Category Archives: ILEC

ILEC, literacy, reading, Science of Reading

ILEC Webinars 2024-2025

Dr. Elena Aydarova – “Science of Reading” and the Educational Reform Movement: Actors, Networks, and Agendas

Dr. Paul Thomas – “Science of” Movements as Trojan Horse Education Reforms

Shawna Coppola – Literacy for All: A Framework for Anti-Oppressive Teaching Presented 

Dr. Catherine Compton-Lilly – Centering Readers Means Centering Equity

Dr. Barbara Flores, Dr. Edgar Lampkin, Dr. Jill Kerper Mora, and Dr. Esteban Díaz – Pushing Back Against Science of Reading Mandates: The California Story

Dr. Rachael Gabriel – The Science-Policy Gap: Impacts and Possibilities of Speculative Policy-Making

Dr. Peter Johnston and Kathy Champeau – Just & Equitable Literacy Learning: Developing Children’s Social, Emotional, & Intellectual Lives

Dr. Alan Flurky, Dr. Peter Duckett, and Dr. Maria Perpetua Liwanag – Reading as a Meaning Making Process: Insights from Miscue Analysis

Dr. Andy Johnson – Context Matters: LETRS, SoR Research Standards, and Baloney

Dr. Steven Strauss, Dr. Jill Kerper Mora, Dr. Barbara FRlores, and Dr. Edgar Lampkin — Debunking Science of Reading Neuroscience Claims

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

ILEC, reading, Science of Reading

ILEC Response: The Right to Read: The greatest civil rights issue of our time.

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: The Right to Read: The greatest civil rights issue of our time.

The Right to Read connects reading instruction, civil rights, and full participation in society by asserting that there is only one approach to teaching reading. The film provides few specific details about the research that supports this stance, and there is little to no discussion about other aspects of teaching and learning that impact student achievement.

Also, there are the repeated examples of what Maren Auckerman refers to as “Errors of Insufficient Understanding”or “errors that reflect inadequate grasp of the field.” Auckerman’s examples include:  a weak connection to actual research, misrepresenting research findings and over-relying on a narrow slice of research. The narrators assert: “We know what works” without citing research to back up this claim.  The film repeatedly uses wording that illustrates Auckerman’s points such as: “proven,” “what’s working,” “what’s not working,” “evidence-based”, “all research indicates,” “research”, and “consensus.”[1]

As we watched the film, Rachael Gabriel’s words continue to resonate: “Even as debates roiled about approaches to reading instruction, it was clear that individual teacher decisions were important for optimizing students’ opportunities to learn. If teacher decision-making is of paramount importance, then so is a teacher’s individual knowledge base for teaching” (Chapter 7, p. 173).[2]

Positive Aspects of the film:

  1. The film highlights the racialized achievement gap and asserts that solutions are possible.
  2. It emphasizes all people have the right to learn to read to attain a successful life.
  3. The film stresses the critical roles of research and family members in literacy education.

ILEC Concerns:

  1. There is no mention of culturally responsive, research-based practices or research-based practices for multilingual learners.
  2. The film claims there is one right way to teach reading to all students, excluding all other research-based approaches.
  3. The film includes false claims such as: “The root of the problem is that children are being taught in a way that is not working” and “When you tell me that you are choosing not to follow the research….”
  4. The film endorses an approach that takes away teacher agency and decision making while ignoring the importance of ongoing professional learning and the value of teacher experience. 
  5. Relying on anecdotes, the film focuses on the story of one “rookie” teacher to make sweeping general claims about a specific reading curriculum.
  6. The film ignores many aspects of literacy such as writing instruction, comprehension, or the joy of reading.

[1] Aukerman, M. (2022) The Science of Reading and the Media: Does the Media Draw on High-Quality Reading Research? Literacy Research Association Critical Conversations. CC BY 4.0 license; Aukerman, M. (2022). The Science of Reading and the Media:  How Do Current Reporting Patterns Cause Damage? Literacy Research Association Critical Conversations. CC BY 4.0 license.

[2] How Education Policy Shapes Literacy Instruction: Understanding the Persistent Problems of Policy and Practice Edited by Rachael Gabriel (1st Ed 2022, Palgrave Macmillan).

