While the governorship that election shifted to Hodges, mostly because of the wedge issue of gambling in SC, I noted that both candidates and political parties ran on a dishonest but effective platform—SC education was at the bottom in the U.S. In fact, both candidates had billboards lambasting the state’s education ranking that were virtually indistinguishable except for the candidate information.
In 2022, it is important to highlight that SC was popularly and politically identified in crisis and need of reform after two decades of crisis (A Nation at Risk under Ronald Reagan in the early 1980s) and a series of standards and high-stakes testing reform.
I entered education in 1984, right after then-Governor Richard Riley had pushed SC as one of the first adopters into the accountability movement.
As a high school teacher throughout the 1980s and 1990s, I watched and listened as SC political leaders called for modeling SC education policy, standards, and testing on Florida and Virginia; despite its bombastic libertarian proclamations, SC is copy-cat state when it comes to education policy.
And therein lies the problem.
SC remains trapped in a cycle of education crisis, education faddism, and education boondoggles.
After those two decades following A Nation at Risk, SC once again doubled down on reform and accountability during the No Child Behind Era (NCLB) under George W. Bush, and then, stumbled into the Obama era reforms—value-added methods for teacher evaluation, charter schools, and (yes) Common Core.
That Obama/Common Core era is a perfect example of educational dysfunction in SC.
SC rushed to adopt Common Core and the related testing (fadism), purchased teaching and learning materials labeled as Common Core aligned (boondoggle), and then while teachers were being trained and the entire educational system was transitioning to the new standards, SC dropped Common Core (because conservatives falsely labeled the movement as Obama’s although the standards came form the National Governor’s Association and were strongly bipartisan).
This wasteful nonsense was almost entirely partisan politics and had little to do with teaching and learning.
So as we watch 2022 slip into 2023, SC remains trapped in the crisis > fadism > boondoggle cycle that has been demonstrated to fail education since the early 1980s.
The accountability movement phase 1 (mostly a state-level movement) after A Nation at Risk was declared a failure and lead to the accountability movement phase 2 that pivoted on NCLB (and included federal policy mandating “scientifically based” teaching and materials).
About another 20 years after phase 2, we are once again screaming crisis, including a(nother) reading crisis and the really ugly anti-CRT/book banning movements (see how all of these are related historically).
SC has been quick to pass copy-cat reading legislation (see HERE and HERE) for about a decade, and the current budget includes millions and millions of dollars for “science of reading” policy, training, and materials (sound familiar to those who watched the Common Core disaster?).
As one specific example, SC like many other states is simultaneously (again) calling for limiting everything in education to “scientific” while investing huge amounts of tax dollars to non-scientific boondoggles (see here about LETRS).
Education is an incredibly profitable market in the U.S., and the only people who have benefitted from 40 years of constant crisis > reform are those who repeatedly rebrand educational materials to match the fad-du-jour.
The current reading crisis and curriculum crisis in SC and across the U.S. are marketing and political scams—all faddism and boondoggles.
SC does not have a reading crisis, and does not have a CRT crisis.
The real educational problems in SC (and throughout the U.S.) are once again being ignored—poverty, racism, and inequity in both the lives of children and citizens as well as in our schools.
Affluent children continue to have the best access to learning while marginalized and vulnerable children are neglected, ignored, or pushed into the most limited and limiting educational contexts (such as test-prep).
SC is not experiencing a new or unique educational crisis, but we are suffering from a historical and current reality that is reflected in our educational system—a lack of political will.
Crisis, fadism, and boondoggles are the playground of political leaders and education marketers who reap the rewards of misinformation, misdirection, and finding ourselves in a hole while continuing to dig.
After about a decade blogging on other open sites and dabbling in social media as part of my public work, I committed to blogging at WordPress in 2013, and to date, had my highest traffic year in 2014.
Between my Twitter presence and blog, I always expected to have a greater reach at Twitter, but by 2022, I have just short of 8000 followers on Twitter and over 10,000 at this blog.
As part of my current fall sabbatical, I revised and redesigned this blog to make it more appealing and (I hope) to better present the work as professional (blogs continue to be discounted and marginalized despite the vast majority of my posts being heavily cited).
I am on track for 2022 to be the third or second best year:
And here are my top 10 posts of 2022 (eight original to this year):
While the “science of reading” dominated my work, I am quite proud of my comic book posts throughout 2022, notably my series on Black Widow and my frequent posts on my collecting Daredevil.
I also want to highlight two of my scholarly projects:
Primarily, I am a writer and writing is who I am so blogging is a wonderful way to write and draft, a way to think through important issues while also contributing to the public discourse that drives not only what people think but actual policy.
Also, blogs are accessible (essentially free to anyone who have internet access), and I feel far more valuable and effective than traditional scholarship that sits behind paywalls.
I have been an educator for almost 40 years, shouting the entire time that we mostly do this thing called education badly because we are thinking wrong or simply stuck in a rut of doing things only one way (for education, that way is “Crisis!> reform > Crisis! > reform, etc.).
Yet, I think we can do better, and I know we should.
Thank you for reading because that is the thing we writers are mostly seeking—those genuinely and sincerely engaged in the ideas we are drawn to interrogate and explore.
Let us hope for a better, more kind and peaceful 2023.
The word “theory” is a technical term in the sciences that doesn’t mean “guessing.” “Theory” is not “hypothesis,” even as “hypothesis” isn’t really guessing either (maybe it is an educated guess).
Yet, average people tend to use “theory” as just a guess. That tension between laypeople and scientists is central to many problem with attempting to create evidence-based (“scientific”) policy in the context of media, public, and political debate that is mostly among laypeople.
Reading theory is rarely labeled “theory” in those debates among laypeople. Popular labels, such as “whole language,” often lose their theory origin and become teacher practice.
About a decade into teaching high school English, I taught a group of tenth graders with whom I immediately bonded (and was fortunate to teach again as seniors). Many of these students, now well into their 40s, remain friends of mine.
This class was very bright and genuinely eager to learn, but they were also driven to be “pleasers.” I worked hard to help them become more independent thinkers (instead of being incredibly compliant).
The worst way that urge to do the right thing hindered these students is reading. Early in the course, they pleaded with me that they could not read the assigned texts as fast as I wanted. This seemed odd because no class had ever complained about that, and the amount was quite manageable.
We set aside a class period to discuss how they read and such. What I learned was that these students in the early 1990s had been taught (or learned) that reading is done letter-by-letter to create words and word-by-word to create complete thoughts.
And there was their problem with reading speed.
I shared with them an epiphany I had in my MEd program during a course on early literacy. In that class we discusses how proficient and fast readers actually read. The process is much closer to what many would call skimming (“reading” large chunks at a time) and includes skipping as well as continually reading faster until the reader senses a loss of meaning before circling back.
