Nancy Bailey is a veteran teacher who always has wise insights into what happens in the classroom. In this post, she questions the corporate interest in the so-called science of reading.
She begins:
Many of the same individuals who favor charter schools, private schools, and online instruction, including corporate reformers, use the so-called Science of Reading (SoR) to make public school teachers look like they’ve failed at teaching reading.
Politicians and corporations have had a past and current influence on reading instruction to privatize public schools with online programs. This has been going on for years, so why aren’t reading scores soaring? The SoR involves primarily online programs, but it’s often unclear whether they work.
The Corporate Connection to the SoR
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation fund numerous nonprofits to end public education. The National Council of Teacher Quality (NCTQ), backed by Gates and other corporations, an astroturf organization, promotes the SoR.
SoR promoters ignore the failure of Common Core State Standards (CCSS), embedded in most online programs, like iReady and Amplify. CCSS, influenced by the Gates Foundation, has been around for years.
Also, despite its documented failure ($335 million), the Gates Foundation Measures of Effective Teaching, a past reform initiative (See VAMboozled!), irreparably harmed the teaching profession, casting doubt on teachers’ ability.
EdReports, another Gates-funded group, promotes their favored programs, but why trust what they say about reading instruction? They’ve failed at their past education endeavors.
But the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation continues to reinvent itself and funds many nonprofits that promote their agenda, including the SoR.
Please open the link and read on.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
There are many ways to teach reading. Savvy reading teachers start by screening students to figure out where students are before they start teaching. Trained teachers will not waste students time on content they may already know. The goal should be to match instruction to the needs of learners. Good practice in reading should include both phonics and comprehension.
Billionaires and corporations are promoting phonics because the so-called science of reading lends itself to the behavioral presentation of computer instruction. It is deadly rote instruction with computers generating electronic worksheets. A steady diet of this type of instruction will lead to lower scores in standardized tests.
Reading comprehension is a far more complex process for most students since it requires students to use higher level thinking skills in order to become competent readers. My district would do an item analysis of results. As someone that has pored over standardized reading scores for an elementary school, the most challenging part of any assessment was when students were asked to apply, analyze, make predictions or synthesize information. Students need lots of practice to improve understanding which is provided by reading real fiction and non-fiction. These types of questions demand more complex thinking than basic information or recall, cause and effect, sequence or simple phonics.
Agree! Thank you!
“A steady diet of this type of instruction will lead to lower scores in standardized tests.”
GOOD!
Diane, I see articles like this, but the authors apparently are not aware of what happened in Clay County, Kentucky schools when the Elgin Childrens’ Foundation sponsored a program to give teachers PD on effective reading instruction and then monitored classrooms to ensure the programs were being implemented properly. I write about this here: https://bit.ly/3G2pMwA Clay County, by the way, is deep in Kentucky’s Appalachian region. These are high-poverty schools, but they made really nice progress in reading. Thoughts? Richard Innes
With due respect, Mr. Innes, you seem pro tech, and I don’t believe you’re a reading specialist. You’re also representing a free market think tank. It would take a while to dive into the Bluegrass Institute for Public Policy Solutions, I am unfamiliar, but I don’t get the feeling they’re friendly towards public schools. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
https://www.heartland.org/about-us/who-we-are/richard-innes
If students are doing better, there might be other improved variables at work: smaller classes, access to books, teachers who know how to teach reading, and some tech. Tech PLUS teachers work better than tech alone.
I worry about the tech programs and cyber schools that appear to be designed to replace teachers with any time anyplace learning.
The Elgin Children’s Foundation sounds like they do good things for children, but I have no idea who their literacy coaches are or why a foundation takes it upon itself to teach teachers.
Your remarks about teacher training are insulting since unless I missed it, there’s no information about where they come from or their prep. They could be from Teach for America for all we know.
Ms. Bailey, May I ask you to first read the report before dismissing it out of hand? It’s not very long.
I’ve just read the 12-page report. It’s important to respond to any concerns you may with the contents rather than the organization. It lays out the benefits of direct instruction vs. discovery learning, which have been well-researched. See Anita Archer’s work.
“Digital Learning Now!” emanated from reactionary Jeb Bush and the former Governor of West Va, Bob Wise. I haven read the Kentucky version, but the original was sponsored by tech companies and advocated for a completely tech-driven education program. Jeb proposed that the program sponsor did not need to have a physical office in the states that adopted their products. It was the ultimate unabashed promotion of outsourcing schooling to tech corporations.
How interesting! Thanks, Diane.
The Heartland Institute is a big supporter of charts and vouchers. It is not supportive of public schools.
The Heartland Institute is associated with Koch. Some state Catholic Conferences co-hosted school choice rallies with the AFP (Koch).
