Thread by @plthomasEdD

#ILA19

The science of reading isn't dogma; like all evidence-based pedagogy, teaching reading is contextual and evolving.

The NRP is a politically flawed report, not a foundational research base for reading policy.

Students with dyslexia *must* be well served in schools 1/x

Just as *all* students must be well served in schools.

But the needs of dyslexic students (or any identified group) must not determine policy or practices for *all* students.

Systematic intensive phonics for *all* students is just as misguided as calling for no phonics. 2/x

Practitioners and researchers should be more careful about terminology when interacting with the public and media; misrepresenting, for example, balanced literacy to promote intensive phonics serves no one well.

Reading programs are typically a waste of money and time. 3/x

Whether BL or phonics-based, reading programs often become the goal of instruction to the exclusion of student learning, teacher autonomy/professionalism.

However, BL as a guiding philosophy remains the "science of reading" in that it calls for teacher expertise, autonomy. 4/x

And thus, the tedious and mostly poorly debated (by media) reading war of today has become a distraction from the real reading problems: (1) poverty and inequity (reading achievement remains a marker for these) and (2) standards/test-prep driving instruction. 5/x

Most teachers are mandated to follow purchased reading programs that claim to address standards and high-stakes tests; these flawed policies trump teacher autonomy (and whatever they learned in teacher training) and student needs. 6/x

Finally, as a teacher educator, I can attest that the *most common* comment I receive from my candidates is that they are not allowed to practice what I have taught them about literacy because of school policies and/or teaching conditions (class size, etc.). 7/7

@threadreaderapp unroll