My epiphany was that this described me perfectly as a reader, but I had always thought I was doing something wrong for not sticking to letter-by-letter and then word-by-word.
The discussion freed many of these students from a perception of reading that simply wasn’t accurate.
That explanation of highly proficient readers is also a story about reading as guessing and why reading theory remains a debate and not settled science.
The current “science of reading” movement depends heavily on melodramatic anecdotes to drive a narrative about reading and teaching reading that is overly simplistic and often simply wrong (see Media Coverage of SOR HERE).
One of those anecdotes portrays a teacher prompting a student struggling to read simply to guess at the words instead of using any sort of decoding strategy (what most people would call “sounding it out”).
So a key issue in the current reading debate is “guessing.”
To understand how “guessing” is part of the debate, we have to return to “theory.”
Whole language is a reading theory that is strongly associated with scholar Ken Goodman (see Whole Language HERE). In the 1960s, Goodman published Reading: A Psycholinguistic Guessing Game.
Goodman’s stated purpose in the piece is as follows:
Simply stated, the common sense notion I seek here to refute is this:
“Reading is a precise process. It involves exact, detailed, sequential perception and identification of letters, words, spelling patterns and large language units.”
In phonic centered approaches to reading, the preoccupation is with precise letter identification. In word centered approaches, the focus is on word identifications. Known words are sight words, precisely named in any setting.
And his alternative, where the issue with “guessing” has its roots:
In place of this misconception, I offer this: Reading is a selective process. It involves partial use of available minimal language cues selected from perceptual input on the basis of the reader’s expectation. As this partial information is processed, tentative decisions are made to be confirmed, rejected, or refined as reading progresses.
More simply stated, reading is a psycholinguistic guessing game. It involves an interaction between thought and language. Efficient reading does not result from precise perception and identification of all elements, but from skill in selecting the fewest, most productive cues necessary to produce guesses which are right the first time. The ability to anticipate that which has not been seen, of course, is vital in reading, just as the ability to anticipate what has not yet been heard is vital in listening.
While Goodman noted later that “guessing” may have not been the best choice, whole language proposed a theory of reading that valued meaning over accurately reading every word. And while the pervasiveness of whole language in K-12 education, I think, is greatly overstated, elements of holistic and workshop approaches certainly impacted practice and informed what would later be called “balanced literacy.”
The problem with “guessing” is the same as the problem with “theory”; both have very specific meanings in science and quite different (and often negative) meanings in day-to-day use.
And when theory is translated into practice, it is entirely possible, even likely, that some practitioners misunderstand and misuse “guessing.”
But it is quite a huge leap, as the “science of reading” movement has done, to announce that we have a unique reading crisis now that can be traced to teacher education teaching “guessing” and a couple reading programs that rely exclusively on “guessing.”
That “guessing” is also being identified (and even banned by some states) as “three cueing.”
So there are a few things to note about Goodman’s “guessing.”
First, that essay and idea is well over forty years ago; Goodman himself noted that he would later in his career have written a much different piece.
Next, the line between Goodman’s theorizing and the use of “guessing” or “three cueing” is complicated and extremely long.
Finally, it is much better to have a debate about reading theory and practice if we all agree to use important terms accurately. Here is a great and well cited overview of “multiple cueing”:
In some cases, proponents of structured literacy approaches have denigrated instructional practices that attend to multidimensional aspects of reading. For example, Spear-Swerling (2019) argued against encouraging students to attend to multiple-cueing systems when reading. Arguing that explicit teaching of decoding/phonics skills should dominate reading instruction, she warned against coaching students to use “meaning in conjunction with print cues and having students ‘problem-solve’ with teacher guidance (e.g., Burkins & Croft, 2010)” (p. 205). Spear- Swerling cited two reports (Foorman et al., 2016; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000) to argue that “research on students’ reading development… has conclusively disproven the multiple-cuing-systems model” (p. 206), although neither of these reports directly addressed or tested that model.
This rally against multiple-cueing systems models has been reiterated by scholars (Paige, 2020) and journalists (Hanford, 2018, 2019, 2020). Although it may be true that as readers become more proficient, they attend less to illustrations, this does not negate the role that illustrations play in helping young students learn to attend to meaning while reading. In short, drawing students’ attention to illustrations is one means of helping them attend to the stories and information presented in texts. Learning to attend to meanings that emerge while reading is essential for understanding both the simple and increasingly complicated texts that students encounter as they become skilled readers. Describing multiple-cueing systems models as having students draw on “partial visual cues to guess at words (Adams, 1998; Rayner & Pollatsek, 1989; Solman & Stanovich, 1992; Stanovich, 1986)” (Paige, 2020, p. 13) misrepresents these models and ignores the important role of illustrations as tools for learning to access and monitor meaning construction.
Compton-Lilly, C.F., Mitra, A., Guay, M., & Spence, L.K. (2020). A confluence of complexity: Intersections among reading theory, neuroscience, and observations of young readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1), S185-S195. Retrieved July 26, 2022, from https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.348
In 2022, scholars of literacy have moved beyond Goodman’s initial theories of whole language, but they have also moved on from the “simple” view of reading (yet, SOR continues to blame whole language and balanced literacy while endorsing the “simple” view).
And the current state of reading theory remains a debate, not settled science. And that debate has those who focus on letters, sounds, words, and meaning versus those who envision proficient readers who scan text and create meaning through dozens of strategies, many of which aren’t grounded in letters and words.
This is more of a theory than a guess, but our only hope of not continuing the cycle of reading crisis, reform, reading crisis, reform, etc., we must begin to understand the complexities of reading and teaching reading instead of declaring winners and losers in order to play the blame game.
This is the story of a religiously and politically conservative couple who committed to changing how children are taught in the U.S. (see HERE or HERE):
The Gablers’ views are straight-forward and comprehensive. They believe that the purpose of education is “the imparting of factual knowledge, basic skills and cultural heritage” and that education is best accomplished in schools that emphasize a traditional curriculum of reading, math, and grammar, as well as patriotism, high moral standards, dress codes, and strict discipline, with respect and courtesy demanded from all students. They feel the kind of education they value has all but disappeared, and they lay the blame at the feet of that all-purpose New Right whipping boy, secular humanism, which they believe has infiltrated the school at every level but can be recognized most easily in textbooks.
Though they have gained most of their notoriety for protests that reflected ultra-conservative political and religious views, the Gablers have consistently — and rightly, in my view — stressed basic academic skills, with particular attention to the use of intensive phonics to teach reading. Their handbook on phonics is a helpful collection of articles and references that thoroughly documents the superiority of the phonetic over the “look-say” method of reading instruction, a method whose wide use in American schools seems to me not only to negate the chief advantage of an alphabet over pictographs but also to deserve much of the blame for the depressingly high rate of functional illiteracy in this country.
