What about that PBS News Hour Report on Dyslexia and the Controversy it Set Off?

01 June, 2019
19 Comments

Recently PBS News Hour broadcast a segment about dyslexia and reading instruction. In response, 57 members of the Reading Hall of Fame submitted a letter of complaint, which has since been posted publicly.

Here is a link to the PBS segment and the letter is posted in the comments section following the video segment on this site: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/what-parents-of-dyslexic-children-are-teaching-schools-about-literacy

I also have provided a link from a response to this letter by Steve Dykstra: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tGmnHW0XpMCC3uYgrr8AqW36web7UnGx/view

These postings have prompted several inquiries this week as to why I didn’t sign the group letter.

I usually don’t sign such letters.

I prefer to speak for myself.

Groupthink requires too many compromises: even if you fully agree with the thoughts being expressed—and in this case, I did not—should you be uneasy about obvious factual errors, the prosaic writing, or the fact that the complaint missed the point of the original report? Or, sadly, that it neglected the anguish and frustration of the parents and kids interviewed by PBS?

I could devote this space to a point-by-point refutation of both the PBS report and my colleagues’ letter, knit-picking every error, insensitivity, vagueness, bias, or pomposity. But I don’t see any real benefit in that kind of exercise.

It’d be better, I hope, to explore some of the issues raised by this futile exchange with as little finger-pointing or score-keeping as possible. After all, parents and teachers may be entertained by such rhetorical food fights, but their situations will not be materially improved by them.

I’ll explore those issues in this and in my next blog entry—too many important issues for a single posting.

Does dyslexia even exist?

Yes, indeed, dyslexia exists.

There is a group of learners who struggle in learning to read not due to any environmental problem or crummy parenting/teaching or low intelligence. There are learners who struggle, not because they aren’t smart and not because they are incapable of other kinds of academic learning. But these individuals, for some organic or developmental reason, can’t master reading without extraordinary effort.

Whatever is disrupting the learning of these kids is within them, not around them.

This malady has been recognized for almost 150 years and it has been identified in multiple languages and cultures.

There have been scads of brain studies showing both organic and processing differences between successful readers and certain struggling readers, and other studies revealing a genetic basis for at least some reading struggles.

I could wade into a useless and possibly damaging—to the interests of struggling readers—debate over whether it is best to use the term dyslexia, specific learning disability, specific learning disorder, reading disability, developmental reading disorder, congenital word blindness, learning difficulty or any other term you might have heard.

But why? What’s the point of that? Who benefits?

Dyslexia is a term used to refer to a “specific deficit in an individual’s ability to perceive or process information efficiently and accurately.” This definition of “specific learning disorder” is drawn from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders the American Psychiatric Association (DSM 5) which has long been accepted as the arbiter of such issues, and they use this term interchangeably with dyslexia when it comes to specific deficits of reading (as opposed to math or writing).

This group of struggling learners has been acknowledged, albeit by a variety of terms, for more than a century in medicine, psychiatry, psychology, and education.

I personally don’t use the term dyslexia because I’m unable to diagnose it. I’m not a physician or a psychiatrist and have no access to fMRIs or to maps of kids’ genetic codes. I accept that there are too many children (and adults) who fail to learn to read and that there are a range of reasons for this failure, including processing or developmental factors within the individual.

Can someone be a struggling reader and not be dyslexic?

Yes, not all struggling readers are dyslexic. The PBS report indirectly acknowledged that. It stated that 40% of American kids struggle with reading (based on NAEP statistics), and that 20% of kids suffered from dyslexia (based on what I have no idea—more on this point later). Getting this point depends on a fairly simple inference: at least half of America's reading problem must be due to something else.

One of the problems with any public report of any disorder is that many people start diagnosing the problem themselves. If doctors on Gray’s Anatomy diagnose a brain tumor, the next everyone with a headache calls the doctor. This kind of discussion may convince a lot of parents that their kid has a developmental disorder, when the problem is that junior hasn’t cracked a book all year.

Poverty, lack of sufficient linguistic and academic support in the home, weak teaching and other factors might be a better place to look in many cases.

