Published Online: May 8, 2012
Published in Print: May 9, 2012, as 'Furious Criticism' Is Not Always Correct

Letter

'Furious Criticism' Is Not Always Correct

Article Tools
  • PrintPrinter-Friendly
  • EmailEmail Article
  • ReprintReprints
  • CommentsComments

Education Week offered Ms. Diamond an opportunity to respond to Mr. Krashen's letter. Her response is below.

To the Editor:

I am familiar with the "furious criticism" that Stephen Krashen references in his letter. ("National Reading Panel Erred; Letter Incorrect," May 9, 2012.)

However, I am also familiar with what was substantiated in experimental studies. My previous letter was not solely about the foundation standards, but also about the misrepresentation of the relationship between comprehension and automaticity. The statement in the Common Core State Standards does not say that comprehension follows automatically after students have mastered decoding. My letter responded to Joanne Yatvin's statements about vocabulary ("A Flawed Approach to Reading in the Common-Core Standards," Feb. 29, 2012).

By focusing his remarks solely on the foundation skills, Mr. Krashen continues to dichotomize the teaching of reading as either skills or content. The common-core standards make the case that foundation skills, strong language skills, and literary and text learning are essential.

Just because a debate is "furious" doesn't mean it is correct. Galileo was threatened with torture and imprisoned as a result of the "furious debate" of his time.

Linda Diamond
Chief Executive Officer
Consortium on Reaching Excellence in Education
Berkeley, Calif.

Vol. 31, Issue 30, Page 30

Related Stories
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Login |  Register
Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.

Back to Top Back to Top

Most Popular Stories

Viewed

Emailed

Commented