Thread by @ehanford

Today @NEPCtweet released a statement on the ‘Science of Reading.’ The email said: “It’s time for the media and political distortions to end, and for the literacy community and policymakers to fully support the literacy needs of all children.” nepc.colorado.edu/publication/fy… 1/x

Here are some thoughts and responses to the @NEPCtweet statement. Thread.
2/x

The report begins: “Since late 2018, a flood of media has reignited the unproductive Reading Wars.” The footnote refers to a podcast episode I produced for @apmreports @EducatePodcast, Hard Words. apmreports.org/story/2018/09/…
3/x

It’s unfortunate that teaching children how to read has been the source of so much debate for so long (centuries!) But as I pointed out in Hard Words, a big reason for this is that for a long time, no one really knew how skilled reading works and how people learn to do it.
4/x

That’s no longer true. There’s now a massive body of scientific research on reading. Cognitive scientist @markseidenberg summed it up this way:
5/x

“The ‘Science of Reading’ is a body of basic research in developmental psychology, educational psychology, cognitive science, and cognitive neuroscience on reading, one of the most complex human behaviors, and its biological (neural, genetic) bases.." seidenbergreading.net/science-of-rea…
6/x

"This research has been conducted for decades in the US and around the world. The research has important implications for helping children to succeed, but it has not been incorporated in how teachers are trained for the job or how children are taught.” seidenbergreading.net/science-of-rea…
7/x

The science of reading is not just about phonics, as @markseidenberg and many others have repeatedly said (and as I’ve reported apmreports.org/reading). However, the disagreements about reading have been mostly focused on the role of phonology in reading.
8/x

The whole-language movement rejected the idea that early reading instruction should focus on the connections between speech and print, or that children should be explicitly taught how their written language works. nifdi.org/docman/dr-kerr…
9/x

The big idea in whole language was that learning to read is as natural as learning to talk. See here: nifdi.org/docman/dr-kerr…
10/x

Decades of scientific research have debunked many whole language ideas. Learning to read is not like learning to talk. readingrockets.org/article/speaki… childrenofthecode.org/library/refs/r…
11/x

Also, beginning readers who focus on letter-sound relationships, or phonics, increase activity in the area of the brain best wired for reading.
news.stanford.edu/2015/05/28/rea…
12/x

There is lots of room for debate about how to teach letter-sound relationships, but there is no question that skilled readers have a good understanding of how the sounds in words are represented by letters. sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/…

13/x

The @NEPCtweet statement says whole language was a response to “scientifically based reading research” that placed an “overemphasis” on decoding and pushed “the reading of literature into the background.”
14/x

But Reid Lyon, perhaps the most known reading scientist during the reading wars, wrote in 1998: “Nearly 4 decades of scientific research... supports an emphasis on phoneme awareness and phonics in a LITERATURE-RICH ENVIRONMENT.” ascd.org/publications/e…
15/x

Some children need very little instruction to learn how to read. But as this graphic shows, MOST kids will not become good readers w/out being explicitly taught how their written language works. (See the sources for the graphic here: nancyyoung.ca/research-and-l…)
16/x

The @NEPCtweet statement says reporting by @apmreports, @nytimes and @educationweek has “distorted” the research and that “some states are implementing approaches that expressly require phonics instruction for elementary-aged students.”
17/x

Again, there is plenty to discuss about how to teach phonics. But schools that do not explicitly teach children how the sounds in words are represented by letters are denying lots of children the opportunity to become good readers.
18/x

The issue was summed up by @buckingham_j @annecastles teachermagazine.com.au/articles/learn…: “When children begin school, we cannot predict with sufficient accuracy which children will struggle to learn to read without explicit, systematic phonics instruction and which will not..."
19/x

"Therefore, the most ethical/prudent action is to provide all children with the most effective teaching methods, based on best available evidence, thereby accelerating the progress of all children and minimising the likelihood that any child will struggle to learn to read."
20/x

The @NEPCtweet statement says “wars” abt reading are not “helpful for children.” Agree.
But the issue is how to make sure kids are being taught to read in ways that line up w/ scientific research. If adults have to argue to make that so, then it’s an argument worth having.
21/x

Many people claim children ARE being taught in ways that line up w/ research. They say schools use a “balanced” approach and a “wide array of practices,” including phonics instruction.
22/x

The problem is not that schools AREN’T teaching phonics (though this is still a problem in some schools). The problem is that schools are also teaching kids in ways that have been debunked by scientists, as I reported in apmreports.org/story/2019/08/…
23/x

The @NEPCtweet says today’s science of reading conversation has failed to “place the current concern for reading in a historical context.” I disagree. My work has spent considerable time putting debates about reading in historical context, all the way back to Horace Mann. 24/x

