For almost two centuries, the debate about teaching reading has raged. Not every day, but in spurts. It started in Horace Mann’s day in the early 19th century, and periodically flared up again, as in the 1950s, when Rudolf Flesch wrote a national bestseller called Why Johnny Can’t Read, excoriating “look-say” books like the Dick & Jane series and calling for a revival of phonics.
In 1967, the literacy expert Jeanne Chall wrote the definitive book, called Learning How to Read: The Great Debate, which was supposed to end the debate. It didn’t. She recommended early phonics, followed by emphasis on engaging children’s literature. Chall warned against extremes, which would lead to extreme reactions. In the 1980s, the “whole language” movement swept the reading field, led by anti-phonics crusaders. A reaction set in, as Chall warned it would. No Child Left Behind mandated phonics instruction in 2002, based on the findings of the National Reading Panel.
I covered most of this contested ground in my 2000 book Left Back: A Century of Battles Over School Reform. My book came out before NCLB was passed, so it did not cover the post-1999 developments. Chall warned against going to extremes between the pro-phonics and anti-phonics ideologies. She said we had to avoid extremes, yet here we are again, with phonics now bearing the mantle of “the science of reading.”
I favor phonics, as Chall did, and agree with her that it should be taught early and as needed. Some children absolutely need it, some don’t. Nonetheless, I maintain that there is no “science of reading,” as there is no science of teaching any other subject. There is no “science” of teaching history or mathematics or writing. There are better and worse ways of teaching, but none is given the mantle of “science.” Calling something “science” is a way of saying “my approach is right and yours is wrong.”
Tom Ultican writes in this post about the cheerleaders and critics of “the science of reading.” He is especially critical of journalist Emily Hanford, who has been the loudest advocate of “the science of reading.”
He begins:
The Orwellian labeled science of reading (SoR) is not based on sound science. It more accurately should be called “How to Use Anecdotes to Sell Reading Products.” In 1997, congress passed legislation calling for a reading study. From Jump Street, the establishment of the National Reading Panel (NRP) was a doomed effort. The panel was given limited time for the study (18 months) which was a massive undertaking conducted by twenty-one unpaid volunteers. The NRP fundamentally did a meta-analysis in five reading domains while ignoring 10 other important reading domains. In other words, they did not review everything and there was no new research. They simply searched for reading studies and averaged the results to give us “the science of reading.”
It has been said that “analysis is to meta-analysis as physics is to meta-physics.”
Ultican reviews the recent history, starting with the report of the National Reading Panel (NRP) at the beginning of this century. He describes it as the work of dedicated professionals that has been distorted. What he doesn’t know is that the panel was selected by Reid Lyon of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. He believed passionately in phonics, as did a majority of the NRP. After the election of 2000, Lyon was President George W. Bush’s top reading advisor. The NRP final report strongly recommended phonics, decoding, phonemic awareness, etc. Given the membership of the panel, this was not surprising.
One member of the NRP wrote a stinging dissent: elementary school principal Joanne Yatvin of Oregon, a past president of the National Council of Teachers of English. Yatvin complained that the NRP was not balanced and that it did not contain a single elementary teacher of reading.
In 2003, Yatvin wrote in Education Week (cited above):
Out of the 15 people appointed, nine were reading researchers, two were university administrators with no background in reading research or practice, one was a teacher- educator, one a certified public accountant (and parent), one was a middle school teacher, and one an elementary principal (me). When one researcher resigned after the first panel meeting, the NICHD declined my request that he be replaced by an elementary-level teacher and left that position unfilled. As a result, the panel included no teacher of early reading instruction.
Moreover, the science faction of the panel could hardly be considered balanced. All were experimental scientists; all were adherents of the discrete-skills model of reading; and some of them had professional ties to the NICHD. With so many distinguished reading researchers available in the United States, it is difficult to understand why the NICHD could not find one or two involved in descriptive research or with a different philosophy of reading.
A balanced group that included classroom teachers of early reading would have produced a nuanced report. The NRP report became the basis for the $6 billion-dollar “Reading First” portion of No Child Left Behind. An evaluation of the program by the federal government found that more time was devoted to reading instruction because of the NRP recommendations, but there was no statistically significant improvement in students’ reading comprehension.