But the Gablers also feel that even those students who learn to read through intensive phonics, memorize their “times tables,” diagram sentences perfectly, and win spelling bees and math contests must still cope with an educational system that is geared to undermining their morals, their individuality, their pride in America, and their faith in God and the free enterprise system. Much of this corrosive work is accomplished through textbooks in history, social sciences, health, and homemaking.
First, this is from 1982 and concerns the Gablers’ activism reaching back two decades before this news article:
Norma and Mel Gabler entered the field of textbook reform twenty years ago, after their son Jim came home from school disturbed at discrepancies between the 1954 American history text his eleventh-grade class was using and what his parents had taught him. The Gablers compared his text to history books printed in 1885 and 1921 and discovered differences. “Where can you go to get the truth?” Jim asked.
Second, the religious and conservative crusade of the Gablers represents that reading wars emphasizing the lack of phonics and the need for systematic phonics as well as conservative censorship of what students can read and learn are historical patterns found over many decades in the U.S.
The “science of reading” movement and the anti-CRT/book banning movements of the 2020s are nothing new in 20th- or 21st-century America.
And third, most controversially, phonics-centric reading wars and censorship have deep overlaps as conservative movements—as I have noted about the current literacy movements.
Compare this graphic from the 1982 article to the reading war and censorship today:
The rhetoric used by the Gablers sounds disturbingly familiar. They justified their censorship by calling for textbooks that are “‘fair, objective and patriotic'” (although these terms are contradictory). And they were unapologetically “protective of Christianity.”
The Gablers also fought for traditional (unequal) gender roles, again based on their Christian beliefs: “When texts note that the desire of women to earn pay equal to that of men, the Gablers complain that such equality could come only if women ‘abandon their highest profession— as mothers molding young lives.'”
Eerily similar to the attitudes of journalists and parents in the “science of reading” movement, the Gablers were expert at erasing actual expertise:
Norma says she has read so many textbooks that “I figure I know enough to be a Ph.D.” It is clear, however, that they have little appreciation or understanding of the life of the mind as it is encouraged and practiced in many institutions of learning. They tend to cite the Reader’s Digest as if it were the New England Journal of Medicine and to regard a single conversation with a police chief or a former drug user as an incontrovertible refutation of some point they oppose.
The Gablers were also early versions of conservatives who frame being privileged as an oppressed group: “‘When we try to get changes made,’ Norma said, ‘it’s called censorship. When minorities and feminists do the same thing, nobody complains.'”
As we reach the end of 2022, if we care about universal public education and academic freedom as essential for a free people, we need to recognize that the essentially conservative and ideological elements of the “science of reading” and anti-CRT/censorship movements are antithetical to those foundational principles.
Reading wars and culture wars fought over education are often driven by misinformation, melodramatic narratives, and the erasure of expertise and historical context; and ultimately, these movements are destined to do far more harm than good, regardless of anyone’s sincerity or intentions.
The “science of reading” (SOR) movement consisting of the media, parents, and politicians has painted itself into a corner. And like cornered animals, they often react with anger:
The SOR self-inflicted corner is demanding a narrow use of “science” for everyone else but not following that demand themselves:
It is clear that the repeated critiques of literacy teacher preparation expressed by the SOR community do not employ the same standards for scientific research that they claimed as the basis for their critiques. However, to dismiss these critiques as unimportant would ignore the reality of consequences, both current and foreseen, for literacy teacher preparation. Consider the initiatives under- way despite the fact that there is almost no scientific evidence offered in support of these claims or actions.
Hoffman, J.V., Hikida, M., & Sailors, M. (2020). Contesting science that silences: Amplifying equity, agency, and design research in literacy teacher preparation. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1), S255–S266. Retrieved July 26, 2022, from https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.353
Increasingly scholars have shown the SOR movement is a misinformation movement that depends on bullying, not “science.” And for a few years now, I have experienced and witnessed SOR advocates responding to evidence-based Tweets with anger, mischaracterizations, and personal attacks.
And thus, this passage from Bertrand Russell and panels from Daredevil 6 (v.7) resonate with me:
The SOR social media anger is grounded, I think, in the impossible corner SOR advocates have created. When I have posted scientific research about dyslexia (notably Orton-Gillingham) or LETRS, I have been visciuously attacked simply for noting that O-G and LETRS do not have scientific support but are embraced by the SOR movement.
I have never said O-G or LETRS is ineffective; I have never rejected or endorsed either. I simply have noted that if we are saying any program or approach must be scientific, neither of these meet that standard.
Detrich, Keyworth, and States provide an excellent example of why the SOR movement is doomed by its own standards, how even high-quality “science” fails its own standards, and why this reading war is yet another cycle of the same misguided claims and idealistic solutions.
“Policy without evidence is just a guess and the probability of benefit is likely to be low,” Detrich, Keyworth, and States explain, adding, “Evidence without policy is information that is unlikely to have impact as it has limited reach.”
When I stated LETRS fails scientific scrutiny, several SOR advocates responded by noting the lack of fidelity in implementing LETRS. And thus, what we know from implementation science:
The development of evidence-informed policy is not sufficient to assure the benefits of the policy will be realized. Policies must actually be implemented well if they are to have impact. Many education policies have been enacted without any meaningful impact on educational outcomes. Often this was because there was no comprehensive, coherent plan for implementing the policy. Implementation science is defined as the study of factors that influence the full and effective use of innovations (National Implementation Research Network, 2015) and brings coherence to the implementation of policies. It is the third leverage point that can be utilized to turn policy into meaningful action, thus achieving desired outcomes. It is the bridge between policy, evidence-based practices, and improved outcomes for students. Without implementation science, the aspirations of evidence-informed policy, no matter how well intentioned, are not likely to result in benefit for students.
That last sentence is extremely important because it speaks to the very high stakes involved in reform as well as the nearly impossible task of implementing reform in ways that can be identified as successful.
Some of the inevitable traps of reform are identified in implementation science:
Policy is made broadly but implemented locally. Policy is generally made at a distance removed from the local context in which it is to be implemented and all of the differences across implementation settings cannot be anticipated. … It has been argued that because of the complexities of differing contexts, the concept of evidence-informed policy is not realistic (Greenhalgh & Russell, 2009). The concern is that the research context is so different from the local context as to make research evidence irrelevant.
