Are We Getting the Right Information When It Comes to the Science of Reading?

Good piece, well said, excellent points. My only issue is that there are no inconsistencies in English, rather there are structures that are possibly not yet understood. I was delighted to learn recently that the word onion is actually the word 'one' plus the suffix 'ion' wow, who knew? Why? To distinguish the one bulb vegetable from garlic which has many bulbs!! Every word has a story and if we teach them to reveal the way our language really works rather than misrepresenting it to students those who struggle will be much less likely to do so in my opinion.

Tim, thanks for tackling this kind of practically important issue with your habitual clarity of insight. One more part of the solution, from my perspective: I believe that groups like CABE (I mention it by name because it was in the blog, but I am referring to all such educational organizations) need to be called out here. They have a platform that allows them to influence many teachers. With that voice, comes responsibility (cue the Spiderman scene...). They should have a special obligation to track down credentials, identify best evidence syntheses, etc... in relation to issues that they choose to address publicly. To do any less is to misserve the teachers and, ultimately, the kids that are their raison d'etre.

I have been teaching (developmental)reading to community college students who are underprepared for college level reading since 2009. Students are placed by a standardized reading comprehension test, combined with other measure(s). The first week of class students complete individual assessments to confirm that they will benefit from our class. Since 2018 we have been working with oral reading in small groups, with a focus on fluency, comprehension along with vocabulary/word study including roots and syllabication. Student progress is monitored and students work at their own level of challenge. Paper-pencil writing is included in every class period. Our students have a broad range of literacy skill, with 20-35% multi-lingual learners. By focusing on these components, our native English speaking students work alongside multi-lingual learners, all being well-served in the same classroom. The most surprising thing I have learned, is to "see" multi-lingual students who have excellent conversational skills often due to the fact they immigrated as children and learned to speak English quickly-then gained lots of language experience helping their families navigate the English speaking world. These students are often passed through high school, graduating with a reading/writing level equivalent of a 4th grader. Instructors often label these students as "lazy" "poor work ethic" while the student is often embarrassed of his/her struggle with reading and writing English. Well-meaning people are trying to eradicate developmental education ("remedial" is seen as a derogatory term).

What I really want to share is that by incorporating oral fluency, comprehension, vocabulary/word study, phonics we can identify each person's area of need, address the need, and monitor progress. Students are very engaged and grateful- our persistence and completion rate is 82% for our developmental reading course. Before implementation of our new curriculum in 2018, persistence and completion rate hovered in the 60-70% range. Loss of effective developmental education will be a loss of an equitable chance at higher ed for many people.

Thank you for writing about this topic. It is a very divided issue in our community. We need to continue sharing the evidence and having deeper conversations around this topic.

Thank you!

What a truly terrific piece! Thank you so much. Much, much needed. Very sadly, what's also going on with this reporter and most is the political bias. If it comes out of an R's mouth, they truly believe it can't be true and they must seek to refute it. Which has hurt reading instruction and literacy outcomes for decades and decades.

Joy-

One of the problems in American education is that we don't have a very good idea of what current practice (at any time) looks like. Anyone who has spent a lot of time in schools knows that there are differences across states, districts within states, schools within districts, and even across classrooms within schools (and sometimes even across groups within classrooms). When someone tells you that everyone teaches phonics or that no one is paying attention to fluency, etc., they are almost always making that up on the basis of VERY VERY VERY narrow samples of observation (there are more than 130,000 schools in the U.S.). When I was director of reading for the Chicago Public Schools, I was responsible for more than 600 schools and 26,000 teachers -- we had a staff of observers who visited samples of schools, but I would not have been able to tell you reliably what the most common instructional practices were in my own district.

tim

Hi Timothy
You are a voice of reason always. I am also observing the same odd delay in transfer from decoding to automatic recognition of words when I visit primary classrooms. I wonder if primary teachers are not teaching with that goal or at sufficient pace?

Thanks for the well-crafted and thoughtful article. As NASA would say, “Houston we have a problem!” Even Beyonce gets into the act saying, America has a problem!”

You have been a stalwart proponent of using research and evidence as the guide for selecting curriculum, instructional practices, and assessments for reading. Kudos to you for a career well planned and executed. You are truly a treasure to our profession.

Journalistic writing, with its need to both sides everything, is really just an artifact of a bigger problem of science illiteracy within our society. With the ascendance of fascist Trumpism, it is only getting worse. For example, it is beyond imagination that we are considering putting polio vaccines on pause.

