Tom Ultican, retired teacher in California, smells a scam in the making. The science behind “the Science of Reading” movement is not very scientific, he writes. Publishers and vendors are preparing to cash in on legislative mandates that force reading teachers to use only one method to teach reading despite the lack of evidence for its efficacy. Ultican zeroes in on the role of billionaire Laurene Powell Jobs as one of the key players in promoting SofR.
He writes:
Laurene Powell Jobs controls Amplify, a kids-at-screens education enterprise. In 2011, she became one of the wealthiest women in the world when her husband, Steve, died. This former Silicon Valley housewife displays the arrogance of wealth, infecting all billionaires. She is now a “philanthropist”, in pursuit of both her concerns and biases. Her care for the environment and climate change are admiral but her anti-public school thinking is a threat to America. Her company, Amplify, sells the antithesis of good education.
I am on Amplify’s mailing list. April third’s new message said,
“What if I told you there’s a way for 95% of your students to read at or near grade level? Maybe you’ve heard the term Science of Reading before, and have wondered what it is and why it matters.”
Spokesperson, Susan Lambert, goes on to disingenuously explain how the Science of Reading (SoR) “refers to the abundance of research illustrating the best way students learn to read.”
This whopper is followed by a bigger one, stating:
“A shift to a Science of Reading-based curriculum can help give every teacher and student what they need and guarantee literacy success in your school. Tennessee school districts did just that and they are seeing an abundant amount of success from their efforts.”
A shift to SoR-based curriculum is as likely to cause harm as it is to bring literacy success. This was just a used-car salesman style claim. On the other hand, the “abundance of success” in Tennessee is an unadulterated lie. National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) tracks testing over time and is respected for education testing integrity. Tennessee’s NAEP data shows no success “from their efforts.” Their reading scores since 2013 have been down, not a lot but do not demonstrate an “abundance of success”.
NAEP Data Plot 2005 to 2022
Amplify’s Genesis
Larry Berger and Greg Dunn founded Wireless Generation in 2000 to create the software for lessons presented on screens. Ten years later, they sold it to Rupert Murdoch and his News Corporation for $360 million. Berger pocketed $40 million and agreed to stay on as head of curriculum. Wireless Generation was rebranded Amplify and Joel Klein was hired to run it.
Murdoch proposed buying a million I-pads to deliver classroom instruction. However, the Apple operating system was not flexible enough to run the software. The android system developed at Google met their needs. They purchased the Taiwanese-made Asus Tablets, well regarded in the market place but not designed for the rigors of school use. Another issue was that Wireless Generation had not developed curriculum but Murdoch wanted to beat Pearson and Houghton Mifflin to the digital education market place … so they forged ahead.
In 2012, the corporate plan was rolling along until the wheels came off. In Guilford County, North Carolina, the school district won a Race to the Top grant of $30 million dollars which it used to experiment with digital learning. The district’s plancalled for nearly 17,000 students in 20 middle schools to receive Amplify tablets. When a charger for one of the tablets overheated, the plan was halted. Only two months into the experiment, they found not only had a charger malfunctioned but another 175 chargers had issues and 1500 screens were kid-damaged.
This was the beginning of the end.
By August of 2015, News Corporation announced it was exiting the education business. The corporation took a $371 million dollar write-off. The next month, they announced selling Amplify to members of its staff. In the deal orchestrated by Joel Klein, who remained a board member, Larry Berger assumed leadership of the company.
Three months later, Reuters reported that the real buyer was Laurene Powell Jobs. She purchased Amplify through her LLC, the Emerson Collective. In typical Powell Jobs style, no information was available for how much of the company she would personally control.
Because Emerson Collective is an LLC, it can purchase private companies and is not required to make money details public. However, the Waverley Street Foundation, also known as the Emerson Collective Foundation, is a 501 C3 (EIN: 81-3242506) that must make money transactions public. Waverly Street received their tax exempt status November 9, 2016.
SoR A Sales Scam
The Amplify email gave me a link to two documents that were supposed to explain SoR: (Navigating the shift to evidence-based literacy instruction 6 takeaways from Amplify’s Science of Reading: The Symposium) and (Change Management Playbook Navigating and sustaining change when implementing a Science of Reading curriculum). Let’s call them Symposium and Navigating.
Navigating tells readers that it helps teachers move away from ineffective legacy practices and start making shifts to evidence-based practices. The claim that “legacy practices” are “ineffective” is not evidence-based. The other assertion that SoR is evidence-based has no peer-reviewed research backing it.
