The children’s school year is over, but my schooling isn’t. I’ve enrolled in summer semester classes for my Master’s degree at San Jose State University. Have my eyes been opened by the Politics of Reading!

For instance, one essay talked about the ‘phonics’ controversy. Brinkley, E. and Weaver, C. (2005) “Phonics, literalism, and futuristic fiction: Religious fundamentalism and education policy,” L. Poynor and P. Wolfe (Eds.), Marketing Fear in America’s Public Schools. (pp. 93-98). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, Assoc.

Should that introductory reading tool be used only to teach young children to learn (decode) the symbols and sounds for a word? Should the strategies be used to teach the beginning reader to put sounds and symbols together (encode) to read new words? Sounds like a commonly understood principle.

Here comes the next step. After becoming adept at figuring out words and gaining a vocabulary, should the child be asked to analyze the meaning of a passage of text? The authors give examples of groups who only want children to learn the first two steps and then read the passage given to them, like the Bible, and memorize the message. No analysis. Take it as it says.

Now, one understands why some school boards fall right in line with the ‘phonics’ model for teaching the beginning reader. And many private and/or home schooling programs are certain that it is their duty to stand up for the model.

On the other hand, most school boards are far from the viewpoint described and want students to understand what the words mean, even when the words don’t match the philosophical or political view of a board member. Current testing demands that students get meaning from the text.

Another political stance that my uncle sent me online from City Journal “Teachers’ Unions Will Never Willingly Give Up Their Power, Says Terry Moe” by Marcus A. Winters. The ever-present controversy of teachers’ union political efforts! A perfect scenario for learning to get meaning from the text.

The writer is reviewing a book on the special interest aspect of teachers’ union activities: Immune to Reform: Special Interest: Teachers Union and America’s Public Schools, Terry M. Moe (Brookings Institution Press).

First, a good reader finds out about the authors, in this case both of the review and the book. The book’s author is described as a Stanford University political scientist, but he is also a senior fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institute, one of the most conservative think tanks in the country. A flag is waved! The book reviewer teaches at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, one of the most conservative political areas in the country. Another eye-catcher.

A good reader gathers his/her background knowledge about the topic. The opening paragraph talks about the film “Waiting for Superman.” The reviewer then launches an outburst about teachers’ unions as if they were the focus of the film. They were not. He infers positions that are not part of the film-for instance, that teachers unions explain why children of poverty are left in poor schools.

More background knowledge: I had read a news article online in Edweek about the conference the reviewer attended last fall. That article never pooh-poohed the meeting of superintendents and teachers union heads. It explained some of the unresolved issues, but most were being resolved. I couldn’t understand the reviewer’s analysis except he was adding on examples to support the book’s position that unions are bad for the public school system.

A good reader asks questions of the text. How are the reviewer and author so certain that teachers’ unions have caused the difficulties of the public schools? Oh yes, it’s the dues members contribute that provide support for national political positions.

But put it this way–I am happy with the activities of my local union. They stand behind teachers who have received pink slips. They have negotiated so the furlough days and rescinded pay is fair. What does the reviewer read daily? He would see that a number of the issues (tenure, evaluation, compensation) are union policies that are changing as I write. Things do change while manuscripts sit around waiting to be printed! The author of the book should be writing an addendum about the changes in the past two years in guidelines from the U.S. Department of Education.

A good reader thinks about the ideas to take away from the text. Well, the review seems to be written for the conservative teachers’ union-hating educators who want vouchers and charter schools to take over, no more politics and no more policy set by the financial abilities of unions. But who is going to stand up for the teachers? Since I did not yet read the book, does the author explain why teachers unions became a force to be reckoned with?