Thread by @plthomasEdD

Fact checking @DanaGoldstein phonics article @nytimes - a thread

Opening misrepresents word pronunciation, and effective phonics instruction; mischaracterizes/oversimplifies current state of teaching reading

This article again fails checklist radicalscholarship.wordpress.com/2019/06/10/che…

1/x

@DanaGoldstein @nytimes "Lagging" paragraph hyperlinks to Hanford as "research"; Hanford isn't a literacy scholar and nothing about her reporting is new.

The field of literacy/reading has a long history and a complex research base that is only a surprise to people who aren't in the field

2/x

@DanaGoldstein @nytimes One again, pro-phonics reporting *misrepresents* balanced literacy in order to refute it \/

This is not a credible definition of BL

3/x

@DanaGoldstein @nytimes "Eye-tracking studies" paragraph significantly misrepresents this research by cherry-picking one side; at the very least, this area is a contested research base

u.arizona.edu/~kgoodman/emma…

4/x

@DanaGoldstein @nytimes Seindenberg on "settled" "science of reading" is one of the greatest misrepresentations of this argument; multiple recent studies and reviews of meta-analyses on systematic phonics contradicts Seindenberg's certainty:

link.springer.com/content/pdf/10…

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.11…

5/x

@DanaGoldstein @nytimes Oversimplification: "Phonics has gone in and out of style for decades"

Tension is systematic intensive phonics for *all students* (flawed) v. students receive direct phonics needed (BL)

There is no one saying "no phonics"

6/x

@DanaGoldstein @nytimes Unfair trivializing of a whole field of scholars and teachers: "The guardians of balanced literacy" paragraph oversimplifies the argument.

Narrow experimental research has some value BUT real classrooms are not labs: radicalscholarship.wordpress.com/2019/11/15/the…

7/x

@DanaGoldstein @nytimes A weak pass at the misleading information about Mississippi's NAEP scores: "Some reading experts have called Mississippi’s recent gains into question"

Why no hyperlink here to the credible concerns raised?

radicalscholarship.wordpress.com/2019/12/06/mis…

fordhaminstitute.org/national/comme…

8/x

@DanaGoldstein @nytimes "As painful as it can be to tell a child they have to repeat a year" is a very weak pass at grade retention, oddly a practice solidly refuted by decades of *scientific research*:

radicalscholarship.wordpress.com/2014/09/04/gra…

@ncte ncte.org/statement/grad…

9/x

@DanaGoldstein @nytimes @ncte Wiley Blevins has contested how he was represented re: phonics

https://twitter.com/wbny/status/1228679755806932993?s=20

10/x

@DanaGoldstein @nytimes @ncte Broadly, yet another mainstream article suggests a simplistic argument that reading achievement is uniquely low in 2019/2020 (US has *never* viewed reading achievement as anything but "too low") and teachers, teacher educators are to blame, ignoring poverty, etc.

11/x

@DanaGoldstein @nytimes @ncte Even easily accessible data sow teachers implement phonics significantly: edweek.org/media/ed%20wee… \/

12/x

@DanaGoldstein @nytimes @ncte MSM are failing the reading debate, failing students/ teachers, and contributing to harmful reading legislation across the US (grade retention, labeling all struggling reading as "dyslexia," test-prep, etc.). This "hot" topic is useful click-bait but isn't good journalism

13/x

@DanaGoldstein @nytimes @ncte And thus:

Understanding the "Science of Reading": A Reader radicalscholarship.wordpress.com/2020/02/03/und…

14/x

@DanaGoldstein @nytimes @ncte And finally:

What Federal and State Reading Legislation Should and Should Not Do radicalscholarship.wordpress.com/2020/02/14/wha…

15/15

@DanaGoldstein @nytimes @ncte @threadreaderapp unroll