Thomas Ultican, retired teacher of advanced mathematics and physics, reports on a new book by literacy scholars, The book, he concludes, demolishes the hype associated with “the science of reading.” Ultican believes that states should not mandate how to teach reading. I agree. Legislators are not teaching professionals or literacy experts. They should not require teachers to follow their orders.
Ultican writes:
Two eminent professors of instruction and literacy teamed up to write “Fact-Checking the Science of Reading.” P. David Pearson of UC Berkeley and Robert J. Tierney of University of British Columbia are Emeritus Professors with high reputation in their respective countries.
In the introduction, they inform us that Emily Hanford’s 2022 “Sold a Story” podcasts motivated them to write. In particular, they noted:
- “A consistent misinterpretation of the relevant research findings; and
- “A mean-spirited tone in her rhetoric, which bordered on personal attacks directed against the folks Hanford considered to be key players in what she called the Balanced Literacy approach to teaching early reading.” (Page XIV)…
After reviewing their findings, Ultican concludes:
SoR advocates say when teaching reading, the “settled science” of phonics “first and fast”, should be applied. They are working to make it against the law to disagree, claiming other forms of instruction cause child harm. SoR reading theory may have some holes but their political power is unquestioned and global. Laws mandating SoR have been enacted in 40 US states, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and other English-speaking countries. These rules limit teacher autonomy and attempt to make reading a scripted subject. (Page XII)
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, 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. NRP fundamentally did a meta-analysis in five reading domains, 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.”
SoR’s real motivation is to sell products, not helping children struggling to read. Scholars like Pearson and Tierney are ignored and swept away by a podcaster with no credentials.
For the sake of the future, we must stop legally mandating SoR as a solution to a fraudulent“reading crisis” and put our trust in education professionals.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
one of the things that is most appalling about the way this whole debate has gone is the way that NPR and the New York times have done utterly uncritical reporting. I appreciate this book and also the way the author addresses the effects of all of this on teacher decision making and autonomy
So, the emergence of online “free” news services, such as The Huffington Post, which DOESN’T PAY ITS WRITERS, has put enormous pressure on newspapers, which have CUT BACK SEVERELY on their reporting staffs to make up the shortfall, and especially on their staffs for in-depth, long-term investigative reporting. So, what one sees in Education News mirrors what is happening in news generally–lots of breathtakingly superficial clickbait stories, often entirely wrong-headed. For example, it is demonstrable that the federally mandated state tests in ELA ARE NOT VALID TESTS OF WHAT THEY PURPORT TO TEST FOR, but education reporters tend to report, uncritically, and breathlessly (the clickbait part), from time to time, that SCORES HAVE DECLINED. For example, they treated the recent NAEP scores as though they signaled Armageddon, when in fact, the score declines were incredibly tiny. This is because the reporters didn’t bother to learn enough to know that NAEP scores are out of 500 points, not 100.
But as long as one reporter is chasing three dozen stories simultaneously with deadlines of tomorrow and the next day, that’s the way it’s going to be.
thanks, that does explain some of the poor reporting although it does not forgive. The effects have not been good.
Agreed. This is what I would tell those reporters if I could get their ears:
Combating Standardized Testing Derangement Syndrome (STDs) in the English Language Arts | Bob Shepherd | Praxis (wordpress.com)
“…put our trust in education professionals.”
More of this blog’s usual shilling for the K-12 establishment that runs the schools, resulting in millions of K-12 kids unable to read at anywhere near appropriate levels.
What you sneeringly call the “K-12 establishment” means professional educators. Do you home school your children or does your faith leader teach them to read?
It’s so hilarious that people like Betsy think that there is some GREAT EDUCATION CONSPIRACY when there are, in fact, millions and millions of teachers and administrators with varying ideas about and approaches to instruction. These Repugnicans are so brainwashed by the toxic Reichwing media they consume that they believe a lot of bullshit.
