Teachers who use some of the “reasonably faithful to SBRR” programs, as described by Moats, (Open Court (opens in a new window), Trophies (opens in a new window), Reading Street (opens in a new window)) might have their own opinions about teaching with those programs.

I’d encourage everyone to read the report, and if you’re inclined, come back and comment. And while I agree with Moats’ recommendations for policymakers at the end of the report, does anyone else agree that they seem disconnected from the report’s content?