The Reading Instruction Show

Phonics is important, but if that’s all you’re teaching, you limit students’ ability to recognize words and create meaning with print. And that is the end goal – to create meaning, not to fill out phonics worksheets, or pass end-of-unit tests, or sound out words in isolation

I was having a discussion with a fellow online who insisted that early reading instruction should consist primarily of direct instruction of phonics. His argument was that unlike learning to use oral language, learning to use written language is not a natural process for humans. “We’re not wired to learn these skills” he insisted. “Reading is a uniquely human invention,” he said. According to him, children, starting around age 5 or 6, need lots of direct instruction of letter-sound relationships in order to learn “the code”. When they learn the code, then they can read (or decode).This is a commonly held idea that seems to make good sense to many. But we want reading instruction to be based on good science, not good sense. So, let’s do a bit of unpack-o-rating:

If you threw a rock into the middle of a pond but that rock was not a rock, can you still be said to have thrown a rock? Likewise, can a standard be said to be a standard if it is not standardized? We know that science is a good thing, and using science in reading instruction is a good thing. But what exactly is meant by the “science of reading”? What exactly is the Science of Reading? Is it a noun? Is it a verb? Or has it become an adjective or perhaps a metaphor used to indicate something else?

Basic terms are often misunderstood or misapplied by SoR advocates. My goal in this podcast is to bring a little more clarity to three important and often misunderstood terms: science, research, and research methods. In doing so, I hope to move the needle a little bit in helping you become more critical consumers of educational researchScience is both a noun and a verb. It’s a noun when it refers to a field or a system of knowledge within a particular area such as physics, chemistry, or zoology. It is a verb when it references the processes used to develop that system of knowledge (research).

Dr. Elena Aydarova is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Educational Policy Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a fellow with the National Education Policy Center. Dr. Aydarova’s research examines the interaction between educational policies, education reforms, and policy advocacy. She is an award-winning author of over 40 publications. Dr. Aydarova received postdoctoral fellowships from the National Academy of Education/Spencer Foundation and the American Association of University Women.

If you can blame students, teachers, and colleges of education, we won’t see the social problems that impact learning. It’s much easier to blame teachers than to fix the actual cause of social problems. However, there is one thing of which we can be certain: If Cengage Learning, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, McGraw-Hill Education, Pearson Education, and Scholastic could sell products to fix one of these social problems, that problem would be the cause of the next educational crisis.

To fully understand this current reading “crisis” (which really isn’t a crisis at all), it must be seen in the context of similar “crises” occurring in the past (which weren’t really crises either). This current “crisis” is not the first reading crisis to come along (Aydarova, 2024; Berliner & Biddle, 1995; McQuillan, 1998; Thomas, 2024), and it certainly won’t be the last. And when this crisis runs its course, there will be a lull followed by another crisis, and then another, and then another. That’s because there will always be those willing to create the illusion of crises for political and economic gain (Altwerger, 2008; Aydarove, 2023). And sadly, it’s an effective tactic … for a time anyway.

The thing about research is that it doesn’t prove anything, at least not in the social sciences. There is no single research that conclusively proves anything once and for all about reading instruction. Research may support a hypothesis. It may provide evidence for something, show something, indicate something, or demonstrate something, but in the social sciences, research doesn’t prove things. The results may indicate, implicate, or illustrate, but educational research doesn’t prove things.SoR advocates often claim that there is a “proven science” of reading. But when working with variable human beings interacting in variable social situations there are simply too many variables to say that something proves something else conclusively. Instead, research provides evidence for things. A lot of research provides strong evidence. A little research provides weak evidence. There are evidence-based practices (see Chapter *) but there is no “proven science” of reading. But even saying something is evidence-based says nothing about the quality of the evidence or the validity of the evidence.

Words are always encountered in the context of a sign, product, or sentence. In the same way, to be understood, data must be understood and evaluated in the context in which it was collected. Reading research can only be fully understood in the context of a wider array of research studies within a theoretical perspective. And theories must be understood in the context of a paradigm. The Science of Reading movement must be understood in the greater social and political context and in the context of past educational reform movements (NCLB).

If you were to consume a lot of popular media today related to education, you would be led to believe that there is a reading crisis. Apparently, it’s all “deeply concerning”. I can’t help but wonder if this current crisis is a new crisis or an extension of an old crisis. In 1983 the United States was said to be “at risk” because of a crisis that started in 1963 (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). Was that crisis ever resolved? Is this crisis an extension of that crisis? Or is it brand new crisis? In 1983 teachers were told they need to get back to the basics. Did we not get back far enough? Did we not get basic enough? Did our basic backtracking not take? Do we need to get back to basics much harder? Are we still basic backtracking? If we’re not getting back to basics, what are we getting to?