Whether the ELA professionals are said to be doing one thing or another, this much is evident; the effectiveness of propaganda or marketing doesn’t continue because people DON’T know how to read, or DON’T follow the word commandments. Effective propaganda and marketing begin where critical thinking ends.
The Science of Reading is a tool to market cyber products to public schools. There are several ways to learn to read. In fact, reading researchers note that the first reading most young children tend to do is “logo reading.” For example, they see the golden arches and the word McDonald’s repeatedly, and then they start reading the word without the visual prompt. The point is that it is whole word reading, and it does not cause harm to children. Some kindergarten and ESL teachers use the language experience approach to jump start reading with young students with great success. It is whole word reading at the start. Some of us are old enough to have learned to read with”Dick and Jane.” It was whole word reading, and many children learned using these materials including myself and Diane Ravitch.
Eventually, everyone needs to master the graphophonic connections, aka, phonics in order to become fluent readers, and there are many ways to achieve this. The best approach to learning to read depends on what the student brings to the task, and the first step should be for the teacher to assess and determine an effective approach based on student needs.
We can see the dire effects of overreliance on whole-word reading by having a look at Japan. The average Japanese adult knows only about 2,200 kanji, though there are more than 80,000 of them. That’s because memorizing whole words is extremely difficult. For this reason, the Japanese have to supplement kanji with their phonetic writing systems, hiragana, katakana, and rōmaji.
Likewise, Chinese contains over 54,000 characters that children have to memorize in order to become readers. Some people believe this is one reason Asians tend to excel in math, but I don’t know if this is true.
That’s a bit misleading. A very well-educated Chinese adult knows about 8,000 characters. The average adult knows about 3,500. This is extremely limiting.
There is a role for whole-word learning, and that is the learning of a short list of extremely common sight words.
Systematic, explicit phonics is no big deal. Do it and get it over with. It doesn’t take long. Most children will benefit from it. And at the same time, ofc, do a whole lot of whole-book read-alouds and guided and independent reading and fun language games. I will never for the life of me get why some people are so averse to early, complete, systematic phonics instruction. It’s not as though this PRECLUDES doing all the fun stuff to win kids to reading. Duh.
Some kindergarten students may enter school reading fluently at a third or fourth grade level. They do not need beginning phonics. We should not waste their time on it. The sound system is easy for most students, but not for all. Disadvantaged children that have not been read to and have not played with nursery rhymes, songs and poems may be hard to start. A small number may have a neurological issue such as memory or auditory discrimination problems. These are the students that may eventually end up being classified as learning disabled, but mastery phonics is no big deal for the vast majority.
I think it valuable for everyone entering elementary school to have a systematic phonics intro, whatever his or her reading level. It can be done in a semester, an hour a day. WHAT IS THE BIG DEAL ABOUT ENSURING THIS MASTERY OF THE SOUND SYSTEM? Yes, kids differ, and the rest of the program needs to be differentiated. But I had a lot of high-school kids who freaking stills struggled with simple grapheme-phoneme decoding. That’s inexcusable.
I often found myself having to administer DIBELS to my freaking high-school students–students who could not parse simple nonsense words and struggled greatly with reading the texts we were using. DIBELS!!!! In high-school!!!!
Better, far better, to ensure that everyone gets the general overview/introduction. IMNSHO.
OK. An hour a day for a year. And a little follow-up the next year.
All fluent reading adults are sight word readers. The only time we resort to phonics is when we encounter and unfamiliar words. That is when we go back and break it down into syllables.
Good morning everyone,
I’m thankful to my mom for teaching me phonics at an early age. I actually remember learning it. I can spell. Once you know the sound system of a language, it makes learning the language a lot easier. I can read 5 foreign languages and English, of course. Kids can no longer sound out words or spell. I’ve been a teacher for over 30 years. Kids know far less now than 30 years ago. Plus reading a book can’t compete with the drama and action they find on their phones.
I was reading long before I went to school. (Thanks, MOM!!!) But I had complete, systematic, explicit phonics instruction in Grades 1 and 2, and I thank all the gods that I did. And I remember this with great fondness. It was fun. Contrary to the BS.