Evidence-informed policy can prescribe what to do, but not how to do it in a specific context. Those with the best understanding of that context are in a better position to make those decisions. At the local level decisions about how to best implement an evidence-informed policy requires professional judgment and a clear understanding of the values of the local community. Conceptualizing evidence-informed policy as a decision-making framework addresses many of the concerns about the feasibility of it being realistic to address issues of context (Greenhalgh & Russell, 2009).
…[T]here are complex issues to be solved if evidence is to influence policy. There is an implication that policymaking is a rationale process in the sense that if the evidence is available policymakers will act on it; however, the formulation of policy is influenced by a number of factors other than evidence. A challenge for those advocating evidence-informed policy is that policymakers bring their own political and personal biases to the task. In instances when evidence conflicts with political and personal preferences, preferences usually prevail and evidence is discounted [emphasis added](Gam- brill, 2012).
What the SOR movement demonstrates is the essential flaw of advocacy grounded in missionary zeal; and thus, “If evidence is to play a central role in influencing policy, then the challenges of overcoming personal biases, political considerations, advocacy groups, and financial incentives must be confronted.”
In short, when SOR advocates challenge existing market forces driving reading program adoption, they seem incapable of seeing how that same market dynamic is shaping their own movement.
As well, the SOR movement is trapped in an idealistic and simplistic use of “science” (along with a misunderstanding of meta-analyses):
A limitation of experimental evidence is that one experimental study is never sufficient to definitively answer a question about what should be done and is a poor basis for formulating policy. If there is a body of literature, the common approach by education scholars has been to review the extant literature and make a reasoned judgment about what should be done. Policymakers are not necessarily prepared to conduct a review of the literature and come to reasonable conclusions about what should be done as a matter of policy. An alternative to the narrative type of review is a systematic review or meta-analysis that summarizes a body of research and can inform policymakers about the general effect of a practice. A significant advantage of meta-analysis for policymakers is that it provides a single score (effect size) that best estimates the strength of an intervention across populations, settings, and other contextual variables. Program evaluation is another type of evidence that is valuable to policymakers. It provides feedback about the effectiveness of a program or practice and can provide insights about how policies can be changed to increase benefit.
Often, little weight is allowed for teacher-based evidence because that doesn’t meet the narrow definition of “science” that has painted SOR advocates into a corner:
Similarly, practitioners seeking answers to challenges they are facing can collect data about the frequency of occurrence, the contexts in which they are most likely to occur, and the differences between the contexts in which the problem occurs and does not occur. Practice-based evidence is the essence of data-based decision making (Ervin, Schaughency, Mathews, Goodman, & McGlinchey, 2007; Stecker, Lembke, & Foegen, 2008). Single participant designs are commonly used in data-based decision making. The unit of analysis can be an individual to determine if she is benefiting from an intervention and is common in response to intervention approaches (Barnett, Daly, Jones, & Lentz, 2004). The unit of analysis can also be larger such as a whole school. Practitioners of school-wide positive behavior support rely on single participant designs to make decisions regarding the effectiveness of whole school interventions (Ervin et al., 2007).
But the limitations of “scientific” or “evidence-based” policy and practice have occurred in recent history, specifically No Child Left Behind (NCLB):
There were a number of implicit assumptions in the use of this approach with NCLB (Detrich, 2008). First, it was assumed that there was an established body of evidence-based interventions. Secondly, it was assumed that educators were aware of the evidence supporting different practices. A third assumption was that educators had the expertise to implement a specific practice. A final assumption was that the necessary resources were available to support effective implementation. The experience with NCLB would suggest that these assumptions are not justified. When NCLB was enacted, there was no organized resource for educators that provided information about the evidentiary status of various interventions. More recently, there are a number of organizations that summarize and evaluate the evidence supporting educational interventions such as the What Works Clearinghouse and Best Evidence Encyclopedia.
The irony of the failures of evidence-base policy in education is that we have implementation science that can and should guide how policy is crafted and implemented: “The stages of implementation science are exploration and adoption, installation, initial implementation, and full implementation (Blasé, Van Dyke, Fixsen, & Bailey, 2012).”
The SOR movement fails the very first stage: “Exploration and adoption is the phase in which all stakeholders (teachers, administrators, etc.) are involved in the decision-making in terms of defining the problem they are trying to solve and identifying possible solutions.”
This is, in fact, what I call for in my policy brief on the current policy failures in the SOR movement:
Develop teacher-informed reading programs based on the population of students served and the expertise of faculty serving those students, avoiding lockstep implementation of commercial reading programs and ensuring that instructional materials support—rather than dictate—teacher practice.
Thomas, P.L. (2022). The Science of Reading movement: The never-ending debate and the need for a different approach to reading instruction. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/science-of-reading
The SOR movement is a media-based movement that has resulted in very bad and often harmful policy (see HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE).
And thus the paradox of implementation science: “The fundamental goal of implementation science is to make sure that at each phase of implementation the necessary steps are taken to assure that an intervention is implemented with integrity.”
Most if not all reforms must be implemented with such a high degree of fidelity (likely one not possible in the real world) that all reform is doomed necessarily to be identified as a failure.
The SOR movement will be declared a failure exactly like all the similar reading reform movement before it:
It is abundantly clear that policy alone is not sufficient to improve students’ academic achievement. Since the publication of A Nation at Risk (Gardner, 1983) there has been a steady stream of policy initiatives with the intent to reform the U.S. education system. In the time period covered by these various policy initiatives there is almost 50 years of data suggesting that academic performance in reading and math as measured by NAEP has not changed in any significant way despite all of the policies and money spent (Nations Report Card, 2015).
Regardless of the identified problems and regardless of the policy solutions, education is a steady march of failed reforms—most of which are indistinguishable from the others.
One example offered by Detrich, Keyworth, and States demonstrates the fatal gap between evidence and policy:
An additional shortcoming in the development of the policy to reduce class size was that all available evidence from Tennessee suggested that class size should be 17 or less and the teacher should be credentialed and have experience. California reducing class size to 20 was without support in the available evidence so even with fully credentialed teachers, the effects may have been minimized.
In reality, even when policy is identified as “scientific” or “evidence-based,” the actual practice is distorted by ideology or practical issues of implementation (evidence-based policy tends to be too politically or financially expensive to implement with fidelity).
And there is an unintended message in Detrich, Keyworth, and States—how researchers themselves fall into ideological traps.
Similar to the flaws in media coverage of SOR (see HERE and HERE), Detrich, Keyworth, and States misrepresent the whole language movement in California (see HERE and HERE) and uncritically cite NCTQ reports that do not meet a minimum bar of scientific research (see HERE, HERE, and HERE).
SOR advocates, then, find themselves in a very real dilemma. They often resort to anger and bullying because, I think, unconsciously they recognize the corner they have painted themselves into, the hypocrisy they are trafficking in.