We now live in a society where almost anything goes even within the profession of education. Politics will eat science evidence for lunch and spit it out because it can.

Rather than focusing on journalists, it might be more helpful to focus on the colleges of education to ensure that they teach their students evidence-based approaches to reading instruction.

Until our education profession adopts a serious and scientific approach to teaching and learning, as you so nobly done throughout your career, we will continue to wander about in the “anything goes” science illiterate wasteland that is now so prevalent in American education.

Our children and families will continue to suffer. They deserve far better.

We need to clone and disseminate you.

Thank you as always. Our district is now giving PD in Science of Reading- better late than never? I teach in a school with about 200/600 elementary emergent bilingual students. My third grade classes are generally 30-50% of this population. I would love a book recommendation that addresses these learners, not because they are different, but because the PD we receive makes me question the practices we are being taught to use and how they connect to the science of reading.

RE Joy La Vay Taylor comment:

From Annette Kahn-Arcangeli, certificed IDA dyslexia practitioner

I do not undertand your comment: specifically, what does "I see children using symbols and spounds for almost every word they read, even... repeated on a page" mean?

Perhaps because I do not understand the above sentence, I also do not understand the statements and questions you have written down in the following (final) paragraph.

Kindly clarify your meaning; would you indicate in what way/s your thoughts relate to Dr. Shanahan's blog entry of January 4 ?

Finally, Dr. Shanahan and readers, am I alone in my lack of understanding?



In advance, thank you!

"Claude pointed out a similar, less public and more in-the-weeds, disagreement between Stanislas Dehaene and Steven L. Strauss concerning the interpretation of neuroscientific research on reading. Dehaene is a noted neuroscientist with a long history of research contributions, while Strauss is a practicing neurologist with a PhD in linguistics and strong opinions about teaching reading . . . In a recent posting, for example, members of the California Association for Bilingual Education (CABE) wondered how “a dispute between two highly respected neuroscientists, Dr. Strauss and Dr. Dehaene” could possibly be resolved by mere mortals such as journalists or the rest of us.

This disagreement was quite public for those of us living in CABE country and working for districts it influences. The Strauss webinar was infuriating (and embarrassing) for anyone who's spent any time teaching children how to read. We are lucky to have Claude's "intelligent, sensitive, and reliable voice" whispering in our ears when he's not crying in the wilderness. Unfortunately, change in California lags behind many other parts of the country.

Beth--
I put your question to Claude and he recommends this book: Literacy Foundations for English Learners by Elsa Cardenas-Hagan and he also points out that there are worthwhile free resources at this address: https://mtss4els.org/

tim

Hi Tim !

Vous êtes la voix de la raison.

"Teachers and principals need to be skeptical about expert claims – especially claims made without evidence."

I recommend Emina McLean's piece, Has the science of reading become a rampant, thought-terminating cliche?(https://www.eminamclean.com/post/has-the-science-of-reading-become-a-rampant-thought-terminating-clich%C3%A9) where she says: "We have so many experts across the globe disseminating information via professional learning who rarely have the practical expertise to support sound implementation, so en masse we’ve activated the adage of 'a little bit of knowledge is dangerous'. Many educators follow experts blindly in cult-like wonder. And to be fair, educators should be able to trust experts and systems to advise them, but often they can’t, at least not in a practical sense."

Her piece inspired me to write: Do Our Literacy Heroes Fail Us, Or Do We Fail Ourselves?
(https://highfiveliteracy.com/2024/05/23/do-our-literacy-heroes-fail-us-or-do-we-fail-ourselves/) where I quote Carl Hendrick: "This is the difference between what teachers do and what experts do: Teachers have a very broad understanding of what they’re teaching. Very often experts have a narrow one."

I find this conundrum of journalists' unbalanced reporting in most areas. Take global climate change , transgenderism or covid. Who do you trust? The majority consensus of academia may not necessarily have the truth. Having lived through the 'reading wars ', I noticed there was a time when the majority of literacy academia experts treated phonics as a forbidden word except for a few notable exceptions like Jeanne Chall . My mother gained publicity as a teacher, and her phonics cause because she suffered in NZ . unbelievable persecution from the educational establishment, of her private students, of whom she had thousands over a couple of decades. This made a ' great 'story for journalists since readers were shocked that innocent and reading failure children were subjected to intimidation and discrimination by some teachers simply because their parents took them outside the 'sacred' system for reading tuition. A real human interest story that many media picked up on. The NZ Ministry of Education were furious.