As an elementary school principal, one of my great frustrations was mandated curricula. Not at any time of my tenure did any prepackaged text or digital platform enhance the performance of struggling students. When we had success, it was because I had teachers empowered to use a plethora of resources, including their colleagues. There were a variety of products out there that could have served a variety of learning styles. However, lack of funding and misguided policy driven by one size fits all mandates, kept too many schools from using the tools needed when students could not succeed. The text book industry is not about diverse perspectives, but selling singular ideas for profit against competitors. This infects efforts to approach reading as a multifaceted process. The problem now is that this promotion of “reading wars” by a privatized media sphere means we will continue to fail too many students who desperately want to read. The so called free market has proven that it cannot improve learning through product placement. Perhaps those who promote SoR know this and simply enjoy the profits that they make off the backs of teachers and students.
Well said! One size fits all instruction fails to meet the needs of all students. Trained teachers know how to place students in flexible groups to maximize instructional opportunities. Our schools and students deserve more than being a depository to sell tech. products. This is privatization from the inside out.
This, absolutely. I would add only that the issue has been politicized. Under normal circumstances, when state legislatures mandate specific educational curriculum/ pedagogy, I simply smell a $clouty ed-industry lobby. But the rw, as part of their anti-“govt schools” position, have made SofR a cause. Legislating its use is part of the “we’re the most conservative!” peeing contest that inspires universal voucher programs et al.
PABonner– I so like your emphasis on the issue of “mandated curriculum,” just have to add this anecdote. In 1955 I entered 1st grade in our rural village’s 1-room, 3-grade schoolhouse. [No K in those days for the rurals.] It was the classic little yellow clapboard with bell-cupola, built in 1823. Mrs Mitchell was sole empress of curriculum. There were sight words (Dick&Jane, flash cards), plenty of phonics and read-alouds, etc. After the first week, Mrs Mitchell kept me after school one day and browsed through the curriculum with me. Yup, I was one of those who entered school already reading well above beginner stage. She gave me a piece of candy and a note for Mom. “Ask your mother if you can start 2nd grade tomorrow.”
One example in Hanfords “research”, is Don, a Vietnam veteran who couldn’t write letters home during his tour of duty, due to his balanced literacy instruction as a child. Once he was taught systematic phonics as an adult, he could read and write.
While I don’t doubt he learned to read as an adult, he could not have possibly had RR or BL instruction in his grade school. Marie Clay did not begin her research until the 70’s, and by all accounts, Don would have been in elementary school in the 60’s. Most schools were reading about Dick, Jane and Spot. All decodable texts.
There are several research papers by educators debunking SOR and the need for a balance in instruction. There is no one size fits all approach to reading. Teachers need a full tool box of strategies. It is tragic there are states, districts, and teachers ready to throw out the baby with the bathwater. What a waste of funds.
A lot of people are talking past one another. Most balanced literacy programs that I know of, including all the reading programs from the major educational publishing houses, have a systematic phonics component as part of the package. All the Science of Reading programs that I know of have guided reading texts for building domain knowledge and independent reading texts and lots and lots of fun language and literacy games in addition to the phonics component.
And people on both sides are IMAGINING that the other side is the devil based on straw man portrayals.
Great comment, Bob. The publishers will slap new labels on the old reading textbooks. ALIGNED WITH THE SCIENCE OF READING, replacing the sticker that said ALIGNED WITH BALSNCED LITERACY..
True Bob. But SOR programs, programs written specifically for SOR, are phonics instruction only, no leveled texts allowed, until the end of 2nd grade.
Most publishers have all the components, systematic phonics, leveled texts, read aloud, shared reading and writing. Phonics is taught during systematic phonics time, and reinforced during all the other literacy lessons. That is a balanced approach, which has been completely vilified by SOR devotees. I belong to a FB page where the vitriol is real! The anger surrounding a couple authors in particular is so unwarranted.
I’m glad to see people here at least understand it takes all the strategies, and all the tools to teach our young readers to be successful.
