After personally reading

the book, investigating ITI websites and listening to

pros and cons I still have major problems with the ITI

approach. Here are a few:

First, Kovalik presents

this as being based on the current brain research.

The strong inference is that this is a scientifically

developed approach to education.

The problem is that the

"research" is really just a collection of

theories and, in many instances, opinions. This places

her approach squarely into the experimental realm with

the laboratory being our schools and the guinea pigs our

kids.

Worse, Kovalik is very

selective about not using any "brain research"

that runs counter to her approach. This is most evident

in the area of reading.

Kovalik

"discovered" that the reason kids don't read

and write well is because our brains "have no

built-in wiring for these tasks." The problem is,

this is easily disproved by actual demonstration.

It can be shown, and is

being shown every day, that children who are immersed in

phonics at an early age consistently become early readers

with good comprehension. To the credit of the Fayette

school system, programs are being implemented right now

to correct this problem in our county and get kids of all

ages reading again.

Kovalik calls phonics a

passing fad and makes clear by the references she does

use that she is squarely in the Whole Language camp as

far as reading is concerned. This is a stunning and

fundamental error, in my opinion, for an approach that

claims to be the savior of American education.

Early in her book Kovalik

lays out some underlying premises for her ITI approach.

She identifies what she calls "mismemes."

Mismemes are wrong assumptions that have hurt our

education system in the past. Mismeme number 4 is

"Acquisition of Skills and Knowledge is the Goal of

Education."

In other words most of us,

parents and teachers alike, have labored under the

misconception that our kids were going to school to

acquire skills and knowledge. This is replaced by a meme

(correct assumption) that "The Purpose of Education

is the Perpetuation of Democracy."

Kovalik is not ambiguous

about this. She identifies her ITI approach as a complete

changing of the definition of education and a complete

realignment of the purpose of our schools. I give credit

to Kovalik for being bold enough to say it, but am

perplexed when pro-ITI teachers and administrators deny

she says it.

Why would this redefining

of education be so easily received and even welcomed by

some education experts?

In the 1960s when President

John F. Kennedy turned over the keys to our education

system to Ivy League psychology departments, there were

loud pronouncements of the wonderful things coming for

education. Every American child was going to be a rocket

scientist because the real experts (the brain experts)

were taking over. JFK fueled the launch of this education

boom with millions (which quickly became billions) of

federal dollars. Ironically, at about the same time, JFK

pronounced we were going to the moon and we soon did.

At the time it seemed much

more unlikely that we would make it to the moon than we

would improve education. What was the difference between

the education race and the space race?

JFK used people who knew

how to build rockets to get us to the moon. They built on

tested and proven methods to achieve landing on the moon.

Unfortunately, he found people who knew nothing about

teaching to lead the education race.

Tried and proven methods

were tossed out willy-nilly. True experts (the teachers

of the time) and their methods were pushed aside and

pronounced outdated and ineffective. Teachers were then

assailed with an endless parade of wonderful new methods,

all theoretical and unproven.

There have been dozens of

ways to learn to read and hundreds of ways to learn math.

Now 30-plus years later with hundreds of new

"education rockets" having "blown up on

the pad" it is not surprising that education experts

stand in the ruins and say, "You know it really was

a mistake to say our goal was the moon."

And very convenient that

they are backed by a science which has now discovered,

"It's not our methods at fault, it's how their

brains are wired."

[Fayette School

Superintendent] Dr. [John] DeCotis was kind enough to

allow my wife and me to participate in a committee of

parents and educators on ITI. Right now we are in the

early phases of finding out to what extent ITI is used in

Fayette County, leading toward an eventual administrative

decision on ITI.

One thing that seems

apparent to me, but is disputed by some pro-ITI

educators, is that full implementation of ITI would be a

sweeping reform involving curriculum, textbooks, and a

great deal of teacher training.

ITI, if implemented as

Kovalik intended, would affect every minute of our

children's school day, down to the color of the walls of

the rooms.

For this reason I would

urge every curious parent to simply read the book. In

fact, any school that implements ITI should encourage

this since Kovalik identifies indoctrination of parents

into the new approach as being essential to its success.

Let me acknowledge that

there some methods in ITI that are obviously effective

and I understand and agree with the teachers that use the

methods. As a taxpayer and parent I have as my primary

criteria, does it work? Does it teach kids to read,

write, and do math and science? Additionally, is it

proven by actual use in a classroom over an extended time

frame?

I'll bet I'm not the only

parent that would just as soon see the experiments done

on someone else's kids. I have visited a school (it is

not local) that operates a very successful tutoring

program for public school children. They make no excuses

and get consistent results. Their pamphlet says, among

other things: "A long time ago (before 1960)

students learned to how to read, write and spell. Then

the school systems began experimenting which resulted in

catastrophic crashes in reading skills. Our methods are

those used prior to 1960 and they still get

results!"

There are many proven

methods that date back decades but which applied today

get results exceeding "modern" methods. If

being in favor of stepping back to be successful is

"anachronistic," then guilty as charged.

One of the greatest myths

of modern education (and wholeheartedly embraced by

Kovalik) is the idea that "all children are

different and require different approaches." This is

an inevitable conclusion in an education system that

hasn't firmly established effective methods and

constantly changes its approaches as new experts parade

the "latest innovations."

The truth is that effective

methods, applied consistently, produce consistent

results. No long-term successful business changes its

fundamental approach without being very sure that the new

method will improve the operation. Businesses that change

with the wind inevitably fail.

In public education it is

considered a badge of honor to be open-minded and to

dabble in every new method. Everyone can judge for

himself or herself how successful this has been.

I don't mind being accused

of being anachronistic or not progressive. The record is

pretty clear to me that any failures of modern education

have not been due to a lack of new approaches, but

because proven and effective methods have been discarded.

As to McCarthy-like

tactics, it is not easy to go public about school

concerns. I believe teachers are the greatest resource we

have and are the only reason education has

performed as well as it has under the onslaught of the

"experts."

Many teachers have told me

of the times they've ignored the latest fads handed to

them to stick with what they knew worked. We'd be in a

much bigger mess if not for good teachers.

Inevitably, when

criticizing a curriculum or method, one is accused of

attacking teachers. It is gratifying, then, when teachers

contact me or others who have spoken up and thank us for

being their voice. There are teachers and administrators

firmly and absolutely opposed to ITI and approaches like

it and I respect that many of them do not feel they can

safely go public.

That doesn't make me right

but at least I know I'm not one critical parent standing

alone, even if others think so. So those are my opinions

as one parent and my McCarthy-like approach would be to

encourage any concerned parent to simply get the book and

read it.

Dave Akeman

Fayetteville

<!-------------