Media reported that the VP of EdChoice Ky. was also the associate director of the Ky. Catholic Conference.
The Koch network includes many institutes that self-appoint to initiate and implement public policy. They promote libertarianism i.e. predatory capitalism and financial starvation of government
Earlier this year, Catholic Georgetown University hired Ilya Shapiro (Koch network) for a top administrative position in its law school. Media reported about the ensuing public maelstrom.
Koch funded Paul Weyrich, a conservative Catholic, whose training manual is posted at Theocracy Watch. Weyrich called for parallel schools as a strategy to weaken public schools. Weyrich was a co-founder of the religious right, ALEC and Heritage which paid Clarence Thomas’ wife $600,000 as its employee. Clarence and Ginni Thomas are conservative Catholics.
Jefferson said, in every age, in every country, the priest aligns with the depot. Sixty-three percent of White Catholics who attend church regularly voted for Trump in 2020. Leonard Leo (father of 9) received an award from a Catholic organization for his efforts in confirming conservative judges. William Barr who is Catholic said religion should be introduced at every opportunity.
A couple years ago, Gates funded a study at Georgetown about authoritarianism. One of the study’s findings was a correlation between greater religiosity and inclination toward authoritarianism.
Why you continue to publish nonsense from Nancy Baily–who is clearly not a reading expert–I can’t begin to understand. No–the science of reading movement isn’t primarily focused on online programs. No–the intent isn’t to make teachers look bad. It’s to help them help their students, which is what happened at my school yesterday.
Like Bob Shepherd, I have read the books by Diane McGuinness and many other reading researchers since she published in 1997, and as a reading specialist for the last 15 years, I am able to work with small groups of struggling readers but also help teachers bring evidenced-based practices into their classrooms. If someone isn’t familiar with the research by Linnea Ehri and the Four-Part Processing Model by Seidenberg and McClelland, they shouldn’t be so certain that they know what the science of reading is. (See The Reading League website for good information.) As explained in the book Brain Words: How the Science of Reading Informs Teaching, in order to facilitate ‘orthographic mapping’–how we remember orthographic patterns and the words they form–we need to unite phonology, orthography, meaning and context. That’s why I shared with one of our top-notch sixth grade teachers a simple way to tweak his robust vocabulary program by including a phonological component. Here’s what he said:
“I love the inclusion of the pronunciation of each syllable. We always just wrote in a blank space above but I really like how you included the “their guess” and the part of speech (which we also just put in parentheses after the word). Can’t wait to use it next week.”
That’s the science of reading in action! Please do your research.
There are many ways to teach reading. There are many ways to teach math, chemistry, history, etc. To call the one you like best “science” is arrogant. Different kids have different needs.
I may be arrogant, but when it comes to teaching reading, I’m not ignorant. So sad to see that those who are continue to express expertise to the detriment of our children. Do no harm!
I was a reading resource teacher for middle and high school students for many years. My M.Ed focused on learning disabilities especially reading disabilities, and my districts included PD on every new phonics program available with instruction by reading specialists from nearby universities.
I mostly used a combination of SRA Reading and Morphographs and other reading programs. I am not opposed to phonics, especially for students with reading problems. But those students are now often in large general classes due to inclusion for all.
I steer you to Amplify. What makes it SoR? Many teachers believe it’s age-inappropriate, and the only research about it that I see is by the publisher.
https://amplify.com/science-of-reading-the-podcast/
My concern is that you make a sweeping statement without any evidence or discussion of what has transpired in the Science of Reading community since Emily Hanford ignited the movement four years ago. This statement is just plain false.
“The SoR involves primarily online programs, but it’s often unclear whether they work.”
My district can’t afford online programs but is committed to training teachers on effective teaching methods. I recommend that everyone read “Ending the Reading Wars: Reading Acquisition from Novice to Practice” (2018) for an understanding of the reading skills necessary to become a proficient reader.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325710300_Ending_the_Reading_Wars_Reading_Acquisition_From_Novice_to_Expert
Am I comprehending correctly? Is the person who makes “sweeping statement[s]” based on isolated anecdotes accusing another of making them “without any evidence or discussion”? Class, is this intellectually consist?
Ms. Bailey’s article has nothing to do with the program you cite in your post. Her post is about the political alignment between conservative politicians and billionaires that want to turn reading education into an online product. She provides examples of programs including those from Jeb Bush, Bill Gates, and Powell-Jobs. The so-called science of reading according to right wing politicians and billionaires is an emphasis on phonics that can be easily adapted to online programming, not the more comprehensive program you mention in your post.
Thank you!
