Category Archives: Science of Reading

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).

Education, education reform, Educational Research, Lou LaBrant, NCTE, reading, Science of Reading

Deja Vu All Over Again: The Never Ending Pursuit of “Scientific” Instruction

Writing in NCTE’s Elementary English (known as Language Arts since 1975), Lou LaBrant offered a bold proclamation that resonates still today: “This is not the time for the teacher of any language to follow the line of least resistance, to teach without the fullest possible knowledge of the implications of his medium” (1947, p. 94).

LaBrant entered the classroom in 1906, and after experiencing forced retirement in her 60s, she found ways to remain in the field at historically Black colleges, finally retiring fully in 1971 from Dillard University. This impressively long career sits at the center of an impressively long life, living until she was 102 after writing her memoir at 100.

The embodiment of Deweyian Progressivism, LaBrant was equally demanding of herself as she was of others—particularly educators. Her high standards and blunt speaking and writing style make her appealing and often intimidating.

Her piece from 1947 also includes other statements I have repeated in my public and scholarly work:

A brief consideration will indicate reasons for the considerable gap between the research currently available and the utilization of that research in school programs and methods…. (p. 87)

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)

LaBrant, L. (1947, January). Research in language. Elementary English, 24(1), 86-94. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41383425

Seventy-six years later, LaBrant could just as easily be speaking into the current “science of reading” (SOR) debate that centers research (“science”) and the imbalance of authority often conceded to reading programs.

Some, in fact, may be compelled to assume LaBrant would be an outspoken advocate for SOR. However, LaBrant’s scholarship and practice offer a window into why the SOR movement is misguided and misleading, specifically about the central role of pursuing “scientific” instruction.

To understand that the current SOR is a misuse of the term “scientific” we should reach back a bit farther in LaBrant’s career to 1931:

The cause for my wrath is not new or single. It is of slow growth and has many characteristics. It is known to many as a variation of the project method; to me, as the soap performance. With the project, neatly defined by theorizing educators as “a purposeful activity carried to a successful conclusion,” I know better than to be at war. With what passes for purposeful activity and is unfortunately carried to a conclusion because it will kill time, I have much to complain. To be, for a moment, coherent: I am disturbed by the practice, much more common than our publications would indicate, of using the carving of little toy boats and castles, the dressing of quaint dolls, the pasting of advertising pictures, and the manipulation of clay and soap as the teaching of English literature. (p. 245)

LaBrant, L. (1931, March). Masquerading. The English Journal, 20(3), 244-246. http://www.jstor.org/stable/803664

In the first couple decades of the 1900s, John Dewey practiced and developed a progressive approach to teaching and learning that was grounded in his call for scientific instruction and holistic approaches to education. Many associate Dewey with “learning by doing,” a relatively fair summary but one that is ripe for misapplication.

Similar to what has been repeated in educational practice for at least a century, William Heard Kilpatrick seized onto Dewey’s concept but packaged it as the Project Method, the source of LaBrant’s “wrath” in 1931.

Dewey’s progressive education philosophy has a very odd history that includes progressivism routinely being blamed for educational failure even though public education in the US being historically and currently deeply traditional and conservative (read Kohn on this paradox).

Two dynamics are at play.

First, formal public education in the US has mostly grounded practice in efficiency since the 1920s—packing as many students per teacher into the classroom as possible and structuring curriculum and instruction around commercial programs and standardized testing.

Second, progressive “scientific” is much more complex and nuanced than current and narrow uses of “scientific” in the SOR movement.

Dewey and LaBrant were advocates for teacher autonomy and authority, which rested on the expectation that teachers know the current evidence base (the “science”) of their filed of literacy but in the context of their day-to-day classroom practice. Both, for example, would strongly reject teaching reading through a commercial reading program of any kind.

Dewey’s progressivism, then, is tethered to the real world in front of the teacher—student behaviors and classroom dynamics.

Philosophy and theory (based on evidence, some of which is generated by the scientific process) provide the teacher with a place to start instruction; however, the evidence in front of the teacher during the act of teaching perpetually shapes practice.

Dewey advocated for “scientific” teaching as an ongoing experiment, not teaching grounded to a template derived from a narrow body of experimental and quasi-experimental research.