ILEC

International Literacy Educators Coalition (ILEC) Responses

July 28, 2023

ILEC Response: Reading Reform Across America (The Albert Shanker Institute, July 2023), Susan Neuman, Esther Quintero, and Kayla Reist

August 4, 2023

ILEC Response: Mainstream media coverage of reading proficiency, teachers of reading, NAEP scores, and teacher preparation

August 10, 2023

ILEC Response: Toward Addressing and Resolving Disparities in Reading Outcomes: A Statewide Database of Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessments in Minnesota (CAREI, University of Minnesota, June 2023), Kimberly Gibbons, Robert Richardson, Eskender Yousuf, Annie Goerdt, and Mahasweta Bose

September 2, 2023

ILEC Response: The Right to Read: The greatest civil rights issue of our time.

November 10, 2023

ILEC Response: Sold a Story: How Teaching Kids to Read Went So Wrong

May 9, 2024

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

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

ILEC Response: Toward Addressing and Resolving Disparities in Reading Outcomes: A Statewide Database of Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessments in Minnesota (CAREI, University of Minnesota, June 2023), Kimberly Gibbons, Robert Richardson, Eskender Yousuf, Annie Goerdt, and Mahasweta Bose

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: Toward Addressing and Resolving Disparities in Reading Outcomes: A Statewide Database of Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessments in Minnesota (CAREI, University of Minnesota, June 2023), Kimberly Gibbons, Robert Richardson, Eskender Yousuf, Annie Goerdt, and Mahasweta Bose

The report asserts: “Minnesota is in dire need of comprehensive literacy reform,” raising reading crisis claims from the “science of reading” (SOR) movement. Framing reading achievement as “alarming,” the report offers an ambitious body of data related to reading programs in the state, correlations of reading achievement and curricula, assessments used for screening and monitoring, and interventions implemented.

This report on Minnesota provides a needed model for understanding reading instruction and achievement in all states, but is seriously compromised by bias related to an uncritical acceptance of SOR stories. Claims made fail standards for “scientific,” and the report relies on media stories and surveys, and selected evidence while making a narrow case for “scientific” reading preparation and instruction.

Positive Aspects of the Report:

  1. Data gathered on key aspects of reading instruction should be a model for all states.
  2. The report highlights the significant inequity challenges represented by reading achievement data.

ILEC Concerns:

  1. The report makes sweeping inaccurate claims using “crisis” rhetoric and repeating stories from the SOR movement not supported by research, specifically misrepresenting reading programs and instructional practices (such as three cueing)[1] as ineffective or not supported by SOR.
  2. The report notes MN’s stellar ACT scores and ignores that MN’s grade 8 NAEP reading scores (72% at/above grade level) are above Mississippi and comparable to FL, CO, UT, and WY while perpetuating SOR “miracle” myths. [See NAEP data below]
  3. Evidence in the report cites non-scientific sources (media) and cherry-picked research while making claims of a settled body of reading science that is never cited fully.[2]
  4. Analyses throughout the report treat correlation as causation, and thus, the analysis distorts the ambitious gathering of data through ideological claims.
  5. The report relies on outdated evidence (NRP) and endorses programs not supported by research (LETRS), for example, and thus does not practice the same standards the report expects of state reading policy decisions.
  6. Recommendations in the report are recycled approaches states have attempted for four decades without success, specifically calling for identifying effective reading programs and focusing on in-school-only reforms.
  7. Report authors have psychology and general education, not literacy, credentials: Kimberly Gibbons, Robert Richardson, Eskender Yousuf, Annie Goerdt, and Mahasweta Bose.

[1] 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; Mora, J.K. (2023, July 3). To cue or not to cue: Is that the question? Language Magazine. https://www.languagemagazine.com/2023/07/03/to-cue-or-not-to-cue-is-that-the-question/

[2] See The Negative Legislative Consequences of the SOR Media Story: An Open-Access Reader  

Dyslexia, Education, education reform, Education Week, ILEC, Media, reading, Science of Reading

ILEC Response: Mainstream media coverage of reading proficiency, teachers of reading, NAEP scores, and teacher preparation

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: Mainstream media coverage of reading proficiency, teachers of reading, NAEP scores, and teacher preparation

Mainstream media such as Education Week, the New York Times[1], APM, and Forbes persist in recycling a compelling but misleading story about reading proficiency, teachers of reading, NAEP scores, and teacher preparation that is not supported by the full body of evidence. As Aukerman explains:

From how much of the media tells it, a war rages in the field of early literacy instruction. The story is frequently some version of a conflict narrative relying on the following problematic suppositions:

  • a) science has proved that there is just one way of teaching reading effectively to all kids – using a systematic, highly structured approach to teaching phonics;
  • b) most teachers rely instead on an approach called balanced literacy, spurred on by shoddy teacher education programs;
  • c) therefore, teachers incorporate very little phonics and encourage kids to guess at words;
  • d) balanced literacy and teacher education are thus at fault for large numbers of children not learning to read well.[2]
The Science of Reading and the Media: Is Reporting Biased?, Maren Aukerman

In fact, Reinking, Hruby, and Risko concluded, “there is no indisputable evidence of a national crisis in reading, and even if there were a crisis, there is no evidence that the amount of phonics in classrooms is necessarily the cause or the solution.”