Sally Riordan is a Senior Research Fellow at the University College London. In Britain, they have many of the same issues with reading instruction. In her recent research, she noted:
“In 2023, however, researchers at the University of Warwick pointed out something that should have been obvious for some time but has been very much overlooked – that following the evidence is not resulting in the progress we might expect.
“A series of randomised controlled trials, including one looking at how to improve literacy through evidence, have suggested that schools that use methods based on research are not performing better than schools that do not.”
In Symposium, we see quotes from Kareem Weaver who co-founded Fulcrum in Oakland, California and is its executive director. Weaver also was managing director of the New School Venture Fund, where Powell Jobs served on the board. He works for mostly white billionaires to the detriment of his community. (Page 15)
Both Symposium and Navigating have the same quote, “Our friends at the Reading League say that instruction based on the Science of Reading ‘will elevate and transform every community, every nation, through the power of literacy.”’
Who is the Reading League and where did they come from?
Dr. Maria Murray is the founder and CEO of The Reading League. It seems to have been hatched at the University of Syracuse and State University of New York at Oswego by Murray and Professor Jorene Finn in 2017. That year, they took in $11,044 in contributions (EIN: 81-0820021) and in 2018, another $109,652. Then in 2019, their revenues jumped 20 times to $2,240,707!
Jorene Finn worked for Cambria Learning Group and was a LETRS facilitator at Lexia. That means the group had serious connections to the corporate SoR initiative before they began.
With Amplify’s multiple citations of The Reading League, I speculated that the source of that big money in 2019 might have been Powell Jobs. Her Waverly Street Foundation (AKA Emerson Collective Foundation) only shows one large donation of $95,000,000 in 2019. It went to the Silicon Valley Community Foundation (EIN: 20-5205488), a donor-directed dark money fund.
There is no way of following that $95 million.
The Reading League Brain Scan Proving What?
Professor Paul Thomas of Furman University noted the League’s over-reliance on brain scans and shared:
“Many researchers in neurobiology (e.g., Elliott et al., 2020; Hickok, 2014; Lyon, 2017) have voiced alarming concerns about the validity and preciseness of brain imaging techniques such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to detect reliable biomarkers in processes such as reading and in the diagnosis of other mental activity….
“And Mark Seidenberg, a key neuroscientist cited by the “science of reading” movement, offers a serious wcaution about the value of brain research: “Our concern is that although reading science is highly relevant to learning in the classroom setting, it does not yet speak to what to teach, when, how, and for whom at a level that is useful for teachers.”
“Beware The Reading League because it is an advocacy movement that is too often little more than cherry-picking, oversimplification, and a thin veneer for commercial interests in the teaching of reading.”
The push to implement SoR is a new way to sell what Amplify originally called “personalized learning.”This corporate movement conned legislators, many are co-conspirators, into passing laws forcing schools and teachers to use the SoR-related programs, equipment and testing.
SoR is about economic gain for its purveyors and not science based.
When politicians and corporations control education, children and America lose.
To read an earlier post by Tom Ultican on this topic, see this.
Concerning Tennessee and testing. There is a migration phenomenon in process that should inflate all testing data. Since the late 1980s, Tennessee has been a destination state instead of a departure state. For all the years after 1830 census, there were more Tennesseans (born in Tennessee, recorded in state of birth data on each census) living outside the state than inside the state. This trend reversed as of the expansion of the auto industry in 1980 and the accompanying light industry that followed. These population trends should have resulted in testing that reflected the demographic that usually migrates. It is well known that the smart, imaginative sector of the population is the part that moves due to in-migration pressure, that is, the attraction of better economic conditions. these families also tend to be more stable than families with a lower income, so this too should be reflected in scores.
This has not been the case. Within the backdrop of social forces that should have produce perceived gains, Tennessee has remained on a flat trajectory. When I was teaching during all this testing crap–still in progress this week, I would add–I would point this out to the powers that be only to be met with blank stares.
So the fact is, all the top down reform we have had in my state has degraded education more than it is helped. As I write, a radical voucher plan is hopefully dying in committee, but its presence on capital (misspelled on purpose) hill speaks volumes to the problems caused by deform in Tennessee education.