Education and reading reform are cycles of doomed failure because we are too often lacking historical context, we are prone to ideological and market bias, and we commit to standards that no one can achieve.
The anger and bullying of SOR advocates isn’t justifiable, but it is predictable.
Again, as Detrich, Keyworth, and States explain: “Without implementation science, the aspirations of evidence-informed policy, no matter how well intentioned, are not likely to result in benefit for students.” LETRS training, for example, increases teacher confidence but doesn’t raise student achievement.
In a few years, just as we are experiencing a few years after NCLB’s “scientifically-based” mandate, there will be hand wringing about reading, charges of failure, and calls for new (read: the same) solutions that we have cycled through before.
It seems the one science we are determined to ignore is implementation science because it paints a complex picture that isn’t very politically appealing.
A powerful but often harmful relationship exists among research/science, mainstream media, and public policy.
One current example of that dynamic is the “science of reading” (SOR) movement that is driving reading legislation and policy in more than 30 states (see HERE and HERE).
Mauren Aukerman, who has posted two of three planned posts on media coverage of SOR (HERE and HERE), identifies in that second post a key failure of media: Error of Insufficient Understanding 3: Spurious Claims that One Approach is Settled Science.
For example, Aukerman details with citations to high-quality research/science: “In short, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that any single approach, including the particular systematic phonics approach often elided with ‘the science of reading,’ is most effective.” And therefore, Aukerman recommends: “Be skeptical of ‘science of reading’ news that touts ‘settled science,’ especially if such claims are used to silence disagreement.“
What makes media a dangerous mechanism for translating research/science into policy is that journalists routinely oversimplify and misrepresent research/science as “settled” when, in reality, most research/science is an ongoing conversation with data that presents varying degrees of certainty about whatever questions that research/science explores.
In education, research/science seeks to identify what instruction leads best to student learning—such as in the reading debate.
The other problem with media serving as a mechanism between research/science and policy is that journalists are often trapped in presentism and either perpetuate or are victims of fadism.
Despite no settled research/science supporting media’s coverage of the current reading “crisis,” the initial “science of reading” narrative created by Emily Hanford has now become standard media narratives without any effort to check for validity (again, I highly recommend Aukerman’s first post).
Regretfully, education (and students, teacher, parents, and society) is regularly the victim of fadism at the expense of research/science. The list of recent edu-fads that were promoted uncritically by media only to gradually lose momentum because, frankly, they simply never were valid policies is quite long: charter schools (notably no-excuses models), value-added methods for evaluating/paying teachers, school choice, Common Core, etc.
Two fads that represent well how the misuse of “science” helps this failed cycle in education are “grit” and growth mindset. Both gained their introduction to mainstream education because media portrayed the concepts are research/science-based (even justified, as “grit” was, by the Genius grant).
While schools fell all over themselves, uncritically, to embrace and implement “grit” and growth mindset, the research community gradually revealed that both concepts have some important research and ideological problems. Scholars have produced research/science that complicates claims about “grit” and growth mindset, and many critical scholars continue to call for interrogating the racist/classist groundings of both concepts.
Growth mindset has been in the news again (and discussed on social media) because two recent meta-analyses reach different conclusions; see this Twitter thread for details:
Does growth mindset work? Join me for a tale of two meta-analyses. @chrisjb1
The issue raised about meta-analyses parallels the exact problem with media coverage of research/science—scientific methodologies that fail due to oversimplification. See this Tweet, for example, about meta-analyses:
Perhaps it is wise to remember what the founder of meta-analysis said about computing average treatment effects for education interventions: pic.twitter.com/LLhTyW39PG
Especially in education, when individual student needs greatly impact what is “best” for teaching and learning in any given moment, Tipton’s final Tweet cannot be over-emphasized:
And please, can we stop with the “either/or”, “good/bad”, “yes/no” thinking about interventions? I’m tired of writing commentaries.
The use of “science” in research is necessarily limiting (see HERE) when that “science” is restricted to experimental/quasi-experimental designs seeking proof of cause (does instructional approach X cause students to learn better than instructional approach Y).
While causal conclusions and research methods that address populations and controls are the Gold Standard for high-quality research/science, this type of “science” is often less valuable for the practical day-to-day messiness of teaching and learning.
Educators are better served when research/science is used to inform practice, not to mandate one-size-fits-all practice (see HERE).
The media and journalists more often than not turn research/science into oversimplified truisms that then are used as baseball bats to beat policy advocates into submission. The conversation and nuance are sacrificed along with effective policy.
The public and policymakers are left with a challenge, a way to be critical and careful when either the media or researchers present research/science.
As Aukerman warns, if journalists or researchers start down the “simple, settled” path, then they are likely not credible (or they have an agenda) because the real story is far more complicated.
[Header and all images property of Marvel and artists]
This origin story is set in rural Upstate South Carolina during the 1970s, and there are plenty of uncomfortable parallels with the scrawny nerd-to-hero Peter Parker (the origin story of Spider-Man, 1962, occurring a bit over a year after my birth, 1961).
This origin story isn’t about nerd-to-hero, however; it is about an anxious rail-thin teenager being diagnosed with scoliosis and stumbling into reading, drawing from, and collecting Marvel comic books.
From 1975 until I graduated high school in 1979, I managed to collect about 7000 Marvel comic books, the greatest bilk of what was published in the 1970s. One huge part of that collection was buying a collection from an ad in our local newspaper.
As I have written about often, my parents turned themselves inside out to support their son resigned to spending his adolescence wearing a full body brace to correct a crooked spine. Buying comics and even attending a comic-con in Atlanta were stressful for my working-class family, but my parents never wavered.
While my collecting—and drawing from comic books—gradually faded while I was in college and then married in the early 1980s, I held onto that collection until my then-wife and I decided to buy a townhouse before having our only child.
Here, I allowed the normal life expectations to prompt a really bad decision—selling the entire collection to a comic book store in Charlotte (who mainly wanted the X-Men titles, and the full original run of Conan) for enough money to make a small downpayment on that townhouse.
While the money for us then was enough, looking back, I essentially threw away a wonderful collection because of impatience to start the sort of life I believed I was supposed to follow.
Over the next 40 years, I was a former comic book collector—although I popped back into collecting a few times because of students I taught and the growing wider interest in superheroes grounded in films featuring Batman and then the X-Men.
Also over those 40 years, my life—as life does—changed dramatically and in ways I could have never envisions.
In 2002, I moved from K-12 teaching to higher education, and it is then, that I turned to comic book scholarship/blogging and began once again filling my office with comic books used in that work as well as starting (without any initial purpose) collection Daredevil, focusing on my favorite Alex Maleev run.