The death knell for Reading First, however, was not the evaluation of its results but charges that some of those responsible for the program had conflicts of interest and were steering lucrative contracts to corporations in which they had a financial stake. The Department of Education’s Inspector General substantiated these charges. Kenneth Goodman, a major figure in the whole-language movement, released an overview of the scandals in the Reading First program.
Be sure to read the critiques of “the science of reading” quoted by Ultican, especially those by Nancy Bailey and Paul Thomas. Today, even the New York Times and Education Week write uncritically about “the science of reading,” as if it were established fact, which it is not.
It seems we are doomed to repeat the history we don’t know.
Yatvin complained that the NRP was not balanced and that it did not contain a single elementary teacher of reading.”
Same as it ever was.
But it’s not a bug.
It’s z feature of virtually all education “reform” to NOT ask the teachers but instead to simply impose the policies on them from above.
..and then blame them for poor implementation when things inevitably don’t work out.
People make the same mistake in engineering all the time when they produce products without asking the people who are going to use them what they really need and want.
The best example of this is undoubtedly Microsoft , where Bill Gates and his engineers have always had the attitude that customers should conform to whatever Microsoft produced.
Apple is the worst. Their attitude is not “Tell us what you want.” it’s “We will show you what you want.” And the stocks tumble because they haven’t improved their products in years.
Common Core followed the same pattern, not surprisingly.
The reason for this pattern is that those making the policies have z very condescending attitude toward tezchers and simply don’t believe teachers have anything worthwhile go contribute.
Teachers support structured literacy and the Science of Reading. See https://righttoreadproject.com/2022/11/30/for-the-students-we-wish-wed-taught-better/
The statement which I highlighted was that the National
Reading Panel “did not contain a single elementary teacher of reading.”
Is that a false statement?
Don’t you think it makes sense to include at least one person on the panel who actually teaches reading?
Maybe I am just completely off base, but is that somehow an outlandish idea?
Outlandish go include one elementary teacher of reading, that is.
“The panel was given limited time for the study (18 months) which was a massive undertaking conducted by twenty-one unpaid volunteers. “
This bit of history reminded me of a friend who teaches at the local teacher’s college and her experience in being a part of the state committee that created one of the many “new” sets of science “standards” several years ago. They were given a bunch of statements and 18 hours to write new guidelines for all the state teachers. Naturally, the effort was a limited attempt.
Maybe the problem is really different from what we say it is. All across our society, whether in business or in government, we seem intent on the process of stripping the carcass of meat instead of growing new stock. No resources go into development of better infrastructure, so private roads are constructed to ease the transportation problem. The aging water pipes and electric lines are neglected while MacMsnsions spring up across sprawling suburbs.
Likewise in education, growing teacher shortages are exacerbated by rising tuition costs for the individual and stagnated salaries.
18 months, 18 hours
If the trend continues, the next panel will only get 18 minutes.
And why not, I ask.
What can you do in 18 months that you csnt do in 28 minutes? (Other than eat a lot of donuts)
In 18 minutes
Autocorrect thinks 18 minutes is not enough and wants to give the panel 28
Personally, I think autocorrect t is wrong. 28 minutes is far more than us required.
I’ve been on curriculum development committees before. They are exercises in showering adulation on administrators, not in critical thinking. I’ve also been in English department meetings run by teachers instead of administrators. Oh, that’s magic! Simple rule: Bottom-up good, top-down nad.
The funny thing is that no one is against phonics. It is a matter of how much. Every student is different and teaching reading requires a variety of approaches and tools. Experienced teachers know this. Kids do not all learn to read at the magical age of 3rd grade.
SoR advocates are not claiming that others are against phonics. They are pointing out that phonics is not being taught in a consistent, explicit or systematic way, and that three cueing and BL fails many students.
My point is that there is not only one way to teach reading. Of course, early elementary teachers should should know how to teach phonics. But they should know more about teaching reading.
There is not one way to teach anything. Meeting the needs of the students before your needs is teaching. Making students jump through hoops to meet your standardized needs is not teaching.
