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.
Chief Executive Officer
Consortium on Reaching Excellence in Education
A version of this article appeared in the May 09, 2012 edition of Education Week as ‘Furious Criticism’ Is Not Always Correct