Who benefits from phonics instruction?

The PBS report made it sound like phonics instruction was the cure for dyslexia and that if schools would just teach phonics then the problem would be solved. Is phonics really a “silver bullet” for the problems that bedevil dyslexic kids?

Also, it sounded like phonics was mainly for those dyslexic kids. What about everyone else?

Many studies of reading problems have suggested that dyslexia is particularly disruptive of decoding and spelling, and for such children, phonics instruction is definitely beneficial. Many independent studies have shown that children taught phonics systematically and explicitly do marginally better than those who don’t get such instruction. The National Reading Panel found that phonics was beneficial both to the general population and to struggling readers.

Steve Stahl long ago showed that phonics was particularly helpful to kids who were struggling with literacy due to poverty. Obviously, it is not a specifically-targeted or specialized solution.

Interestingly, phonics instruction has been found to exert a bigger impact on the learning of regular kids than on struggling readers. Upon reflection, this shouldn’t be too surprising. According to the DSM 5 manual, dyslexic kids only improve through “extraordinary effort.” That means phonics instruction is good idea for kids who are struggling with decoding—whatever the source of the problem—but it is certainly not a magical cure for the problem.

Another point to consider: According to the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, when such children’s decoding problems are successfully addressed, the kids often continue to be dogged by other language deficiencies (that may have always been there, but too subtly to be measured; that were late developing; or that resulted from the limits on learning exerted by the original reading disorder).

Those kids in the PBS report apparently started improving when they received phonics instruction. I see nothing surprising in that. I can’t understand why they weren’t receiving phonics throughout the primary grades. However, if all they do for them is provide additional phonics, some of them are likely to get a rude awakening up the road.

Recently, Rick Wagner has identified significant populations of kids who are able to decode reasonably well, but whose reading is disrupted by language deficiencies. As beneficial as quality phonics instruction is for the general population and for strugglers with particular deficiencies in this aspect of their progress, such instruction will be insufficient to address these language needs.

Comments

See what others have to say about this topic.

Dorothy Morrison, PhD Jun 02, 2019 03:40 AM

Thank you for bringing reason and logic to this heated debate. Yes, dyslexia does exist, and yes, phonemic awareness and phonics need to be taught, but so do deep comprehension, broad and deep vocabulary, complex texts, disciplinary literacy, etc. We need to quit this squabbling and come together to provide better screening in the schools, solid foundational skills, and rich cognitive and literacy experiences for ALL our children! A huge handshake and pat on the back from this certified dyslexia specialist who loves literature and language and critical thinking! Well done.

Amy Smith, M.Ed Jun 02, 2019 05:27 AM

In her book, Overcoming Dyslexia, Sally Shaywitz writes that dyslexia is a weakness in the phonological module, and that weakness impairs decoding. Are teacher preparation programs doing a good enough job teaching the difference between phonological awareness and phonics? Are teachers equipped to deliver direct instruction in phonological processing which we know dyslexic readers (and non-dyslexic readers) need?

Pam Kastner Jun 03, 2019 04:53 PM

Dr. Shanahan you rightfully state in your most recent blog that the letter written by 57 members of the Reading Hall of Fame, in response to the PBS News Hour Report On Dyslexia, “neglected the anguish and frustration of the parents and kids interviewed by PBS.” Your empathy for these parents and children was evident in this statement.

However, I do want to better understand this statement in your blog, “After all, parents and teachers may be entertained by such rhetorical food fights, but their situations will not be materially improved by them.”

Parents and teachers are not “entertained” by the state of reading instruction in America, nor the related public discourse, rather they see it as essential to sharing a message for reading instruction based on scientific evidence.

Many are rightfully outraged that the reading wars continue at the expense of children’s lives, in particular children with dyslexia, when the evidence for the most effective instructional components and related practice have been known for decades. Parents have been the main drivers and catalysts for dyslexia legislation in Pennsylvania and throughout the nation and it all began with public discourse about effective reading instruction. The dyslexia legislation in Pennsylvania and I would venture to guess in other states, has materially improved literacy outcomes for students. Parent engagement and advocacy in this important conversation is not based on "entertainment" but a drive for evidence-based reading practices and instruction for ALL children including children with dyslexia.