I am against phonics.
I got hooked on it at an early age and can’t break the habit to this day.
I bet Dr. Seuss also opposed phonics.
He had a really bad habit, even worse than mine.
I’ve tried everything — even methadone — but nothing seems to help.
Pick well educated parents with above average income, correlates highly with reading skills
Coming from a family that was not well-educated, generally poor and displaced, and who rarely read, they made sure I was alway surrounded by books, even if they didn’t quite understand them. Even a Funk & Wagnall edition was a treasure trove for a first grader. I have always had books around me as long as I can remember, even the things in hindsight that I now understand as an adult. Something I never saw as a child. Surround children with books. Drop them off at the library on a weekend morning and let them wander around the stacks for a few hours.
Greg, I agree. We must defend our public libraries as well as our public schools as both are representatives of democracy in action. Both public schools and libraries can help open minds and doors to future generations of working class and poor students.
Exactly right, Peter. Method doesn’t matter for most of those kids.
The “science” of teaching to read and write has long been overblown, in my opinion. I consider myself Exhibit A of an example of one whose learning was anything but ordered or systematic. But I understand that growing awareness of learning disabilities such as dyslexia that call for different ways of learning. The solution in both cases is remarkably simple and similar as I see it; it is admittedly a narrow, slanted view of a non-professional. Put a book in children’s hands, give them some help to get started, and then give them quiet time to read. And for those with special needs, give them the quiet time and resources with a caring, compassionate, patient, well-educated teacher or teachers. We should pay for what students need, not what administrators demand.
One of the greatest American writers of the 20th century, Wallace Stegner, taught writing for decades at Stanford. Despite his career, his access to students who wanted to learn how to write, and even having published a number of essays in his life about writing, he did not believe there was a formula or “correct” way to teach writing. It is the result of a bundle of experiences that are unique for every individual. Ultimately, they will have to work out how to express that in basic expository writing to academic themes and fiction. And when he thought about writing fiction, he had not one word about process. It’s about conveying thoughts and ideas and occasionally, humanity:
First, it’s about people. “If fiction isn’t people it is nothing, and so any fiction writer is obligated to be to some degree a lover of his fellowmen, though he may, like the Mormon preacher, love some of them a damn sight better than others.” It’s also about ideas, which “ought to haunt a piece of fiction as a ghost flits past an attic window after dark.” Fiction can focus much more effectively, quickly and deeply than other types of writing; “One Macbeth on stage is worth a thousand essays on ambition.”
Thank you for reminding me about Wallace Stegner. He was introduced to me by my book club. I believe we read both Angle of Repose and Crossing to Safety. It’s been a long time, but those books made lasting impressions. Will hunt for more Stegner novels.
His biography of John Wesley Powell is also excellent.
Where the Bluebird Sings to the Lemonade Springs is another good one.
I used to live in Utah in a corner life and was very into authors like Whether, Ed Abbey and Terri Tempest Williams, who all wrote about the region.
Yes, agree with SDP, don’t neglect his nonfiction. The Gathering of Zion is remarkably entertaining and informative. Just finished a bio on Steinbeck, who was close to his Stanford writing teacher. The end of her career overlapped with the beginning of Stegner’s. She believe writing couldn’t be taught, only helped. I think I agree with that.
The science of reading scheme demonstrates how outside interests are gaining control of aspects of public education to privatize it from the inside out while they line their pockets. They criticize, attack, hire trolls like Emily Hanford, create faux research to justify their position and hire lobbyists to promote their agenda and attempt to legitimize their products. It is a top down process that removes actual experts and practitioners from the process. All the deformers from Bill Gates, other assorted billionaires and corporate shills have used the same MO for decades. They rely on marketing, self-promoting and abundant politicking, but no legitimate evidence.
Real educators start by asking a central question. What can I do to better help students? This is the first question real educators ask. These companies pretend they are “innovative and ground breaking.” These profiteers are interested in making money by using public school students to provide corporations with new streams of revenue. “Better education” is a merely a marketing tool to sell more products. Scratch the surface of what they are selling: testing, charter schools, technology, the science of reading, SEL, non-professional teachers, et cetera, and there is no real benefit to students or public schools. They are all parasitic schemes to siphon dollars from public school budgets.