Retired teacher- you’ve exposed the strategy wealthy libertarians use. They attempt to parse out a small package from the whole because a narrowed focus diverts attention from their sinister plot e.g. taking communities’ assets and turning them over to profiteers.
Harriett Janetos, Please read the post carefully. I always try to give links to research or information that supports what I say.
I am also familiar with Emily Hanford, a reporter who does a podcast for Amplify. You may not be able to afford online reading programs now, but if you’re doing direct instruction, you’re probably on your way.
But it could be that you’re doing a combination of reading methods that work. Good for you!
Also, let me ask, does your school district expect kindergartners to read?
Emily Hanford works for APM Reports (American Public Media)–not Amplify. She is one of many guests who have appeared on Amplify’s podcast; however, her audio documentaries on reading have been done through APM. If you’d like to discuss any questions or concerns you have about the Castles, Rastle, Nation article “Ending the Reading Wars: Reading Acquisition from Novice to Expert”, I’d be happy to do so.
Ms. Janetos. I think you will find this of interest: https://bit.ly/3G2pMwA
“I am able to work with small groups of struggling readers but also help teachers bring evidenced-based practices into their classrooms.”
The first half of or statement, i.e., “small groups” is what any teacher worth his salt knows to be THE key to a better teaching ad learning process for all students.
As far as “evidenced-based practices”. . .please more fully explain what that is.
(Bo tpig wit a bad keboard is so mc f. . f.)
Bill Gates was a member of ALEC at one time, so I suspect he has similar goals to restructure the United States into a libertarian paradise for billiaonres only, and the rest of us end up as their poverty-suffering wage slaves in a dystopian environment outside of their fortress luxury compounds.
From what I’ve read recently Gates may be the largest private sector land owner in the US, so his private luxury compound is going to be vast.
I think Gates left ALEC once he realized he couldn’t be in charge since the Koch brothers had that wrapped up. The only difference between Gates and Charles Koch is the extreme right religious aspect that shapes Koch’s extreme politics.
Always nice to see an old post recirculating. My thanks to Mary Howard and Diane.
I have taught direct instruction. Almost anyone can do it, and it’s boring to most children. It lends itself to computer programs.
The best reading instruction uses a variety of methods and teachers should be well prepared by their universities.
I still haven’t heard whether kindergartners are being pushed to read in your school districts.
“I still haven’t heard whether kindergartners are being pushed to read in your school districts.”
My district follows the common core standards, which I also followed when I taught kindergarten. If by ‘push’ you mean use beach balls, letter necklaces, letter paddles, letter cubes, bean bags, stuffed animals, white boards, markers, songs, games and lots of books to teach reading–then, yes, we ‘push’ our kindergartners.
No. I’m talking about the expectation that children learn to read in K. And the pressure to get them to come to K with reading readiness skills. I have concerns about this and future reading difficulties found in children. Thanks for your reply. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2332858415616358
Yes–I know what you were talking about. Common Core expects kindergartners to learn how to blend and segment cvc words and read simple texts containing them. So that’s what I did in a fun way. I taught students to blend when they read and to segment when they write. And the only two of my 27 who couldn’t by the end of the year were the two who were referred to special education. What’s the big deal?
I would say the “big deal” is that CC has been around for a long time, and if it worked, students would be soaring in reading. But the claim is they’re not.
Common Core is in a lot of online programs.
Having a road map doesn’t get you’ll automatically get to your destination. You still need to drive the car. This is the ‘how’ of reading instruction.
“cvc” ???
For those of us who are self-diagnosed with AIIDS*, please explain what “cvc” means. Thanks!
*AIIDS = Acronym Identification Impairment Disorder Syndrome To be included in the DSM-X
CVC means consonant-vowel-consonant: mom, dad, dog, cat, etc.
Thanks!
“I have taught direct instruction. Almost anyone can do it, and it’s boring to most children.”
Another gross generalization. I taught a direct instruction lesson on segmentation in a first-grade class last week. It involved singing a song while stretching out words with our hands, mini-slinkies, three different colored ‘sound birds’, five different colored pointers, white boards and markers. The teacher remarked that the children had never sat still for so long. It’s not direct instruction that’s boring–it’s how the lesson is constructed that can be boring. Or not.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: there is no such thing as “the science of reading.” I am a strong believer in the value of phonics and a strong believer in the value of engaging children’s literature. Good teachers know which child needs more phonics and which do not.
There is no other school subject where proponents of one method claim that they represent “the science of…”
Teachers of history can be inspiring, exciting, engaging, etc. using the methods that work best for them.
I’ve been in “hands-on” classes that were engaging. I’ve been in lecture classes that were enthralling (and others that were boring).
It all depends on the teachers’s skill set.