Billionaires are not experts in reading and neither are the marketeers they hire to buy their way into states and their schools. There is no research behind the value of cyber instruction, but there is plenty of research about the harmful effects of too much screen time on developing brains, eyes and emotional well-being. None of it is positive.
My grandson is in 8th grade in Texas. This year he is required to take the STAAR in reading, writing (mechanics), math, science and history. My grandson spends most of his day tied to a screen. My daughter is a concerned parent so she is reviewing the material with my grandson before the tests. Math, which is advanced this year, is mostly presented on-line. The district realized most students would fail the math test so they scheduled two Saturday cram sessions presented by a human teacher. The only subject that my grandson had excellent recall of the material he had supposedly learned was science which is NOT a cyber presented course. The course material is presented by a human teacher. When are districts going to realize they have been scammed by slick billionaires monetizing the education of their children?
Students learn more when engaged in the learning through a human connection. An endless series of multiple choice questions on-line is subpar, inadequate learning for most students. They were far better off in the 20th Century when students had textbooks, read whole novels and wrote actual essays and reports, IMO. Computers are tools that must not supplant human instruction since cyber education is bunk pretending to be innovation. The actual beneficiaries are billionaires like Job$$$.
FYI-https://nepc.colorado.edu/blog/dont-buy-it
There is no research behind the value of cyber instruction.
I think that you meant that there has been no research showing cyber instruction to have value. There has been a lot of research suggesting that it has little value–low completion rates, low rates of learning, etc.
Decades ago, Gates said that instructional costs are all in teachers and facilities and that both could be dramatically reduced–almost completely eliminated–by switching to cyber instruction. Of course, he did this purely from philanthropic motives having nothing to do with his being in the computer business. So, colleges tried online courses, and they failed miserably because they had really low completion rates. In K-12, schools adopt online programs with lots of hype and fanfare, and then awhile later, they discontinue them without comment. ROLF.
Billionaires have been peddling “school in a box, anywhere learning, badges instead of grade levels, etc.” They don’t want to pay for the education of the masses. Anything to undermine public education and public responsibility is their plan.
YUP
Students learn more when engaged in the learning through a human connection.
Of course they do. Tell that to the idiot administrators who buy the online crap.
In education “research”, too much of what purports to make evidence-based claims ignores what is hard to quantify. That includes tremendous variation in how teachers implement program intentions. More important, the most impactful teaching variable is most likely the extent to which students are known, valued, and respected. That’s what matters most! Of course, in service of profit, rules of evidence and integrity are just an inconvenience.
for decades, IES (and its predecessors like NDN) studied “Diffusion” or how the ideas and new developments were made availablt through the nation. Organizations like Kettering Foundation worked diligently to get R&D into practice (they even offered Educational Management Development)… University of Wisconsin teamed up with the Kettering people to advance educational practices . Unfortunately, the corporate model has shifted all of these pathways that we had trusted and the conclusion is obvious as to what Tom writes about: “
“The push to implement SoR is a new way to sell what Amplify originally called “personalized learning.”This corporate movement conned legislators, many are co-conspirators, into passing laws forcing schools and teachers to use the SoR-related programs, equipment and testing.
SoR is about economic gain for its purveyors and not science based.
When politicians and corporations control education, children and Americalose.” thank you for clarifying this. we are seeing it now in our City where the UTAH legislative model teamed up with the marketing of sales for the hand-held devices to teach “phonics” to 5 year olds . They know which cities have some federal funds for poverty areas like my City of Haverhil, Newburg New York etc. And just. this week our school district budget is invaded by. WIT & WISDOM who have similar marketing models (I think Jennifer B. covered that one so will look up her references. Mrs. Steve Jobs is in the loop; I see what Betsy Devos and her ilk are doing; Joel Klein etc. It was never about the students. I did write to our state rep and also school committee members ; to me it is like promising an 80,000 $ Mercedes and then delivering what???
When I shared one of your articles regarding SoR one of it’s advocates said “I bet they haven’t seen the brain scan studies”. I thought back to brain research regarding classical (especially Baroque), claiming that classical music raised IQ and rock and roll lowered it. Teachers I worked with instantly accepted the research and started playing classical music in their classrooms. I was skeptical and wondered how on earth the researchers were able to figure this out.
I am reminded of your earlier post seemingly endorsing Science of Reading. Might have been better for you (or your assistant) to look further. Sigh.