Correct me if I am wrong, but most widely used SoR program, I believe, is Amplify, which includes a systematic phonics program AND read alouds (guided reading) and leveled readers, and lots and lots and lots of activities for building vocabulary, world knowledge, and syntactic fluency. What program or programs, in particular, are you speaking of that are all phonics at the beginning? The only ones I know of are things like Jolly Phonics, which is a supplement, not an entire reading program.
Amplify’s Read-Aloud program, developed by Core Knowledge, starts in Pre-K! And again, this program is, I think, the bestselling, most widely used SoR program.
Teachers need to remember we teach students, not programs. We have to follow curricula, but we should not be saddled with mandated ways to implement it.
Absolutely so.
See below the intro to my essay on Reading instruction.
I look back at a couple of my Latino high school students who could slay the speed tests with admiral fluency but who had no idea what they had read. Nonsense words? Right up their ally. Thank goodness they didn’t have to worry about comprehension! Total waste of the limited time we had.
For all children, but especially for the one for whom learning to read is going to be difficult, early learning must be a safe and joyful experience. Many of our students, in this land in which nearly a third live in dire poverty, come to school not ready, physically or emotionally or linguistically, for the experience. They have spent their short lives hungry and/or abused. They lack proper eyeglasses. They have had caretakers who didn’t take care because they were constantly teetering on one precipice or another, often as a result of our profoundly inequitable economic system. Many have almost never had an actual conversation with an adult. They are barely articulate in the spoken language and thus not ready to comprehend written language, which is merely a means for encoding a spoken one. They haven’t been read to. They haven’t put on skits for Mom and Dad and the Grandparents. They don’t have a bookcase in their room, if they have a room, brimming with Goodnight, Moon; A Snowy Day; Red Fish, Blue Fish; Thomas the Tank Engine; The Illustrated Mother Goose; and D’Aulaires Book of Greek Myths. They haven’t learned to associate physical books with joy and closeness to people who love them. In the ambient linguistic environment in which they reached school age, they have heard millions fewer total numbers of words and tens of thousands fewer unique lexemes than have kids from more privileged homes, and they have been exposed to much less sophisticated syntax. Some, when they have been spoken to at all by adults, have been spoken to mostly in imperatives: “Stop that! I told you to stop doing that or you’ll get a spanking. Go outside and play!” (Compare the middle class, “See the leaves? Funny looking, huh? This is called a Gingo tree. Can you say, Ginko? Great. These trees come all the way from China, which is all the way on the other side of the whole wide world!”) Children from low-positive-stimulus homes desperately need compensatory environments in which spoken interactions and reading are rich, rewarding, joyful experiences. If a child is going to learn to read with comprehension, he or she must be ready to do so, physically, emotionally, and linguistically (having become reasonably articulate in a spoken language). Learning to read will be difficult for many kids, easy for others. And often the difficulty will have nothing to do with brain wiring and everything to do with the experiences that the child has had in his or her short life. In this, as well as in brain wiring, kids differ, as invariant “standards” do not. Kids who haven’t had such experiences need one-on-one conversations with adults who care about them. They need exposure to libraries and classroom libraries filled with enticing books. Kids need to be read to. They need story time. They need jump-rope rhymes and nursery rhymes and songs and jingles. They need social interaction using spoken language. They need books that are their possessions, objects of their own. They need to memorize and enact. And so on. They need fun with language generally and with reading in particular. They need the experiences that they never got. And so, the mechanics of learning to read should be only a small part of the whole of a reading “program,” and reading programs must grok that kids differ as the magic formulae of Education Deformers and Self-Proclaimed Education Pundits do not. However, this essay will deal only with the mechanics part of early reading instruction. That, itself, is a lot bigger topic than is it is generally recognized to be.
On the Pseudoscience of Strategies-Based Reading Comprehension Instruction, or What Some Current Comprehension Instruction Has in Common with Astrology | Bob Shepherd | Praxis (wordpress.com)