The 2010s included the greatest changes in my life. Grandchildren, another serious cycling versus car accident (on Christmas eve 2016), the death of both parents in 2017, and then a major life change in 2019 after spending two years in therapy.
This may seem trivial to many people, but a key to coming to embrace my true self, and thus, true life, was to allow myself to return to the joys of my teenage years.
For a few years now, I have recommitted to comic book collecting, focusing on Daredevil and Black Widow along with a few other Marvel (and some DC) titles.
I moved my small collection from my office into a very small apartment already overwhelmed by two occupants and way too many high-end bicycles.
But in 2022, we moved into a larger apartment allowing us to dedicate a small bedroom to those bicycles and that growing collection—along with another new avocation, Lego.
Something unexpected happened in 2022.
First, I was able to complete my Black Widow solo series collection while I also wrote an 8-blog series on Black Widow and recently submitted a book proposal on the character (currently under review).
Next, I gradually began to make huge dents in the more daunting Daredevil collection since his solo series began in 1964 and includes nearly 700 issues.
After connecting with a local comic book store, where they targeted Daredevil issues for me, I began making some large purchases and eventually believed I could complete the entire run.
A tipping point in 2022 was making the big leap to buy Daredevil 1, 2, and 3 from that store, and then realizing I had dwindled my needed issues from about 100 to just about 10.
In that final 10, I was faced with a few key issues that were experiencing the usual market inflation connected to the MCU so I was patient and watched for dropping prices at local stores and on ebay.
This post in December 2022, then, is a magical one for me, surreal as I announce with acquiring Daredevil v.1 issue 7 (the first issue with his red uniform), I have a full run of Daredevil.
Since around 2013 and then increasingly since 2018, states have been adopting new or revised reading legislation often prompted by or identified as the “science of reading” (SOR).
As a result districts, schools, and teachers are experiencing major changes to reading programs and materials. Some states and districts have banned and removed materials that teachers have been using for decades, and many reading teachers are required to attend new PD as well as training in new reading programs.
This upheaval is not only common in K-12 education, but also highly disruptive to teaching as well as learning by students.
At a fundamental level, this cycle of crisis and reform has never worked, and only serves to de-professionalize educators and, once again, fails to address the individual literacy needs of all students.
In this policy brief, I offer an overview of the current SOR movement and recommend a different approach to reading policy and practices, including:
On a more local level, school- and district-level policymakers should do the following:
• Develop teacher-informed reading programs based on the population of students served and the expertise of faculty serving those students, avoiding lockstep implementation of commercial reading programs and ensuring that instructional materials support—rather than dictate—teacher practice.
• Provide students struggling to read and other at-risk students with certified, experienced teachers and low student-teacher ratios to support individualized and differentiated instruction.
Thomas, P.L. (2022). The Science of Reading movement: The never-ending debate and the need for a different approach to reading instruction. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/science-of-reading
In order to achieve my recommendations, local districts and schools must have access to high-quality research and resources in order to support well informed teachers who can then be tasked with developing the sort of reading programs that match the unique and individual needs of the student populations they serve.
Additionally, journalists and mainstream media have been recycling the original claims (see Aukerman below) made by Hanford’s Hard Word, despite a lack of science behind those claims.
Therefore, below I am providing a resource collection by topic that matches the current media, parent, and political pressure that educators, schools, and districts are facing.
Links to resources are being provided for PD and educational purposes only and anyone accessing these resources are asked to respect fair use of scholarship. Further, I am available for educators or journalists who want to investigate the “science of reading” movement critically.
Betts, E., Dolch, E., Gates, A., Gray, W., Horn, E., LaBrant, L., . . . Witty, P. (1942). What shall we do about reading today?: A symposium. The Elementary English Review, 19(7), 225-256. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41382636
Seidenberg, M.S., Cooper Borkenhagen, M., & Kearns, D.M. (2020). Lost in translation? Challenges in connecting reading science and educational practice. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1), S119-S130. Retrieved July 26, 2022, from https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.341
Yaden, D.B., Reinking, D., & Smagorinsky, P. (2021). The trouble with binaries: A perspective on the science of reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 56(S1), S119-S129. Retrieved July 26, 2022, from https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.402
Johnston, P., & Scanlon, D. (2021). An examination of dyslexia research and instruction with policy implications. Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice, 70(1), 107. Retrieved July 26, 2022, from https://doi.org/10.1177/23813377211024625
Stevens, E. A., Austin, C., Moore, C., Scammacca, N., Boucher, A. N., & Vaughn, S. (2021). Current state of the evidence: Examining the effects of Orton-Gillingham reading interventions for students with or at risk for word-level reading disabilities. Exceptional Children, 87(4), 397–417. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402921993406
Hall, C., et al. (2022, September 13). Forty years of reading intervention research for elementary students with or at risk for dyslexia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly. Retrieved October 17, 2022, from https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.477
[UPDATE]
Odegard, T. N., Farris, E. A., Middleton, A. E., Oslund, E., & Rimrodt-Frierson, S. (2020). Characteristics of Students Identified With Dyslexia Within the Context of State Legislation. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 53(5), 366–379. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219420914551
Hoffman, J.V., Hikida, M., & Sailors, M. (2020). Contesting science that silences: Amplifying equity, agency, and design research in literacy teacher preparation. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1), S255–S266. Retrieved July 26, 2022, from https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.353
Hoffman, J.V., Hikida, M., & Sailors, M. (2020). Contesting science that silences: Amplifying equity, agency, and design research in literacy teacher preparation. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1), S255–S266. Retrieved July 26, 2022, from https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.353
MacPhee, D., Handsfield, L.J., & Paugh, P. (2021). Conflict or conversation? Media portrayals of the science of reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1), S145-S155. Retrieved July 26, 2022, from https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.384
Compton-Lilly, C.F., Mitra, A., Guay, M., & Spence, L.K. (2020). A confluence of complexity: Intersections among reading theory, neuroscience, and observations of young readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1), S185-S195. Retrieved July 26, 2022, from https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.348
Simple View of Reading (SVR) and Structured Literacy [access materials HERE]
Compton-Lilly, C.F., Mitra, A., Guay, M., & Spence, L.K. (2020). A confluence of complexity: Intersections among reading theory, neuroscience, and observations of young readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1), S185-S195. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.348
Duke, N.K. & Cartwright, K.B. (2021). The science of reading progresses: Communicating advances beyond the simple view of reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 56(S1), S25-S44. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.411
