Customer Reviews

The Literacy Crisis False Claims Real Solutions

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

This book provides a clear and concise critique of prevailing myths about literacy in the United States. Based on solid scientific research, McQuillan's book calmly but thoroughly exposes the falsehoods behind the current hysteria over our national "crisis" in reading in the public schools. Parents, teachers, and public officials will benefit greatly from McQuillan's impressive treatment of the research on how children learn to read and what really counts in reading achievement.

The book begins with a powerful and persuasive examination of how well U.S. students read. The first chapter, "What Isn't Wrong With Reading: Seven Myths About Literacy in the United States," is alone worth the price of the book. In it, McQuillan shows (among other things) that reading achievement has NOT declined in the United States, that American children read as well or better than students in other countries, and that "whole language" teaching methods have not led to declining test scores. The rest of the book is equally thought-provoking and well-argued. Chapters 2 and 3 provide an explanation of how children learn to read, and how they get the necessary knowledge to do so. Chapter 4 looks at the relationships between age and reading, and Chapter 5 takes on the controversial issue of sound and reading. McQuillan's use of the research evidence in this latter chapter is particularly compelling, demonstrating that much of the enthusiasm for phonics in the teaching of reading is misplaced. The sixth chapter takes on a variety of thorny questions, but as usual McQuillan handles the complex array of studies with aplomb and clarity.

The final chapter of the book, Real Crises, Real Solutions, is a powerful expose on the desperate inequalities that lie at the heart of what is the real crisis in American reading: a woeful lack of access to reading materials. McQuillan shows the importance of a "print rich" environment for children of all ages, and how children attending many of our inner city schools are being deprived of that critical element in their schooling. It is this lack of resources, McQuillan correctly notes, that we should be most concerned about.

In short, The Literacy Crisis is a fascinating book, well supported and documented by an expert researcher.

If you are looking for a book that tells it like it is based on research, rather political posturing, this is a must-read. McQuillan looks at prevalent myths that drive how teachers, parents, and policy-makers think and make decisions about literacy, and shows that the real problem is a paucity of books. This well-research, well-reasoned, and well-written book answered a lot of questions I had about why reading and writing is being taught using current methods and how we can improve what we are doing for our kids.

I highly recommend it!

How dare Jeff McQuillan use reason along with research to come to a conclusion. Aren't we, in America, supposed to come to conclusions based on perception? Aren't we supposed to let long-winded talk show hosts describe our reality and define our values?

A MUST read for any teacher, principal, reading specialist, literacy educatory, school board member, or politician who makes important decisions relative to education.

How can children learn to read if there is nothing for them to read? This book points to the real reading problem in the U.S. and a way to improve reading scores!

Don't miss this outstanding book on reading. It is clearly written and soundly argued. It is a must read for parents, teachers, and researchers.

The acceptance and use of published research results should be looked at carefully. Mr. McQuillan provided some guidelines that certainly are applicable to any beliefs one possesses in the classroom as a professional educator. This should include knowledge about the kind of study that it is i. e., a longitudinal study, cross-sectional or experimental. The process any particular researcher follows needs to be scrutinized within reason. And I think it is interesting to note that qualitative research can often lead to specific inquiries that eventually end up in the quantitative forum. As mentioned before, Mr. McQuillan suggests, and with good reason, to view researchers assumptions, check for a solid hypothesis, investigate the tool that the data was collected with and that as many extraneous variables and questions are accounted for in the study in order to determine that the data collected can be interpreted as accurately as possible and that the assumptions, hypothesis, data charts, interpretation and conclusion all fits in a nice tight package. More easily said that done for even the best researchers. Viewing data charts can be intimidating but none are insurmountable to anyone willing to understand them. McQuillan's suggestions on examining sample size in addition to a quick check to make sure standard deviation is not too large or small were very helpful tips upon initial investigation of selected data that one is interested in probing. Any research that can influence populations or policy because of a generalization needs to examined closely. This can be done with a little footwork to the library or an even better source these days-the internet. Once the raw data has been collected on a particular study, the assumptions of the researcher must be assessed. This is a touchy area chiefly because any research can be torn apart on the basis of its intent (Mr. McQuillan is highly skilled at this). Some assumptions in any study must be accepted-all can be ripped apart. However, it does not necessarily have to be faulty research that influences people's beliefs; it might simply be faulty media reporting that, once released, has detrimental effects because of a "perceived" generalization. Mr. McQuillan's agenda is to provide a "research platform" to question any and all research contrary to a whole-language position and create doubts about any kind of research that exists in any way shape or form that might possibility support the position that phonics or any component of phonological processing. Since the verdict is out on how to best teach reading, Mr. McQuillan has a long way to go in determining any definitive foundational constructs that eliminates Marilyn Adams' functional model of text processing. It's interesting, but even more so ironic, that Mr. McQuillan never mentioned the fact that Smith, Goodman and Krashen have made assertive conclusions without generalizable research to back up their claims, and here they are: Smith believes a word can not be recognized until its meaning has been comprehended; Goodman thinks reading is some kind of a psycholinguistic guessing game, and Krashen's idea of comprehensible input is little more than common sense; none possess the key to the Holy Grail. I now understand why the whole language kings and queens are on the dole even though they have been around for 30 years. It appears to me that an immobile attitude and lack of openness has closed doors for whole language theorist, not because they are not good, but because they have boxed themselves into a shaky empirical house with no exit and are still defiant to solid ideas that indicate a balanced approach to literacy. False Claims, Real Solutions is a misnomer subtitle. True, there are false claims on both sides of the reading controversy but Mr. McQuillan unraveled and displayed the colors of his standard primarily by using the worst cases he could possibly find, specifically in phonics research. Whole language does not have a monopoly in literacy theories based on good studies, and without understanding the foundational structures of literacy, readers can only be expected to compensate or generalize meaning which is a disasterous scenario in the scheme of things. Overall, Mr. McQuillan did not offer any solid solutions to the "literacy crisis", even though he admitted there is one. His solution is to put more books in front of students and provide more access to text for children overall, but implementation of his "solution" was never explained. I think Mr. McQuillan should focus on one thesis statement at a time in his next book. The Literacy Crisis did enlighten me somewhat to the problems that exist in the world of research and translations of studies, media bias and how to interpret them efficiently. Nevertheless, his main goal from my observations was to spur like-minded teachers into action so that they speak out against "phonology" in a public forum with the misguided belief that the only problem with literacy education is an image problem with the whole language camp created by visible individuals like Moats and Foorman, and that the solution is to hammer away at phonics/skills-based researchers until the tide of public sentiment turns. That is not a solution; it is a political agenda designed to solve nothing.