If LaBrant were alive today, she would be writing pieces very similar to her 1931 diatribe about the project method, but targeting the SOR movement and the deeply unscientific legislation and practices that movement has spawned: testing students with nonsense words, grade retention, scripted reading programs, one-size-fits-all systematic phonics, LETRS training, NAEP data, “miracle” claims, and more.

Yes, as LaBrant lamented in 1947, public education has a long history of a “considerable gap” between research (“science”) and classroom practice, but another problem sitting between better instruction and greater learning by students is the never ending pursuit of “scientific” instruction that weaponizes “science” and fails to acknowledge the most powerful messages of Dewey’s progressivism—teaching and learning must be focused on the real students sitting in front of teachers daily.

Those unique and diverse students are best served by teachers who teach as scientists perform science—starting with informed hypotheses, implementing instructional practices, developing temporal and unique theories for each student, and adjusting practice based on that evidence for the benefit of each student.

Progressive ideas of “science” are ways to navigate the world in informed and practical ways; conversely, the SOR movement has once again reduced “scientific” to an ideological and political baseball bat used to batter anyone not conforming to their misinformation.

Although LaBrant left us over three decades ago, I can feel her wrath for the SOR movement growing somewhere in the universe, and regret we do not have her voice still to guide us—but we do have her words: “This is not the time for the teacher of any language to follow the line of least resistance, to teach without the fullest possible knowledge of the implications of his medium” (1947, p. 94).

Education, education reform, reading, Science of Reading

Everything You Know Is Wrong: Reading Edition

As a teenager in the 1970s, I was turned on to The Firesign Theater, and in those days, it was listening to their extended faux radio skits on vinyl (or as we said then, “albums”). One of their album titles lingers in my mind often: Everything You Know Is Wrong.

In fact, thinking about that title inspired me to post a couple polls on social media:

The first set of questions speaks to how we are often trapped in presentism, especially in the stories told by the media and messages perpetuated by politicians.

As I document in my reading policy brief and my book on reading wars, there has not been a single moment in the history of the US since at least the 1940s that we have not in the media and by politicians lamented low reading proficiency in students; as well, no standardized measurement of reading proficiency has ever been substantially different than now.

As with all measurements of student learning, reading proficiency has never been good enough and reading test scores have always correlated strongly with poverty, race, and gender.

Therefore, crisis rhetoric around reading is another manufactured crisis that is dismantled once we step back for historical perspective.

The second poll exposes how powerful media misinformation is, and how common it is for a claim to get into the public rhetoric without ever being interrogated.

The correct answer is “unknown,” although 30-35% not at grade level proficiency can be viewed as a credible estimate.

60-70% is definitely wrong, but represents the power of media messaging (based on not understanding NAEP). In 2018, Emily Hanford established this false claim: “More than 60 percent of American fourth-graders are not proficient readers, according to the National Assessment of Educational Progress, and it’s been that way since testing began in the 1990s.”

Then in 2023, Nicholas Kristof jumped into the long line of journalists who simply repeat this misinformation without ever checking the facts: “One of the most bearish statistics for the future of the United States is this: Two-thirds of fourth graders in the United States are not proficient in reading.”

We in the US love criticism of schools, students, and teachers, and making a negative claim about any of those will likely go unchecked.

Notice anything familiar about Susan O’Hanian’s experience at the Educator Writers Association (EWA) conference in 2003?:

Kati Haycock, though, was the one who really came up to the table for No Child Left Behind, reiterating these points:

  • Colleges of education are still teaching reading the way we thought it should be taught ten years ago.
  • There’s a “scientific” way to teach reading and teachers should be trained to do it.
The Press: All the News about Public Schools They Feel Like Printing

The rhetoric and claims of those who want and need an education crisis are consistent, reaching back, again, to the 1940s, but also as recent as just 20 years ago when NCLB legislated “scientifically based” instruction and codified the National Reading Panel (NRP).

The media has taken a term, “proficiency,” and carelessly misinformed the public (because most journalists have little or no background in education, testing, statistics, etc.).

