UPDATED: Understanding the “Science of Reading”: A Reader

UPDATE

See Fact checking @DanaGoldstein phonics article @nytimes – a thread

See Also: Gerald Coles, Cryonics Phonics: Inequality’s Little Helper

In one way, ground zero for the “science of reading” movement can be traced to Emily Hanford in 2018, but cognitive scientists (Daniel Willingham and Mark Seidenberg, for example) focusing on reading and advocacy for students with dyslexia (or struggling to read in ways that some label as dyslexia) have also played key roles in the movement.

The “science of reading movement” has not been simply a media event, however. That advocacy has resulted in state education/reading legislation that has included third-grade retention of students based on reading test scores, mandating systematic intensive phonics (phonics first) for all students, and new mandates for teachers of reading and teacher education programs.

What is absent in most of the media and political endorsement of the “science of reading” is a critical lens for the claims as well as historical context.

The “science of reading” narrative, at best, is incomplete, and at worst, is deeply misleading.

Below are the key elements and links to help anyone better understand the issues:

Historical Perspective

What Shall We Do About Reading Today?: Looking Back to See Now More Clearly

Back to the Future of Reading Instruction: 1990s Edition

The “Science of Reading,” an Overview

The Big Lie about the “Science of Reading” (Updated)

The Big Lie about the “Science of Reading”: NAEP 2019 Edition

Systematic Intensive Phonics (Phonics First, Phonics versus Whole Language/Balanced Literacy)

Reconsidering the Evidence That Systematic Phonics Is More Effective Than Alternative Methods of Reading Instruction, Jeffrey S. Bowers (2020)

To Read or Not to Read: Decoding Synthetic Phonics, Andrew Davis

Does Phonics Deserve the Credit for Improvement in PIRLS? Stephen Krashen