I don’t think that she endorsed it. She said that there were positive aspects of some components of it. And there are. Most kids do need some explicit phonics instruction. Read alouds to kids are EXTREMELY important, as these build world knowledge and vocabulary and syntactic fluency and familiarity with standard story structures–essential prereading skills. These are both components of SofR approaches.
Where these go completely off the rails is the computer delivery stuff. These kinds of instruction absolutely need to be delivered BY A PERSON. By a living, breathing, thinking, observing, caring, relatable, actually interacting person.
One of the most Orwellian bits of language in our time is calling this computerized shit “personalized learning.” Yeah, take the person out of it and call it personalized.
The knowledge-building, read aloud and phonics stuff were all picked up by Amplify when they started carrying materials developed by the Core Knowledge Foundation.
The Vast Unseen and the Vast Unseeable: Reconciling Belief and Nonbelief | Bob Shepherd | Praxis (wordpress.com)
Between 2000 and 2005, the year I retired from teaching, I took over the computerized reading lab where the students reading below grade level had sabotaged all the computers so they wouldn’t be forced to use the reading apps that were “all the rage” then. The previous teacher retired before me and admin preferred teachers in that position nearing retirement. I jumped on the offer because it meant I wouldn’t be taking hours of work home to correct every night and weekend.
A few years earlier, IBM had gifted a classroom set of brand new computers to the high school where I taught with a reading app on it that would track student progress as they read short pieces and answered multiple choice questions at the end of each story, and upgrade the reading level in increments as students demonstrated gains.
IBM gave class sets of computers with reading programs on them because IBM thought it was going to pay off in the long run. It did not.
Did the grifters behind this BS call those programs apps back then?
The only thing different about the same crap today is that have relabled it The SCIENCE OF READING.
By the time I took over the reading lab, that set of IBM computers was gone and stored somewhere. The students were back to using the old SRA kits ( I think that’s what they were called) all printed on paper that they obviously preferred.
The reading teacher who retired told me the students sabotaged those IBM computers until none worked. Stuck wads of gum in the disk drives. Stole the balls from the mice. Back then the mouse still had a ball in it.
Not quite, Lloyd. Science of Reading is a marketing term being used these days by a number of organizations that include an explicit phonics component in their instruction. Amplify, which uses the “Science of Reading” moniker a lot, has a program that includes a) explicit phonics instruction and b) read-alouds to build world knowledge and syntactic fluency and vocabulary. They call it the science of reading because there is, in fact, a lot of scientific literature supporting explicit phonics instruction and read-alouds and building world knowledge as a significant component of background to reading. The biggest problem that I see with this is its being used ONLINE. These are valuable approaches, but they need to be delivered by people, not machines.
Off-topic, I know, but I am disappointed in Tom Ultican here: ”This former Silicon Valley housewife displays…” What? Wow. I was so annoyed I consulted enough sketchy bios to put together that, among other things, she co-founded Terra Vera natural foods when her eldest was 3yo, and founded Emerson Collective when her kids were 13, 9, and 6yo.
I had the same thought. In fact, that casual sexism stopped me from sharing this post further, which I would have done otherwise. Also, I don’t think it’s off topic. We can devalue people by assuming that relationships can be replaced by screens; being sexist, racist, ableist, etc similarly devalues.
This Ultican post is about so much more than Amplify, Science of Reading, Online Mathia, Renaissance Accelerated Reader or any of the other countless ways we have technologized the DISRUPTION of children’s learning and their deep, enduring connection to Teacher & Classroom.It is disturbing to watch them robotically & reluctantly haul out the battered Chromebooks or line up to march down the hall to a computer lab for mandated time on task or time in program.
For the remaining teachers who still know how to craft powerful, alive curriculum around a mathematical computation, a historical event, a poem, a painting, a chemical reaction or a preschool water table – their gifts are verboten. Their skills are silenced, denied and demeaned.
This is serious business we are talking about. It goes directly to popular philanthropists throwing their power & profits around in behalf of their own narcissism and the negation of everything that stimulates an appetite for learning. It is its own kind of famine.
Thank you Diane for exposing another example of the Education Survival Complex taking place recently Nation wide. Natalie Wexler’s book The Knowledge GAP is an add for Amplify’s dangerous curriculum essentially which is perpetuating harmful stereotypes and is so clearly Eurocentric. Shame on her misguiding so many and misrepresenting herself as a literacy expert and misleading the public as to how successful the Amplify curriculum company is according to her.
With gratitude,
J. C. D.