Teachers also do not see this public discourse as a “food fight”, “finger pointing”, or “score-keeping” and they are not entertained by it. They are grateful that this knowledge is being shared widely and openly and not only in the literacy community, which in great measure is due to Emily Hanford’s reporting. Hanford’s, Hard Words: Why Aren’t Kids Being Taught to Read?, has caused an explosion of discourse around this topic and as a result there is material improvement in some school systems and certainly more dialogue. Upon learning the science of reading teachers are often angered and saddened that the opportunity to learn and apply this knowledge has been withheld from them in many cases as they pursued their undergraduate, graduate, and reading certifications. They rightfully ask why they were never afforded the opportunity to learn this essential knowledge while often being taught the exact opposite.

Respectfully, these are not rhetorical “food fights”, “finger pointing”, or “score-keeping” but a stand for the inalienable right to literacy for every child.

Harriett Jun 03, 2019 04:56 PM

Thanks, Tim, for posting both the original letter and Steve Dykstra's response. These are must reading. I don't want to interject politics into an already disheartening discussion, but the parallels are inescapable. Are we all going to read the Mueller Report and draw our own conclusions, or are we going to allow others to drive the discussion and skew the report to serve their own ends?

Both the letter signed by the 57 "experts" from the world of reading research and pedagogy as well as the Steve Dyklstra rebuttal refer to The Dyslexia Debate, which I've read and highly recommend. It is perhaps the most nuanced book on reading research that I've ever read, and anyone who doesn't contextualize their references to this book with these nuances front and center is skewing the discssion. Here I believe Dykstra's analysis corresponds nore closely with what is actually in the book.

Another piece by Dykstra, A Frank Truth: All Instruction Guides and Supports Implicit Learning, also does a good job at looking at the whole reading picture and how explicit and implicit learning are part of this picture. I'm including an excerpt below.

Lastly, a note of melodrama: I'm so glad, Tim, that you did not sign that letter. I don't know if I could have continued reading your blog if you had. We depend on you to present unbiased research and recommendations, not that particular piece of the puzzle that peddles your for-profit textbook or personal beliefs about reading.

From A Frank Truth: All Instruction Guides and Supports Implicit Learning:

Explicit Instruction Bolsters Implicit Learning

I don’t think we need to worry about instruction interfering with implicit learning. I don’t think that’s an issue. I don’t think teaching phonemes and rules and morphemes and etymology squelches implicit learning. I think it ignites it. But I do think there are only so many hours in a day and so many days in a school year.

Where do we get the most bang for our buck with any given child at any given stage of reading development? Answering that question requires us to understand how reading works and develops, how the pieces work together, and the needs of the child in front of us. That’s a lot to know. Do we teach the minutiae of phonics? Is that a good use of our time? Do we teach deep morphology early or save it for later? Do multisensory techniques have major effects on average readers or only on those who are struggling the most? Do we teach lots of etymology—or just enough for readers to understand that there are reasons for things that seem unreasonable—and some of the weirdness of English isn’t so weird after all? What do we teach as the canon of knowledge and what do we trust will emerge from the foggy process of implicit learning? When should we stop trusting and take action?

Most of learning to read will happen implicitly. It must. No one lives long enough for it to work any other way. Most of it will go better with skilled instruction to support and promote that implicit learning. It may help if we are willing to admit that implicit learning is the real goal, even as we plan and promote robust explicit instruction. We shouldn’t be afraid to concede the critical place of implicit learning just because so much of what is wrong in reading instruction is, in some way, an overreliance on it.

In a world of limited resources, spending our instructional effort to the greatest benefit of the student is always the goal, and that means we need to understand that it isn’t the knowledge we teach explicitly that leads to skilled reading. It is how that explicit teaching feeds the process of implicit learning. That’s how children learn to read. Even if some folks get implicit learning all wrong, we shouldn’t miss that point.