NAEP uses “proficiency” for achievement well above grade level, as is explained at the NAEP website (see also for a full explanation Loveless, 2023; Loveless, 2016):

NAEP student achievement levels are performance standards that describe what students should know and be able to do. Results are reported as percentages of students performing at or above three NAEP achievement levels (NAEP Basic, NAEP Proficient, and NAEP Advanced). Students performing at or above the NAEP Proficient level on NAEP assessments demonstrate solid academic performance and competency over challenging subject matter. It should be noted that the NAEP Proficient achievement level does not represent grade level proficiency as determined by other assessment standards (e.g., state or district assessments). See short descriptions of NAEP achievement levels for each assessment subject.

Scale Scores and NAEP Achievement Levels

NAEP “basic” is closer to what states have established as “grade level proficiency”; however, to further complicate the matter, the US has no standard definition for “grade level proficient,” and most people have never confronted that we should actually be using “age level proficiency.”

Thus, 60-70% is, in fact, absolutely not how many students are not reading at grade level. If we trust NAEP basic, it may be fair to say that about 30% or so are not at grade level.

But the most accurate claim we can make is that we have no real idea because we have failed to create the structures needed to know.

Why?

To be blunt, media and politicians benefit from constant education crisis, and if we actually implemented effective education reform, the profit of perpetual reform would disappear.

More historical perspective: None of the reforms have worked over the past 40 years of high-stakes accountability.

None.

The manufactured crises were all lies, and the solutions had little to do with education.

Reading crisis?

Nope.

Once again, the crisis rhetoric is a lie and the reforms benefit almost anyone except students and teachers.

Thanks to media and political misinformation, everything you know is wrong.

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

EWA Doubles Down on Media Misinformation Campaign about Reading

Although the “science of reading” (SOR) is now essentially the law of the land in the US—nearly every state has passed some form of reading legislation grounded in SOR—the Education Writers Association (EWA) has decided to double down on the media misinformation campaign about reading: Covering How Students Learn to Read: Tips to Get Started.

Not surprisingly, this brief overview for journalists relies heavily on the work of Emily Hanford (whose career was significantly boosted by EWA’s support for her relentless coverage of SOR) and repeats a number of claims in the SOR movement that have been discredited by scholars of literacy (see below).

The SOR education reform movement, however, is yet another neoliberal reform movement grounded in the “bad teacher” narrative (see the second excerpt below).

Education reform since the 1980s is mostly about creating churn and crisis for the benefit of media (sensational stories attract an audience for floundering outlets such as APM), the education marketplace (out with the old and in with the new—the same entities make money off Heinemann and the “new” structured literacy programs), and political grandstanding (despite none of the education reforms ever working).

Let me draw your attention to two passages from EWA and then offer a reader that dismantles the false stories and offers the full picture of what we know (and don’t know) about teaching reading):

The research on reading is not in fact settled (see here) and this last passage exposes the fundamentally negative attitude (“watchdogs”) about teachers at the core of the SOR movement and its public and political appeal.

The media has been and seems determined to be irresponsible with their reporting about reading, students, and teachers.

For the full and complicated story, here are alternative texts:

Recommended

The Press: All the News about Public Schools They Feel Like Printing, Susan Ohanian

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)

Censorship, Education, Media, reading, Science of Reading

Education in the Media: A Reader, August 2023

Fall sessions of a new school year have begun or are soon beginning across the US.

Just as predictable as a new academic year, the media maintains its constant negative drumbeat about schools, education, students, and teachers. Below is a reader of some of the issues and coverage of education, including the rise in censorship and curriculum bans as well as the tired arguments about a reading crisis.

Notable is Susan Ohanians piece about the NYT, but this reader includes both samples of really bad journalism and excellent coverage of key education issues:

Censorship, Education, education reform, Educational Research, literacy, literature, NCTE, reading, Science of Reading

Schedule: Fall 2023 – Winter/Spring 2024

Below I will keep an updated listing of presentations and other public work for Fall 2023 through Spring 2024.

I am available for webinars, podcasts, presentations, white papers, blog posts, etc., on a number of education and literacy topics (browse my blog posts for topics):

  • Censorship, CRT/Curriculum Bans
  • Reading Legislation/Policy, “Science of Reading”
  • Writing
  • Education Reform
  • Politics and Education
  • NCTQ

New York State Reading Association

Leadership Workshop: Making Sense of the Science of Reading

August 5, 2023, 12:45 – 1:45

Furman University/ Cultural Life Program

Title: Censorship in the Palmetto State: A Panel Discussion

Date: October 5

Time: 6:30 PM

Location: McEachern Lecture Hall – Furman Hall 214

Description: For years, we have witnessed increased attacks on books centered around LGBTQIA, race, offensive language, and more. While public and school librarians have received much backlash from the complaints, librarians, politicians, and community advocates have partnered in solidarity to help remove access barriers. Join our panel to discuss the harm of banned books, learn how community members can support librarians in their fight for intellectual freedom, and discuss the importance of standing against censorship to promote literacy to everyone who seeks to expand their knowledge. We encourage you to bring any questions you may have.  

