It’s against the law for the federal government to interfere in curriculum and instruction, but in recent years that has not stopped federal officials from trying. Many people harbor the illusion that there is a way of teaching that is the best, better than any other way. As soon as they think that panacea has been identified, they want to mandate it for everyone.
The Obama administration pressed states to adopt the Common Core curriculum, even when there was no evidence–none at all–that it was better than any other curriculum.
Today’s panacea is called “the science of reading.” The evidence? Reading scores in Mississippi went up after the state adopted SOR. The counter-evidence? Congress funded a $6 billion demonstration project called Reading First, based on the same ideas, as part of No Child Left Behind in 2001. The results: students learned the skills taught, but their comprehension did not improve.
Peter Greene reports that Congressional legislators are so impressed by SOR that they have written federal legislation to ensure that its methods are universally taught. Members of Congress know nothing about teaching reading, but they want to mandate the one best way on everyone.
Oh, that crazy House of Representatives.
Check out HR 7890, brought to us by Rep. Erin Houchin of Indiana, along with Rep. John Manion of New York and Rep. Kevin Kiley of California. The bill– The Science of Reading Act– wants to federally mandate Science of Reading stuff. It has the effect of creating a federal definition of SoR that captures the general vagueness of the term:
The term ‘science of reading’ means an interdisciplinary body of evidence-based research about reading and issues related to reading and writing that—
(A) identifies instruction in phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, comprehension, and writing as essential components to skilled reading;
(B) demonstrates the importance of background knowledge, oral language, the connection between reading and writing, and strong writing instruction;
(C) explains why some students have difficulty with reading and writing; and
(D) does not use a three-cueing model.
Hope that clears it right up for you. If you’re fuzzy on three-cueing, we get a federal definition for that, too. It has to do with A) using context, pictures, or syntax as primary basis for teaching word recognition and B) “teaches visual memory as the primary basis for word recognition.” So, sight words? Sight words are bad now?
Anyway, under the bill, only programs that are aligned with SoR get grant money under the grants to “entities in support of kindergarten through grade 12 literacy,” The bill would add to the directions that states are given for distributing the grants. Which makes me wonder if these GOP Representatives missed the meeting where the regime explained that these kinds of grants were going to be toast anyway.
That’s pretty much the whole bill, other than it’s not allowed to limit any of the protections of students under IDEA or the ADA. The best part is at the very bottom of the page where the bill explicitly says that the bill absolutely does not
authorize any officer or employee of the Federal Government to mandate, direct, or control a State, local educational agency, or school’s specific instructional content, academic standards and assessments, curricula, or program of instruction.
Somebody was wrapping up the bill and remembered that the feds are not allowed to dictate curriculum or instructional programs. Conservatives remembered that really well back when President Obama and Arne Duncan were extorting state compliance with promoting Common Core, but seem to have kind of forgotten now.
So that’s the bill. It directs states to push a particular ill-defined un-supported possibly-nonexistent instructional methodology, and then promises that this bill does not authorize the feds to push a particular instructional methodology. It went to the House Committee on Education and Workforce, where the committee voted 33-0 to report the bill. Should this bill escape its well-deserved death, I expect its major effect will be to influence education grant paperwork, but let’s hope it just sits on the steps up on Capitol Hill and quietly fades away.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
The reason politicians want to support “the science of reading” is that it is a phrase that falls neatly from the tongue. For better or worse, political leadership derives its power from being facile at boiling down something complex into something that commands attention. Who would oppose “the science of reading?”
Of course there is a problem with this logic, because the phrase itself is based on argument by proximity. Just because you use the word science, you cannot claim to be scientific.
We should approach most thought like science approaches reality. We should ask ourselves if our observations are giving us reality. We should try to remove natural bias from these observations. We should recognize that this is impossible, even when performing the most perfunctory task. How many time have I made a mistake measuring a board as I built something? Compared to teaching reading, that is a very simple task.
Of course there is a methodology to teaching reading. But calling it a science is to invest it with power it does not deserve. We should call it an art, for art presents us with more possibilities.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If this country were truly interested in “evidence based” instruction, it would not be jumping on every bandwagon endorsed by deep pocketed “big money.” It would actually follow university based studies, do a small scale study, which if successful, could be phased in for adoption. This process was typical before $$$ became more important than facts. This is the typical procedure that was followed before education became a target of billionaires and their fads. Politicizing education and allowing funds to flow to private pockets have allowed public schools to become guinea pigs for profiteers.
Many EU countries have discovered that reading performance has diminished from increased exposure to screen time, and science has found that students perform better academically with pencil and paper assignments. As a result, they are returning to textbooks, writing and actual libraries. It is unlikely that there will be a national campaign to limit screen time in our schools despite less than impressive results because technology is backed by big $$$ which buys political will and has an outsized influence on our education policies.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sad to say, and contrary to Mr. Greene’s statement about “these GOP representatives,” co-sponsor Rep. John Bannion is a Democrat.
LikeLike
I mean, Rep. John Mannion. Hard to get the accursed Steve Bannon out of my mind.
LikeLike