Education, education reform, Educational Research, ILEC, reading, Science of Reading

ILEC Response: Reading Science: Staying the Course Amidst the Noise (Albert Shanker Institute)

International Literacy Educators Coalition

ILEC Vision: To promote literacy learning practices that enable all children and youth to realize their full potential as literate, thinking human beings.

Download a PDF of the response.

ILEC Response: Reading Science: Staying the Course Amidst the Noise (Albert Shanker Institute)

Repeating claims in a report on reading reform, Esther Quintero presents 4 “myths” about the “science of reading” (SOR) at the Albert Shanker Institute blog grounded as follows:

At the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), …I witnessed the spread of serious misinformation about reading research and related reforms. In this post, I aim to address four particularly troubling ideas I encountered. For each, I will not only provide factual corrections but also contextual clarifications, highlighting any bits of truth or valid criticisms that may exist within these misconceptions.

The post, however, misrepresents valid concerns about SOR messaging and the growing reality of negative consequences for SOR-based legislation and mandates[1]. Further, many of the bullet points under “facts” do not refute but support valid criticisms framed as “myths.” The post focuses on idealized possibilities of SOR to the exclusion of the current implementation of SOR-based programs and instruction.

Positive Aspects of the Post:

  1. Under Myth #1, Quintero acknowledges the problems with misrepresenting National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) data[2] on reading and minimizing the impact of poverty and inequity on student achievement[3].
  2. Quintero concedes: “Reading science (indeed, any science!) is not settled; science is dynamic and evolving.”

ILEC Concerns:

  1. Myth #1(“The reading crisis is manufactured”) is self-contradictory in that the “fact” bullets repeat the valid concerns raised among SOR critics about misrepresenting NAEP data and ignoring out-of-school factors in education reform. Once again, the SOR reading “crisis” is in fact manufactured[4].
  2. Myths #2 (individualized instruction) and #3 (SOR restricts teacher agency) misrepresent the trend across the US of banning some reading programs and mandating other programs that tend to be structured literacy and too often scripted curriculum. Scripted curriculum does in practice impose on-size-fits-all instruction and de-professionalizes teachers[5].
  3. Myth #4 (“The Science of Reading harms English learners”) fails to acknowledge concerns raised among Multilingual learner (MLL) scholars and teachers about SOR’s one-size-fits-all mandates[6] and “whitewashing”[7] the texts offered students from diverse backgrounds[8].
  4. Quintero poses a false binary between SOR reform or reverting to an inadequate status quo, ignoring credible alternatives to reading reform grounded in equity/diversity and teacher agency.

[1] Fact-checking the Science of Reading, Rob Tierney and P David Pearson

[2] Big Lies of Education: Reading Proficiency and NAEP

[3] Big Lies of Education: Poverty Is an Excuse

[4] Reinking et al. (2023); Aydarova (2023).

[5] Chaffin et al. (2023).

[6] Noguerón-Liu (2020); Ortiz et al. (2021); Mora (2023).

[7] Rigell et al. (2022).

[8] Aukerman & Schuldt (2021).

See Also

International Literacy Educators Coalition (ILEC) Responses