At the same time the few NZ 'phonic' academics also had a bad time with cancelling of their research money , verbal abuse from students and refusals of publication of research papers but journalists didn't pick up on this. However some academics mention this stuff in their memoirs . I wonder how Timothy managed over the same time during the peak of the ' reading wars ' years last century.

I have tremendous respect for Emily Hanford , but the difference , I think , is she was impassioned by the misery of illiteracy she saw as an investigative journalist and interviewed an enormous range of different people not just experts. She too , I believe , suffered considerable antagonism. I think quality journalists would not slip into the superficial assessments Timothy mentions but how many of them are there who are prepared to do more in- depth research ? If a journalist comes near me I give them stacks of articles and references to take away for homework to read in preparation for their article.

I agree completely with this problem prevalent in the so-called "Science of Reading" -- namely, that many people in the general public form beliefs based on "experts" rather than on the results of peer-reviewed research and reproduced results (as in "We do Kilpatrick" or "We're Moats people"). In education, especially public education, this also takes the form of product loyalty (as in "We're Wilson here" or "We do FUNdations"). This stems from a deep instinct to form camps or tribes and to divide into an "Us" vs "Them" distinction. Science, born out of the enlightenment, is supposed to counter those deeply-instinctual tendencies (or superstitions). The Science of Reading has become a bit of a catch-all, marketing phrase title -- as in, "Does so-and-so align with the Science of Reading?" or "Is this program consistent with the Science of Reading?" as if it's a club instead of an actual process. It's a similar phenomenon to people saying "Do you BELIEVE in global warming/climate change?" as if it were a major world religion instead of a conclusion based on the repeated results of scientific data collection.

Thankfully, research-to-practice reading specialists like you and Dr. Seidenberg point to the research sources instead of crowning Kings and Queens of The Science of Reading.

The importance of staying informed, vigilant, and reflective in our pursuit of evidence-based practices in literacy instruction is paramount. In an era of abundant information, it’s crucial that we remain open to verified facts, read widely from diverse and credible sources, and engage thoughtfully with the research and discussions that shape our field.

This is an easy one: "The problem is that one side of some arguments—such as whether phonics should be a part of reading instruction for all students, regardless of their English language proficiency—is supported by large numbers of independent studies that have been impartially reviewed. Those studies show that including phonics in a comprehensive reading program reduces failure and raises average literacy levels." No one should be stuck here; however, translating this into practice requires much more guidance. Interpretation of research is where things fall apart. I am currently working with districts that are promoting 90 minutes of phonics per day in K-1 in tier 1. That's absurd!!

In my view, things would be better if researchers went out of their way to address the nuances of meeting the needs of multilingual learners, but these distinctions sometimes get lost in broader discussions. For example, "some have argued that reading research (aka 'science of reading') does not apply to these students because relevant studies have only included monolingual, mostly English-speaking students." The reality is that students learning to read in a new language require additional scaffolds to help them understand the words and texts used to teach reading. Supporting word recognition in English with multilingual learners require additional opportunities for students to develop speaking and listening and also articulation practice that focuses on ensuring that students develop an understanding of the English sound system. Additionally, helping teachers develop awareness and leverage cross-linguistic connections by highlighting similarities and differences between the phonological systems of students' home languages and English would enhance their skills on how to support multilingual learners.

For example, in a recent presentation by a well-respected researcher and practitioner -- who I deeply respect, the specific needs of multilingual learners were not highlighted when discussing fluency -- just the generalities. This matters because teachers are told "are students able to read individual words accurately and fluently? If not, provide systematic phonics instruction targeting the student’s weakest skills." I believe teachers need additional guidance to determine whether varied reading rates stem from decoding difficulties or from the complexities of reading in a new language. Factors such as cognitive load, the time needed to make cross-linguistic connections or mentally translate text, a student’s language comprehension level, or gaps in vocabulary and background knowledge can all impact fluency and comprehension. Recognizing these distinctions is essential to tailoring instruction effectively.

Although, I am all for the big ideas you presented in this insightful blog, in that checking our personal biases is not just a personal responsibility but a professional ethic that binds us as educators and advocates for students, I think both sides can do better by engaging in the nuances of practice. Let's not look away; let's engage deeply with this conversation, recognizing that the pursuit of the science of reading demands ongoing inquiry, nuance, reflection, and ethical commitment.