Filderman, M.J., Austin, C.R., Boucher, A.N., O’Donnell, K., & Swanson, E.A. (2022). A meta-analysis of the effects of reading comprehension interventions on the reading comprehension outcomes of struggling readers in third through 12th grades. Exceptional Children, 88(2), 163-184. https://doi.org/10.1177/00144029211050860
Barber, A.T., Cartwright, K.B., Hancock, G.R., & Klauda, S.L. (2021). Beyond the simple view of reading: The role of executive functions in emergent bilinguals’ and English monolinguals’ reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 56(S1), S45-S64. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.385
Cervetti, G.N., Pearson, P.D., Palincsar, A.S., Afflerbach, P., Kendeou, P., Biancarosa, G., Higgs, J., Fitzgerald, M.S., & Berman, A.I. (2020). How the reading for understanding initiative’s research complicates the simple view of reading invoked in the science of reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1), S161-S172. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.343
Burns, M. K., Duke, N. K., & Cartwright, K. B. (2023). Evaluating components of the active view of reading as intervention targets: Implications for social justice. School Psychology, 38(1), 30–41. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000519
[UPDATE]
Reading a philosophical investigation, Andrew Davis
Bowers, J.S. (2020). Reconsidering the evidence that systematic phonics is more effective than alternative methods of reading instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 32(2020), 681-705. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10648-019-09515-y
Wyse, D., & Bradbury, A. (2022). Reading wars or reading reconciliation? A critical examination of robust research evidence, curriculum policy and teachers’ practices for teaching phonics and reading. Review of Education, 10(1), e3314. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3314
Bowers, J.S. Yes Children Need to Learn Their GPCs but There Really Is Little or No Evidence that Systematic or Explicit Phonics Is Effective: a response to Fletcher, Savage, and Sharon (2020). Educ Psychol Rev33, 1965–1979 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09602-z
Connor C. M. (2016). A Lattice Model of the Development of Reading Comprehension. Child development perspectives, 10(4), 269–274. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12200
Flanigan, K., Solic, K., & Gordon, L. (2022). The “P” Word Revisited: 8 Principles for Tackling Today’s Questions and Misconceptions about Phonics Instruction. The Reading Teacher, 76, 73– 83. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.2101
[UPDATE}
Bowers, J. S. (2023, September 29). There is still little or no evidence that systematic phonics is more effective than common alternative methods of reading instruction: Response to Brooks (2023). https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/5ut7x
As a career educator for about 40 years, including almost two decades in K-12 teaching, I am advocating for teacher autonomy and professionalism to serve the individual needs of students.
Therefore, I think curriculum and instruction must be driven by classroom teachers—not media narratives, parental advocacy, or political mandate.
Regretfully, media, parental, and political pressure for policy and practice are too often oversimplified and misleading, but honored over teacher experience and expertise.
I am not a high-profile journalist with platforms at APM, Education Week, and the New York Times.
So I have to imagine that hearing from teachers and parents raising concerns about how the “science of reading” (SOR) movement isn’t representing them and even silencing and bullying them is only a fraction of those experiencing the same thing.
Of course, I too have regularly experienced the visceral anger and bullying coming from SOR and dyslexia zealots (a substantial percentage of the entire SOR movement).
Here, then, I want to focus on how the SOR parental rights bullying has a current and parallel cousin—the anti-CRT, curriculum ban, and book censorship movement driven by conservative culture warriors.
The overlap, in fact, between the SOR movement and the culture war linked to education and attacks on marginalized groups is becoming more and more direct:
[House Speaker] Renner [FL – R] also lodged attacks against measures conservatives and DeSantis have derided as “woke” movements. Ideologues are pushing their politics as a religion and at the expense of education, he said.
“They spend more time defending drag queen story time than promoting phonics and the science of reading,” Renner continued. “In this election, moms and dads sent a clear message to these ideologues: our children are not your social experiment.”
First, a typical pattern I experience on social media is that when I post research that challenges and contradicts SOR talking points the bullying begins. That bullying tends to gravitate to asking why I want to ignore (or accusing me of ignoring/discounting) the voices of parents and teachers who are being elevated by Emily Hanford’s articles and podcast.
Well, I have to be clear here that I understand that parents and teachers have quite valid concerns, and I would never silence or ignore those concerns. But the SOR movement isn’t limited to raising their voices; the movement is using those voices to bully and to ram through policies and practices that ironically deny other parents and teachers their voices and concerns.
As I have pointed out numerous times, there is a singular message to Hanford’s work; she has never covered research that contradicts that singular message.
And not a peep about schools having success with one of Hanford’s favorite reading programs to demonize.
At the root of this problem, also, is that Hanford has a habit of switching back and forth between claiming “science” and “research” while depending on anecdote:
Hanford critiqued approaches named as balanced literacy and whole language without citing any evidence around these claims. She continued with anecdotes on how a focus on the SOR has improved student performance, but there is not a single citation of evidence in support of this claim.
Hoffman, J.V., Hikida, M., & Sailors, M. (2020). Contesting science that silences: Amplifying equity, agency, and design research in literacy teacher preparation. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1), S255-S266. Retrieved July 26, 2022, from https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.353
And thus:
It is clear that the repeated critiques of literacy teacher preparation expressed by the SOR community do not employ the same standards for scientific research that they claimed as the basis for their critiques.
Hoffman, J.V., Hikida, M., & Sailors, M. (2020). Contesting science that silences: Amplifying equity, agency, and design research in literacy teacher preparation. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1), S255-S266. Retrieved July 26, 2022, from https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.353
The fundamental concern I have is not that Hanford and the SOR movement is elevating the concerns of parents and teachers, but that far too many SOR advocates are misrepresenting and oversimplifying reading science and then using that bully pulpit to mandate “all students must” policy and practice
Simply stated, reading science is not settled, brain research on reading isn’t fully formed in ways that can or should inform practice, and mandating universal policies erases the need to hear all voices and serve the individual needs of students.
For example, many SOR advocates call for systematic phonics for all students (regardless of need), universal dyslexia screening (which isn’t supported by research), and specific practices that also are not supported by research—Orton-Gillingham (see here and here), LETRS (see here), grade retention (see here), and both structured literacy (see here) and the “simple view” of reading (SVR) (see here and here).
It is entirely different to call for the needs of your child or the needs of yourself as an educator than to demand that all students and teachers need what you are demanding from your singular although shared experiences. [1]
Teachers across the US are being bullied and silenced through LETRS training and by administrators for simply asking questions about SOR or correctly pointing out that SOR is being misunderstood and misused (see how Gov. Youngkin (R – VA) frames SOR as phonics).
Where is the podcast for those educators?
Where is the podcast for parents thrilled by the education their children have received through Reading Recovery, Units of Study, or Fountas and Pinnell?
Missionary zeal and righteous anger are cancers for productive discourse and effective systemic reform (such as addressing reading policy needs).
Not all beginning readers are the same.
Not all struggling readers are the same.