Kim Entzminger Jun 03, 2019 07:07 PM

As a reading interventionist, I was initially trained in Reading Recovery. However, it became clear to me the first year that I worked as an interventionist, that this was not sufficient to meet the needs of all my students. I went on my own, and found training in Orton Gillingham as well. I don't understand why we still don't seem to get the concept that no one thing works for every child. The most important thing we can do is fill out tool boxes with all the tools we possibly can so we can meet the needs of every child. Reading Recovery worked extremely well for many of my students, but not for everyone. Systematic phonics worked extremely well for many of my students, but not for everyone. Sometimes phonics was all that they needed and once they unlocked the code they were fine. Other times, they needed a different type of intervention in addition on phonics to address other issues, such as comprehension and language delays mentioned in your blog. I can tell you that many in my district were not happy with me when I went "rogue" and used both methods. I based the intervention on what the child needed most or needed first, then moved on from there.

I had a student who transferred to my school from another in the district and was struggling to decode, but very bright. We began working on systematic phonics instruction and within 3 months he gained a year's growth in reading level. He was going to transfer back to the other school and I knew the interventionist at that school. I met with her and explained what we had been doing and the progress that he was making and she said, "If that is what he needs he will just have to go to special ed. I teach Reading Recovery." My reply, "I teach children." and I walked away. Children should not have to go into special education in order to receive the type of instruction they need. Teaching them is our job and these arguments of I only do things one way is short changing our students.

I understand what it is like to watch a bright child struggle. My brother (who is 10 years younger than me) was identified as dyslexic in 1986-- no one knew what that was at the time. He has a gifted IQ (above 130) but struggled to read and spell. Luckily, may parents had the resources to get him the help he needed when he needed it. He is now a college grad with a job in law enforcement. How many other students didn't get the help they needed because their parents couldn't afford to pay for outside help?

I think that it is time that we as educators stop worrying about the method we use and focus instead on our students and what they need to be successful. We teach children and we should do for them what we would want done for our own children.

Ann Malone, ICALP Jun 05, 2019 12:59 PM

I appreciate your article. Thank you. In the state of Wisconsin, the reading war is very much alive and entrenched. I would appreciate an even stronger response from you such as leading with the fact that you do not agree with the 57 "experts". Who will call the 57 to apologize, recant or deliver something like excommunication?

I am currently tutoring four wonderful 'struggling readers". All four of them are benefiting greatly from the explicit, structured & sequenced, multi-sensory phonics, morphology and etymology instruction called Structured Literacy™. All of the parents are
relieved to see their child begin to decode words, to begin to read as a result of their effort and hard work. But we wonder why this instruction is not a part of their child's school curriculum. It is my opinion that teachers were not taught Structured Literacy™. Many universities do not teach the science of reading and certainly do not train teacher to use Structured Literacy™. Please respond more strongly to your colleagues. The Wisconsin State Reading Association fights strongly against Structured Literacy™ using hired lobbyist to help make their point in our legislative bodies. In a Legislative Study Committee on Dyslexia, a WSRA representative publicly voiced concern that "drill and kill phonics" would have negative repercussions. This same group will not engage in a discussion of Structured Literacy™ because they are the reading "experts" and have nothing more to learn. Our governor was formally the head of DPI (Dept. of Public Instruction, with no legislative oversight of his fiefdom) and supports and agrees with his "experts" in reading. Wisconsin's reading rank continues to fall. Your's in a voice that is heard in the hallowed halls of universities and an expert opinion that is rarely refuted. Please continue to speak out often. And, I ask you to respond with even more force.

We must reach, convince, (or chastise and remove?) the 57 "experts" so that those responsible for the university teacher preparation curriculum will include in depth education of the English language, the reading brain, reading science, and a guided practicum using Structured Literacy™.

Most of us vaccinate our children for known diseases like tetanus, diphtheria, and small pox, because science teased out the cause and developed the vaccine. We know it is beneficial to our child and to all of society. Structured Literacy™ taught with fidelity is the 'reading vaccine' we desperately need to produce a literate work force and ensure a democratic society. We may survive, and even begin to reverse, climate change but I doubt we can survive illiteracy and I am becoming doubtful that we will reverse or slow down "Balanced Literacy" in Wisconsin.