As a retired primary school teacher , I am appalled at the thought of young students reading using a phonics only approach.
At the heart of my frustration, is the 'common belief' that the ability to sound out and blend letter will improve reading. I agree to a point that beginning readers should a phonemic awareness and knowledge......combined with aspects of a whole language approach
What must always be remembered is that not all beginning readers learn the same way.
Teaching reading is very complex. Some children get it straight away in spite of the methods used. Others struggle! Only when the realisation of what the student doesn't understand is understood can a program (whatever the fo us) be modified to suit the learning needs of the student.
As teachers we must encourage a love of reading for all its purposes. In a solely focussed phonics program, the risk is that a percentage of learners will 'bark at words' reading without comprehension. This will lead to a disaster similar to the whole language approach where students will guess words without referring to the actual letters.
Only a carefully balanced approach will ensure success for improved reading outcomes

Sharyn--
Nobody is arguing for a phonics only curriculum... the argument is over whether it is okay to leave phonics out of beginning reading programs (as has been done in some very popular reading programs). The research indicates that kids get learning benefits from the inclusion of explicit phonics so the notion that phonics doesn't work or can't work or won't be helpful to multilingual students is nonsense. But, again, that phonics should be part of an effective reading program does not mean that only phonics is beneficial.

tim

Something that seems to be missing from this discussion is the fact that writing was developed to enable the transmission of information across distances beyond the practical limits of the spoken word. Writing captures the spoken word graphically using two-dimensional symbols to represent the sounds made when speaking.

Why is reading instruction not rooted in the idea the of learning to use a tool for it's intended purpose?

As a Dyslexia Interventionist for the last decade, I find it extremely exhausting that society refuses to talk to educators to confirm, overall, what strategies work and do not work to assist children with literacy.


What I see in the classroom today, are numerous children who lack a background knowledge of books, basic print, and structured spoken language. Additionally, most of these children have markers for dyslexia due to their physiological makeup or environment.

I wonder if anyone has considered the notion that a vast majority of children who are unable to read today, are the offspring(s) of parents who were also unable to read and were passed on to the next grade level, or did not finish school.

In my opinion, the SOR neglects to consider the multiple variables that contribute to a child's inability to process information and actually become a intermediate reader sooner.

The reoccuring theme I see as a Dyslexia Interventionist is that children who are exposed to books, print, and language before kindergarten are more likely to comprehend the components embedded in the SoR.

The SoR's expectations are unrealistic in today's educational climate. Each classroom ought to have a Parapro in the classroom to assist with behavior management and lesson differentiation. Until this happens, the SoR will not exceed the expectations educators.

The SoR expectations vs. classroom realities are simply not parallel. What teacher truly cares about the SoR in a classroom with 35 students: only 11 can read, 18 are ND, and 27 have behavior issues (most UND)???? Automatically, the fidelity of any program utilized is compromised unless you are a veteran teacher (and most have left or are leaving bc of this) Lastly, technology is a major influential factor in the lack of literacy, yet somehow, we are still teaching with fixed mindsets and expecting teachers to have a growth mindset.

I am seeing and reading practices and screeds that appear to reduce the science of reading to predominantly phonics. Structured literacy, largely an offshoot of Orton Gillingham methods, was initially developed to teach dyslexic students. However, today many well-meaning folks are trying to force structured literacy, with decodable text on all children. If a child does poorly on reading comprehension in grade 4 or 6, they insist it is due to word recognition deficits and we need more structured literacy. Some of these folks are promoting practices that are not supported by research evidence, such as whole class phonemic awareness training using Elkonin boxes and chips in March of first grade when many of the children are already successfully decoding multi-syllabic words. I am reading postings and articles that insist phonics is not taught or tested in our K classes (and while there are differences in practice) in my years and years of teaching I never saw this and if there are K classes that are not teaching and assessing letter/sound knowledge, etc. they are not as prevalent as some writers would have us think. I believe we have the know how to assess and differentiate instruction to better meet the needs of all students. Boys and girls who can decode and encode words at and above grade level should be encouraged to engage in wide reading. Their time should not be wasted on structured literacy and decodable text when the children have already demonstrated that they have achieved Ehri's full and even consolidated alphabetic phase of word reading. At this point our students should have the tools to engage in self-teaching and to successfully employ set for variability. These students should not be segmenting CVC words. Let's first use letters in this practice and provide it to students who continue to struggle with applying phonemic awareness to decoding words.