Not all children labeled with dyslexia are the same (although dyslexia may be most strongly associated with out-of-school factors, which SOR advocates fail to acknowledge).
Therefore, policy must not demand that teachers conform to scripted approaches as if individual students are not being served.
Let’s then add the parallel dynamic occurring with anti-CRT movements, curriculum bans, and book censorship.
Republicans are (like Hanford) only reaching out and elevating a narrow type of parental voices, those righteously angry about what teachers teach, what students learn, and what anyone can read.
Censorship and bans that are universal erase the rights of those parents who want those lessons and those books for their children.
It is one thing to request that a child not be assigned a book or not have access to materials, but it is quite another thing to demand that no child can be assigned a book or have access to materials because a loud parent or parental group is offended.
Not a single recent bill (just as there is no podcast) protects the rights of parents and students to have access through the publicly funded school system curriculum and books that someone else may find offensive.
The SOR movement and the anti-CRT/curriculum and book ban movement are ultimately not about parental rights, student needs, or reading and literature as well as academic freedom.
They are ideological bullying that forefronts a narrow set of mandates at the expense of what likely is the silenced majority of parents and teachers who want children taught as individuals and teaching and learning to honor the sacred foundation of academic freedom.
Parental rights is not being honored when some parents have rights and a voice that deny other parents their rights and voices.
[1] A trap and flaw of the SOR movement is shouting “Science!” and then using anecdote. I want to be clear that (1) anecdotes are not science, and (2) I actually think we should drop the “science” tyranny and spend more time on anecdotes because qualitative data are quite valuable in education.
Since I am a man of a certain advancing age—creeping north of 60—I am bombarded on social media with push-ads for a variety of supplements claiming to address the various and common challenges of growing older.
These supplements are often advertised by first discrediting other supplements or earlier versions of the supplements being sold. Next, of course, comes the sales pick: But our supplement works the way no other supplement does or ever has!
Regretfully, this dynamic in the supplement world (where virtually no products have ever “worked” or will ever “work”) is replicated in the on-going reading programs war that is a subset of the incessant reading war that has plagued public and political debate since at least the 1940s (see an overview of the reading wars included here).
In fact, one of the least credible and most harmful aspects of the current “science of reading” (SOR) movement is blaming dominant reading programs for failing to teach students to read, and then, uncritically offering a new program/approach as a silver bullet for “fixing” low student achievement in reading (see an important challenge to that blame here).
Since the panic around low literacy rates among draftees in WWII, the US has experienced a recurring cycle of reading wars that are grounded in overstatements about the lack of phonics instruction, the persistent and “normal” but unsatisfying level of reading achievement among US children (notably even more dire among children living in poverty, minoritized students, second-language learners, and special needs students), and impassioned blame focused on simplistic agents of that failure.
SOR advocates, especially in the media and among parents, are today placing blame on balanced literacy (BL) and a few dominant reading programs. One problem is that these programs didn’t even exist during most of the decades before that had the exact same low and unsatisfying reading achievement (read literacy scholar Jeanne Chall’s work addressing the lack of scientific research, absence of systematic phonics, and failure to address dyslexia starting in the 1960s, examined well here).
Even more frustrating is that many of the demonized reading programs today are not even identified as BL and that most critics of BL—nearly universally in the media—mischaracterize BL (similar to the attack on whole language in the 1990s).
SOR advocates, then, turn immediately to championing a new approach!—usually structured literacy (SL to replace BL) or Orton-Gillingham approaches.
Like the supplement wars, the reading programs wars are entirely trapped in a futile paradigm grounded in misidentifying the problem, shouting misguided blame, and offering nearly the exact same solution as the blame-agent being attacked.
Reading programs, regardless of the program, are likely very small factors in how well students learn to read in terms of the quality of the program itself (teaching/learning conditions and living conditions of students far outweigh program quality).
And if we are being honest about teacher practice, over the last 80 years and every single day, there is a tremendous variety in how teachers teach students anything—even when teachers are in rooms side-by-side and teaching the same required reading program.
Since I have a long record of opposing all reading programs, I want to emphasize that the problem is not any specific reading program, but how and why the program is implemented.
Let’s go back then to the 1940s when Lou LaBrant accurately identified the reading program problem:
It is not strange, in view of the extensive literature on language, that the teacher tends to fall back upon the textbook as authority, unmindful of the fact that the writer of the text may himself be ignorant of the basis for his study. (pp. 88-89)
Regardless of the reading program, if and when that program becomes the instructional authority, instead of the teacher and despite the demonstrated needs of the students, we have failed students and we have failed teachers and we have failed the promise of learning to read.
At best, a reading program is one dynamic resource for the professional autonomy and expertise of the teacher to serve the individual needs of all of their students.
At worst (which is historically and currently common), reading programs are scripts for teachers to follow and ways to hold teachers accountable for implementing the program (regardless of the needs of the students, regardless of the professional authority of the teacher).
SOR advocates are no different than supplement hucksters. In their righteous anger about Lucy Calkins and Fountas and Pinnell, they are jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire by waving the structured literacy! flag and claiming SL will save children, save reading.
Let me take a commercial break and throw a very chilly and unwelcome blanket on the SL party: SL will not work, and in a decade or so, we will start the panic, blame game, and new! reading program/approach all over again.
Why?
Because many are too damn stubborn, and too filled with missionary zeal, to step back and admit we have been going about this all wrong.
Reading achievement by students is a metric strongly linked to poverty and inequity; if we had the political will to address poverty and inequity, reading achievement would increase (but since human behaviors are mostly idiosyncratic, we will never have universal success among humans for anything because there is some truth to human behaviors falling on a range something like the bell-shaped curve).
Next, we are focusing on the reading programs themselves instead of how they are implemented.
The real problem with all the currently adopted reading programs in the US is that they are implemented badly, often in lock-step ways that put implementing the program with fidelity over student learning and teacher autonomy.
So the great and sad irony of the SOR assault on reading programs is that SOR advocates are calling for SL, which is often scripted curriculum that defaults to treating students monolithically (see a powerful critique here):
The collateral damage, then, of the reading programs wars will always be students, teachers, and the promise of reading—because the real concern isn’t the reading programs themselves (although reading programs as resources can and should be better).
It is easy and effective to whip up emotional responses with anecdotes in order to manufacture a problem and put a face on all-that-is-evil (makes for clickable podcasts).
But in the end, the real story being sold is no different than the supplement sales pitch that points an accusatory finger at those other failed supplements before holding up the new! and improved! product (uh, program) that in all honesty is the same useless shit in a different package and under a different name.
educator, public scholar, poet&writer – academic freedom isn't free
dr. p.l. (paul) thomas 