The @NEPCtweet statement refers to the National Reading Panel report. I think it’s important for everyone following the science of reading conversation to know there’s a lot more to the science of reading than that one report. 25/x

For example, the UK and Australia also produced national inquiries into the teaching of reading that came to similar conclusions. iferi.org/evidence/
26/x

Plus, the NRP was 20 years ago. There has been lots of research since, and lots of good summaries of that research.
27/x

For example, psychologicalscience.org/publications/e…: “It is uncontroversial among reading scientists that coming to appreciate the relationship between letters and sounds is necessary and nonnegotiable when learning to read in alphabetic writing systems.”
28/x

So why is there resistance to phonics instruction, on display in publications such as the new @NEPCtweet statement? Authors @annecastles @Kathy_Rastle @ReadOxford suggest that a big part of the problem is there hasn’t been enough discussion about WHY phonics matters.
29/x

This is something I have been trying to explain in my reporting. Teachers need to understand how skilled reading develops, and the role that phonics and phonemic awareness play.
30/x

Teachers need to understand orthographic mapping. crackingtheabccode.com/orthographic-m… parkerphonics.com/post/sight-wor… Teachers need to understand that word reading is a reflex, not a series of strategic actions.
31/x

Teachers also need to understand that quick, accurate word reading is necessary for good reading comprehension. And EVERYONE agrees that’s the goal - for readers to understand what they read. The question is: How does a little kid get there?
32/x

The @NEPCtweet statement faults people who are promoting the science of reading with “focusing blame on K-12 teachers and teacher education.” My work has not done that.
33/x

In fact, I’ve met so many teachers (and some teacher educators) who are shocked and angry about what they didn’t learn about how children learn to read. Some quotes from teachers:
34/x

“I didn't feel adequately prepared to teach reading. This is hard for me to admit because I have several degrees and felt like I should know what I was doing.”
35/x

“I kept falsely reassuring myself my students weren't making (reading) growth because of this reason or that reason, although deep down I feared it was me and my instruction. I wasn't adequately prepared. It's not that I didn't care, it's that I didn't know any better.”
36/x

“I felt so angry and guilty when I was finally taught the basics of reading science. I thought, 'how did you let me teach literacy without knowing this?!'”
37/x

I suggest @NEPCtweet follow and read blog posts from the many educators who are speaking up about what they didn’t know about the science of reading, and wish they had. For example…
38/x

Kindergarten teacher @LindsayKemeny: “I began to realize...something's not quite right. As I began researching, I became angry. Why was I never taught about explicit, systematic phonics and phonemic awareness? I felt betrayed. I felt misled.”
thelearningspark.blogspot.com/2019/01/sink-o…
39/x

Middle-school teacher @MrGmpls: “I can attest that I was not explicitly taught the ‘Big 5’ literacy components, let alone trained in any interventions to help struggling students in those areas. Instead, ‘balanced literacy’ was given priority…”
mrgmpls.wordpress.com/2018/12/16/whe…
40/X

Literacy coach @mandercorn: “You might assume I know something about teaching kids to read.
Yet you’d be wrong. I’ve come to realize I know next to nothing.”
schoolecosystem.org/2019/08/22/lea…
41/X

Former teacher @rpondiscio: “If there’s anything one might expect an advanced degree in elementary education to include, it would be teaching reading. It wasn’t part of my program."
fordhaminstitute.org/national/comme…
42/x

And watch these teachers talk about what they didn’t know @reading_league

43/x

1st-grade teacher @kmcghee85: “Sometimes phonics instruction is referred to as the enemy of building a love for reading… This is not the case at all."
curriculummatters.org/2019/02/22/pho…
44/x

https://twitter.com/PatriciaRevel11/status/1093702005405540358

45/x

There are MANY other educators (and teacher educators) who will tell you they are not feeling blamed by the “science of reading” conversation, they are feeling grateful. Because they didn’t know this science. Or they knew it, but few or none of their colleagues did.
46/x

These educators, for example: @right2readproj @MsJasmineMN @EvidentlyR @Kathyanne905 @jennileigh73 [e-mail] @SlentzKen @KConradiSmith @AmyMurdoch4 @emilyjsolari
47/x

I'm interested in what others, esp educators and teacher educators, think about the @NEPCtweet statement on the "science of reading." Here it is again: nepc.colorado.edu/publication/fy…
48/x

In closing, I'll return to the beginning and the @NEPCtweet statement that "it's time... for the literacy community and policymakers to fully support the literacy needs of all children.” I couldn't agree more.
49/x

I think one of the best ways to do that is to help the literacy community and policymakers understand what decades of scientific research show about what skilled reading is and how it develops. It's time to get rid of old ideas (and old debates) and embrace the evidence.
50/x