ILEC Concerns:

  1. Hoffman, Hikida, and Sailors note that “the SOR community do[es] not employ the same standards for scientific research that they claimed as the basis for their critiques.” While individual stories of parents and students are compelling, anecdotes are not scientific and do not provide valid evidence for generalizations about reading proficiency or reading instruction.
  2. Longitudinal and recent NAEP scores on reading are misrepresented by mainstream media. “Proficiency” on NAEP is well above grade level, and “basic” is a closer measure of grade level (Loveless, 2023; Loveless, 2016).
  3. Any claim of “crisis” or “miracle” in education is misleading. Specifically, the Mississippi “miracle” does not have scientific evidence to show NAEP increases are caused by instructional reform, but appear linked (as with Florida) to punitive uses of grade retention that disproportionately impact minoritized students.[3]
  4. Mainstream media misrepresents teacher education, reading programs, reading instructional practices, brain research, and the complex body of reading research to promote a compelling story that is melodramatic and anecdotal.
  5. Citing NCTQ, NRP, and surveys fails to meet the level of “scientific” that SOR advocacy requires of teachers.

[1] The NY Times Again Goes After Public Schools, Susan Ohanian

[2] See The Science of Reading and the Media: Is Reporting Biased?, Maren Aukerman; The Science of Reading and the Media: Does the Media Draw on High-Quality Reading Research?, Maren Aukerman; The Science of Reading and the Media: How Do Current Reporting Patterns Cause Damage?, Maren Aukerman

[3] A Critical Examination of Grade Retention as Reading Policy (OEA)

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

ILEC Response: Reading Reform Across America (The Albert Shanker Institute, July 2023), Susan Neuman, Esther Quintero, and Kayla Reist

1 Comment

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 Reform Across America (The Albert Shanker Institute, July 2023), Susan Neuman, Esther Quintero, and Kayla Reist

The report asserts, “Our goal is to provide a basic yet systematic description of states’ efforts to improve reading instruction.” And is grounded in the following:

Furthermore, legislative efforts have at times been criticized widely, but our analysis reveals significant variation among states, rendering blanket characterizations unhelpful….Whether we see the current state of American students’ reading achievement as a new crisis or as part of a stable trend, the truth remains that more than one-third (37 percent) of the nation’s fourth-graders performed below the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) “Basic” level in 2022. Because there is no achievement-level description for below “Basic,” it is difficult to make full sense of this statistic. (p. 1)

Reading Reform Across America

While the report is ambitious, the increase in reading legislation is framed as a positive reform effort motivated by “answering teachers’ calls for better support with regard to reading.” This positive spin ignores the media, market, and political influences on another reading war and avoids confronting how many states are passing legislation that mandates and bans reading practices based on advocacy and not the full body of reading science.[1]

Positive Aspects of the Report:

  1. The report makes a strong case for reading achievement being significantly inequitable among marginalized groups of students.
  2. The report acknowledges the concerns raised about grade retention policy.

ILEC Concerns:

  1. State reading legislation is not a response to teachers, but to an orchestrated political reform movement grounded in misinformation about reading achievement, teacher expertise, and teacher education.
  2. The report fails to fully engage with patterns of extreme measures in several states’ legislation that bans three cueing, reading programs, balanced literacy, etc., as well as legislation that mandates universal dyslexia screening, structured literacy programs, etc.—both of which are based on advocacy and not the full body of research.
  3. The report does not address the contradiction of calling for scientific practice while mandating and funding programs and practices not fully supported by research; for example, mandating LETRS training for all teachers of reading.
  4. Posing the current reading legislation movement as positive is idealistic bordering on irresponsible.

[1] Reading Science Resources for Educators (and Journalists): Science of Reading Edition [UPDATED]; The Negative Legislative Consequences of the SOR Media Story: An Open-Access Reader

Recommended

What Do We Really Know about Reading Proficiency in the US?

Neoliberal Education Reform: “Science of Reading” Edition