You can say it as often as you’d like–it doesn’t make it true. From The Reading League:
The science of reading is a vast, interdisciplinary body of scientifically-based research about reading and issues related to reading and writing.
This research has been conducted over the last five decades across the world, and it is derived from thousands of studies conducted in multiple languages. The science of reading has culminated in a preponderance of evidence to inform how proficient reading and writing develop; why some have difficulty; and how we can most effectively assess and teach and, therefore, improve student outcomes through prevention of and intervention for reading difficulties.
Diane, have you looked at the functional MRI research on reading? What is your take on that?
When Harriet and Richard publicly condemn the billionaire networks that usurp government policy-making and that seek to rob communities of their education dollars channeling them to profit-making enterprises, then and only then, should they be considered for inclusion in discussions
about public education.
“I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: there is no such thing as “the science of reading.”
Bingo bango boingo! We have a winner! Give that fine looking lady a Kewpie doll!
Teaching is an art not a science!
“The science of reading is a vast, interdisciplinary body of scientifically-based research about reading and issues related to reading and writing.”
“You can say it as often as you’d like–it doesn’t make it true.”
Just flipping your two thoughts changes the meaning. What does the supposed science of reading say about that?
The cloak of science! Your ignorance of what constitutes science is. . . .
Linda Sept. 28 at 7:53 pm Here’s some news for you: https://bipps.org/blog/innes-testimony-on-common-core-transparency and https://www.courier-journal.com/story/opinion/contributors/2017/02/03/common-core-not-good-enough-richard-g-innes/97353082/ and https://www.kentucky.com/opinion/op-ed/article44471922.html and https://nonpartisaneducation.com/2014/10/12/richard-innes-georgia-testimony-on-common-core/ What did you do to fight CCSS?
Innes- A slight difference of opinion between two education oligarchs, Koch and Gates, led you, who are on one of their payrolls, to self-appoint to offer an opinion in testimony to decision makers?
A villainthropist attempted one avenue toward predatory capitalism. Was the problem for his fellow member of the axis that Common Core curriculum might evolve to include lessons in critical race theory, climate change and/or separation of church and state?
Is it mandatory for Koch network members to praise Catholic schools while dissing public schools?
I do plenty to thwart the GOP and their neoliberal buddies.
You want to parse out Common Core so as to divert attention away from the Kochtopus. Long live UnKochMyCampus.org.
“When Harriet and Richard publicly condemn the billionaire networks that usurp government policy-making and that seek to rob communities of their education dollars channeling them to profit-making enterprises, then and only then, should they be considered for inclusion in discussions
about public education.”
Animal Farm, anyone?
“Animal Farm, anyone?
No thanks, had bacon and ham for breakfast!
Dark Money by Jane Mayer, anyone?
Winners Take All, by Anand Giridharadas, anyone?
Private Virtues, Public Vices: Philanthropy and Democratic Equality, by Saunders-Hastings, anyone?
Harriet-
Rhetorically, does Gates own SETDA? Is that one of the channels selected by the marketers to promote and sell profit-taking education products?
Interesting discussion. I see some teachers getting defensive about their pasts. Look instead to your futures.
SoR should not be called science. It should be called the Sales of Products. I’m sorry to all the teachers who have devoted themselves to using prepackaged programs instead of developing your own lessons, but you have been duped by a mass marketing campaign. Don’t be so gullible. Teaching reading involves human interaction, not choosing a can off the shelf. Reading is fun. Books are grand. Put some personality and joy into your classroom. Talk to your students about letters and words and IDEAS. Relax about test scores. Don’t buy sales pitches.
Teach with your heart. Your students will benefit from your creativity and love of books.
Beautifully said, David!
Me Janetos:
You sound very angry. When you have enough vitriol that it spills over on Nancy Bailey, you must have been saving it up.
Surely caution against the technocrats does not merit a personal attack. You may argue the points, but I suggest you leave the person to your own imagination.
In 2020, an article identified 15 colleges as illustration to support the headline, “Science of Reading (finally) Becoming Mainstream in Teacher Prep Programs.” More than half of the schools listed are in former slave holding states.
(1) Bill Gates’ Frontier Set which was aimed at control of college curriculum and delivery included a preponderance of financially-strapped HBCU’s. (2) Roland Fryer at Harvard was funded by Gates. Fryer talked about his support for two-tier systems, one favored for wealthy suburbs that was different in testing than that for others. (3) The charter school campaign targeted inner city schools. And, item (4) in my preceding comment-
it’s good the NAACP understands. It’s good that a counter offensive in support public schools is gaining strength, rejecting the influence of Gates, Koch, Walton heirs and, the amoral/immoral of Silicon Valley.