Two predictable things happened after @NEPCtweet released Policy Statement on the “Science of Reading” nepc.colorado.edu/publication/fy…
[a thread for clarification and a nuanced discussion; not a thread for grandstanding, not reading, and angry Tweeting]
1/x
[a thread for clarification and a nuanced discussion; not a thread for grandstanding, not reading, and angry Tweeting]
1/x
First, MSM coverage *doubled down* on the exact problems the policy statement addresses: blogs.edweek.org/teachers/teach…
Fumbling "balanced literacy" and overstating research on systematic intensive phonics
2/x
Fumbling "balanced literacy" and overstating research on systematic intensive phonics
2/x
Second, "science of reading" (SoR) advocates launched extensive threads that *did not engage* with the statement but also doubled down on all the problems the statement addresses. Lots of continued mischaracterizations and overstatements/oversimplifications.
3/x
3/x
Thus, a central flaw with the SoR: Claiming SoR is "settled" (overstatement, oversimplification of the term "science") & that *all students* must have systematic intensive phonics.
The problems are "settled" and "all students"; but there certainly is a robust evidence base 4/x
The problems are "settled" and "all students"; but there certainly is a robust evidence base 4/x
As the statement includes, ample research exists showing that whole language (WL) is as effective or even *more effective* than systematic intensive phonics, calling into question the primary claims of the SoR above.
For example +
5/x
For example +
5/x
Darling-Hammond 1997 files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED415…
WL correlates with *higher* NAEP scores in reading in 1990s
9/x
WL correlates with *higher* NAEP scores in reading in 1990s
9/x
There is ample high-quality research to show that *how students are taught* reading in the early grades is a range of strategies, and that *all students must* is inherently flawed. Neither *no phonics* nor *all students must have SIP* is justifiable by research
10/x
10/x
Experimental/quasi-experimental research (usually what "scientific" means) show narrow causation and *generalizations*; this sort of research is important but often not practical in real-world teaching. Let me explain: +
11/x
11/x
Even if a human behavior falls on a bell-shaped curve (almost none do), that means there are *outliers* in which a treatment is either ineffective or harmful. Thus "scientific" research on reading =/= "all students must"
Also, no classroom is a random population
12/x
Also, no classroom is a random population
12/x
Teaching and learning are inherently complex and driven by the unique needs and strengths of each student in any classroom, requiring teachers to make instructional decisions.
So here is where all this becomes important to interrogate carefully and with nuance
13/x
So here is where all this becomes important to interrogate carefully and with nuance
13/x
Reading achievement is not easily reduced to instructional practices (almost no research on that), but NAEP scores, for example, *are* highly linked to socioeconomic factors. The SoR movement at the very least is a distraction
See Coles 2019 newpol.org/issue_post/cry…
14/x
See Coles 2019 newpol.org/issue_post/cry…
14/x
SoR movement fits into the last 40 years of accountability that has failed and overemphasized "fixing" schools, students, and teachers (and teacher educators) while refusing to address systemic inequity. This leads to an essential split in this so-called debate
15/x
15/x
Regretfully this ideological contrast has long, historical roots that MSM refuses to investigate.
For example: (1) the 1940s radicalscholarship.wordpress.com/2019/02/21/wha…
16/x
For example: (1) the 1940s radicalscholarship.wordpress.com/2019/02/21/wha…
16/x
(3) @BackSeatLing Recommended: Literacy Crises: False Claims and Real Solutions, Jeff McQuillan radicalscholarship.wordpress.com/2019/12/31/rec…
18/x
18/x
There is a very long and fruitless claim that "students can't read and it's due to a lack of phonics"; that has never been true but continues to be a compelling argument for some people, especially the MSM
19/x
19/x
So this all leads to a final point about balanced literacy (BL), which is very complicated and almost too hard for people to engage with. I recommend starting here:
The Problem with Balanced Literacy radicalscholarship.wordpress.com/2019/06/17/the…
20/x
The Problem with Balanced Literacy radicalscholarship.wordpress.com/2019/06/17/the…
20/x
BL like WL is a philosophical/theoretical framework for teaching reading; it is *not* a program or a script. Therefore, simply put, BL supports every teacher providing each student *any needed instruction* on the journey to reading eagerly and critically.
21/x
21/x
However (see 20/x above) *several reading programs self-identify as BL programs* (this is mostly marketing) and *too many* administrators hold all teachers accountable for implementing those programs in lock-step ways (incorrectly); therefore +
22/x
22/x
Yes, some students in classes with reading programs labeled BL are being mis-served, including students with dyslexia not being identified or served (both of which are *inexcusable*).
The catch is that the implementation of programs is flawed, not BL
23/x
The catch is that the implementation of programs is flawed, not BL
23/x
In closing, if MSM has a sincere interest in teaching reading or this discussion (instead of doubling down and continuing to produce click-bait), many of us connected to the @NEPCtweet statement are happy to engage
@educationweek @apmreports @NPR @nytimes @NewsHour
24/24
@educationweek @apmreports @NPR @nytimes @NewsHour
24/24
@threadreaderapp unroll