“I maintain that there is no “science of reading,” as there is no science of teaching any other subject. There is no “science” of teaching history or mathematics or writing. There are better and worse ways of teaching, but none is given the mantle of “science.” Calling something “science” is a way of saying “my approach is right and yours is wrong.”
I look forward to reading this piece. Here’s an important clarification. Cognitive neuroscientist Mark Seidenberg (Language at the Speed of Sight: How We Read, Why So Many Can’t, and What Can Be Done About It) makes the necessary distinction between the science of what happens in the brain when we read and the science of TEACHING reading. You are right that there is no science of teaching reading, but it is inaccurate to say that there is no science of reading.
Harriet, read the piece. The basis for this claim was a one-sided panel report.
I will read the piece during my lunch break and will have lots to say. But examine what you’ve said: that the claim in based on a report from 22 years ago. Science has marched on. Mark Seidenberg’s book was written in the past five years. Let’s keep up with the research. Please. Otherwise, the far left looks as foolish as the far right–baseless claims. As a reading specialist, I live the research every day. And if we don’t get reading right, children are harmed. Every day.
Harriet,
Please identify one district that has used “the science of reading” where every single student is now a proficient reader.
Thank you for this article. I am a Reading Specialist at an elementary school, and this swing into “The Science of Reading” is very difficult to navigate. It includes mandatory LETRS training, an adoption of Dibels, and Phonics 195, both of which make students groan with dread. There is some great information in LETRS, but my school, teachers, and students, are experiencing a chaos which is not good for anyone. It is so frustrating that financial corruption, politics, and greed are driving our public school system. It is so frustrating that the system allows wild swings from one teaching philosophy to another, and districts get on board with heavy handed enforcement of the latest craze. I do really worry about the future of our public school system.
The steps you are required to take rely on expensive, corporate products designed to collect data on students and, of course, make students groan. Corporations could care less about students as long as they can collect their “pound of flesh” and enrich outside interests.
There are a couple of other aspects to this. One is the terrible waste of money spent on voluminous curriculum materials which in a matter of a few years are gathering dust in storage boxes as the newest craze displaces them. I have tens of thousands of dollars worth of beautifully illustrated leveled reading books which I am now not suppose to use. The other aspect is that it is going to get to the point that no one in their right mind would go into the teaching profession. As I said, I really worry about the consequences of all of this for our American public school system. It is too dysfunctional. As you mention, it would be good to get corporate money interests out of public education.
The problem with your books is that they fail to generate income for well connected people. What books might do is teach students to think critically, dream, empathize, hope, understand and love. These books might turn students into life long readers and thinkers, which is a whole lot better for the future of democracy than producing a bunch of obedient widgets that will serve their corporate overseers. There’s a reason why slaves were forbidden from learning to read.
Computer “scientists” are currently working feverishly on turning everyone (including themselves, as they will discover too late) into a slave to technology.
I figure they have another thirty years to go before they fully succeed.
But I could be wrong about that.
Wrong about the time.
It might happen sooner.
Computer scientists are already slaves to technology. Hence the feverish work on stuff like AI.
The Borg already has them wrapped around its little digit.
Slaves to Bots
Slaves to robots
Slaves to tech
Slaves to “Go” bots
Slaves to chess
Willing slaves
Are CS profs
To their graves
They slave for bots
Teachers support the Right to Read and the Science of Reading. Please see https://righttoreadproject.com/2022/11/30/for-the-students-we-wish-wed-taught-better/
I’m getting cognitive dissonance from Tultican’s section on dyslexia. The main point is important: we do not have good testing instruments to screen for it, perhaps primarily because there is no consensus on its definition. OK. That undermines the mandate for screening, but here I struggle. Two of my siblings inherited our dad’s profound dyslexia, and I find it very hard to believe they would not have been spotted as obvious dyslexics by 4th or 5th grade with even the most rudimentary screening. I mean, OK, the term has been inflated to include a host of learning disabilities – but there are a couple of symptoms that are simply unmissable as your basic [as understood until recently] dyslexia.