Title: Libraries are Worthwhile: Why We Need Them and How We Will Keep Them

Date: October 10

Time: 7:00 PM

Location: Hartness Pavilion 

Description: Emily Drabinski, interim chief librarian at The Graduate Center, City University of New York and the 2023-2024 president of the American Library Association (ALA) will give a talk on the importance of libraries and librarians and how we can protect them in the face of ongoing censorship attempts.

NCTE Annual Conference

Conexiones 2023

Columbus, OH – November 16-19, 2023

Keep on Reading for a Free World: Reconnecting through Literacy and Literature (Roundtable) – 11/17/2023 12:30 – 1:45; Aminah Robinson Grand Ballroom B [Reading Wars and Censorship: A Long and Shared History click for PDF]

Connecting Teachers with their Professional Autonomy in the “Science of Reading” Era click for PDF (Presentation) – 11/18/2023 – 11:00 – 12:15; A-214/215

LitCon 2024

Columbus, OH – January 27-30, 2024

Sessions

Featured Speaker

Where Are We Going, Where Have We Been?: Prioritizing Teacher Autonomy in the SOR Era

Download PP HERE

Over the last decade, states have passed new or revised reading legislation, often grounded in the “science of reading” (SOR) movement. The SOR movement has perpetuated many oversimplified and misleading stories that portray teachers negatively. This featured session will prioritize teacher autonomy by exploring the following topics: reading crisis, NAEP reading data, reading programs, teacher training and LETRS, dyslexia, and the complicated full body of reading research.

Sunday, January 28, 3:15 pm – 4:15 pm

Monday, January 29 4:15 – 5:45 pm

SCCTE 2024

West Beach Conference Center at Kiawah Island Resort, Kiawah, SC from Friday-Saturday, February 2-3, 2024

February 2, 2024, 9:30-10:30

Which Is Valid, SOR Story or Scholarly Criticism?: Checking for the “Science” in the “Science of Reading”

P.L. Thomas, Professor of Education, Furman University

Download PP HERE

The “science of reading” (SOR) movement has shifted from media stories to state legislation and instructional policy. This workshop invites teachers to critically examine media claims about reading, teachers of reading, and teacher educators against the full body of reading science. The topics will include history of reading crises, the simple view of reading, NAEP, the Mississippi “miracle,” balanced literacy and reading programs, dyslexia, three cueing, brain science, and an overview of reading science.

2024 COE Winter Education Forum

6:30 – 8:00 EST

Buyer Beware: Avoiding the Unintended (But Predictable) Consequences of SOR Legislation [access PDF here]

2024 Illinois Reading Council Conference

March 14-15, 2024 – Springfield, Illinois

Program

Everything You Know Is Wrong: SOR Edition

[Access PDF HERE]

Friday March 15 8:30-9:30

The “science of reading” movement has perpetuated several compelling and highly influential stories about reading; however, much of those claims are misleading or even completely false. This session will examine some of those stories and claims in the context of the full body of evidence. Topics include NAEP reading data, grade retention, the Mississippi “miracle,” phonics research, dyslexia, teacher education (NCTQ), multiple cueing, and reading programs and theories (balanced literacy).

Reclaiming Teacher Authority and Autonomy in the SOR Era: When Structured Literacy Becomes a Script

[Access PDF HERE]

Friday March 15 9:45-10:45; 2:15-3:15

Increasingly since 2013, states have adopted reading legislation identified as the “science of reading.” Since curriculum and instruction should be driven by classroom teachers, not media narratives, parental advocacy, or political mandate, this session examines key reading topics framed with current research to support teacher authority and autonomy.

BustED Pencils LIVE – Monday, March 25th, 2024

USOS: The Politics and Reality of the “Science” of Reading

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