Then there’s the other thing, which is a hucksters issue that Tultican doesn’t even pick up on. If structured literacy is simply a code-word for phonics, people who didn’t grow up with dyslexics as I did should be informed that phonics does very little for dyslexics. If b,d,q, & p look interchangeable to you at any given moment—and letters have a pesky habit of changing places– how do you distinguish between flash cards displaying ‘”bad” and “dab,” “saw” and “was,” “how” and “who”, “dose” and “does”? Dyslexia displays as though a visual deficit, but it’s actually a phonological deficit. So phonics instruction by definition is not the answer. It has some value, but must be supplemented by a number of other supports. Your job is going to be trial and error: you’re essentially helping the student find compensating work-arounds that work for that individual.
But of course I agree with his thesis: pedagogy mandated by state bureaucrats has little educational value if any, and its motive is purely $$. So much cheaper to hire a “package” than a professional teacher.
One aspect of reading is determining each individual word and phonics helps some students with this aspect. Another aspect is comprehending the meaning of the sentences, paragraph, etc. How many of the state high stakes tests separate the two aspects in reading scores? This is a serious question, I have no idea.
Sor is like Joseph Mccarthy and his witch hunt.
Anyone who disagrees with them are the bad guys.
Sor leadership is horrible as they destroy everyone who disagrees with them. Bullies at their best.
Thomas Ultican’s piece is very disturbing. Those of us who work with struggling readers know how important it is to get reading right. It is disconcerting that people who don’t understand the contributions of neuroscientists (Stanilas Dehaene), cognitive neuroscientists (Mark Seidenberg), and cognitive psychologists (Diane McGuinness) nevertheless freely pontificate as Ultican does that “the science of reading (SoR) is not based on science.” This is hubris with a capital H.
As I stated in a previous comment, a clear distinction needs to be made between the science of reading and the science of TEACHING reading. And it’s a lack of research related to the latter that has led to overreach in making mandates ostensibly based on science. Calling out these excesses is appropriate. And there are even staunch proponents of the science of reading–like reading researchers Mark Seidenberg, Claude Goldenberg, and Timothy Shanahan–who have sounded the alarm about overreach and overcorrection.
Perhaps most troubling, there are lots of educators–including Ultican–who have simply not done their homework. Diane, when you say that “the New York Times and Education Week write uncritically about the ‘science of reading’, as if it were an established fact, which it is not” you are stating with certainty something that is beyond your expertise. And this has been a troubling trend with each post I’ve read of yours related to reading instruction. The certainty with which you express your uninformed opinions is truly troubling. Someone of your stature really needs to know better and do better.
Lots of people including reading researchers are critical of the way in which the media are failing to look critically at the issue of reading instruction. They are tending to accept the “science of reading” as a legitimate fact when it is an amplified opinion. https://literacyresearchassociation.org/stories/the-science-of-reading-and-the-media-is-reporting-biased/
Here is a long list of higher ed. scholars that believe the media coverage of the “science of reading” is biased. https://hechingerreport.org/opinion-a-call-for-rejecting-the-newest-reading-wars/
I really think we need to make a distinction between what scientists are saying about reading and what education professors are saying. If I want to understand the science of reading–and I do–I will read these books–and I have.
Stanislas Dehaene – Reading in the Brain: The New Science of How We Read
Mark Seidenberg – Language at the Speed of Sight: How We Read, Why So Many Can’t, and What Can Be Done About It
Diane McGuinness: Early Reading Instruction: What Science Really Tells Us About How to Teach Reading
Anyone who is calling the Science of Reading, “phonics” has not studied the Science of Reading, which includes phonological awareness, decoding, sight recognition AND background knowledge, vocabulary, language structure, verbal reasoning and literacy knowledge. No one component is more important than another. I’m so sorry the work of many gifted professionals has turned into tag lines in order to keep this battle alive. The “war” just serves to sell more overpriced curriculum. Thankfully, most working teachers know this.
Tom and Diane, have you listened to the whole podcast? It’s damning. https://features.apmreports.org/sold-a-story/