ConclusionsThe Science of Reading promotes the exclusionary use of strategies and practices that have been shown to be effective using controlled experimental or quasi-experimental research conducted in actual classroom settings. Further, this standard should be the basis upon which decisions should be made about reading instruction and reading policies. LETRS fails to meet this basic SoR standard.

This podcast examines Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Special (Lexia) or LETRS. I wanted to find the “reliable, trustworthy, and valid evidence” that “has demonstrated” that LETRS had “a record of success in increasing students' reading competency in the areas of phonological and phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary development, reading fluency, and reading comprehension”. I was eager to start reading all the research showing that LETRS professional development had a demonstrated record of success in increasing students’ reading competency. Specifically, I was looking for three things:1. A vast, interdisciplinary body of scientifically-based research linking LETRS to improved teaching performance.2. A vast, interdisciplinary body of scientifically-based research linking LETRS to improved student reading outcomes.3. A vast, interdisciplinary body of scientifically-based research providing evidence that LETRS was more effective than other types of professional development in improving teacher performance or student reading outcomes.

Yes, state legislatures have the right to impose statues. Absolutely. But teacher's unions have the right, and the moral obligation to respond. The Read Act and other SoR mandates strip away teachers' right and obligation to provide the type of instruction that is best for their mice-students. They’re forcing teachers to spend hours in state-mandated professional development programs, paid for by state tax dollars. They force schools to purchase state-mandated reading programs. The teaching profession is being de-professionalized and you say nothing. Teachers are now expected to open the teachers’ manual and follow the script. We don’t have mouse-teachers, we have script-followers.Teacher empowerment has been central to good education. Teachers' unions led to better schools, better educational outcomes, and better teachers. Yet, teachers' unions have let outside interests change public education. You have sat silent as teachers have been asked to do more with less. You’ve sat silence as teachers are forced to implement one-size-fits-all scripted reading programs. Teachers are forced to engage in state-mandated educational malpractice for reading instruction … and you say nothing.Anybody can say nothing.The only thing worse than not having a union is having a union that does nothing.

A fact may be true. But the truth of the fact is limited to the context in which it was found. Outside a meaningful context, the fact may mean something different. Also, facts without context can be misapplied and misunderstood. This is true of many of the facts used to support SoR structured approaches to reading instruction known as structured literacy. It is a house built on a series of decontextualized facts.

This is an interview with a Minnesota reading Professor. Ideology has replaced science when it comes to reading instruction in Minnesota.

In 1997 Congress asked the National Institute of Children’s Health and Development to work with the U.S. Department of Education to establish a National Reading Panel. Their task was to evaluate existing research in order to find the best ways of teaching children to read. In 2000 the panel issued their 500-page report (National Reading Panel, 2000). This report has been widely cited in books and journal articles related to reading instruction. The NRP describes five-pillars are reading instruction. The SoR zealots and state reading laws describe these as five foundation reading skills. They are: phonemic awareness, phonics, comprehension, vocabulary, and fluency. It's not that I disagree with the five "pillars" of reading instruction as described by the NRP report and repeated ad nauseam by SoR zealots. My concern is that they're seven pillars short of a full load. In this podcast, I describe the 12 essential elements of a comprehensive reading program – or comprehensive literacy instruction.

Questions: How is it that one interprets the same thing differently across time? How is it that one can read a book, have an experience, or observe phenomena and draw completely different conclusions when the only thing different is the time in which it was read, experienced, or observed? Is time a variable in comprehension or understanding? Is it a variable in constructing meaning? A book that seemed so insightful at one point, with the passage of time, can become meaningless. Likewise, books that I once thought meaningless can sometimes become filled with insight, interesting, and important ideas with the passage of time. Same book. Same person. Same brain.

There are conditions that tip the scale in favor of some groups and restrict or disadvantage others. There are communities, that seem to get the economic opportunities, good schools, good teachers, health care, good nutrition, housing opportunities, small class sizes, community libraries, well-stocked school and classroom libraries … Go to a 3rd-grade classroom in a poor, inner-city school, or poor rural district. Now go to a 3rd grade classroom in a weather suburb. It's like going to a different planet. Not everybody has the same opportunities. A person is privileged because of their environment and station in life. Communities that are predominantly white seem to have disproportionately more of these privileges and more opportunities. Communities that are predominantly black seem to have more restrictions and fewer opportunities.

Recently, the Minnesota State Legislature passed the Read Act, sponsored by Democratic representative Heather Edelson. It’s a law based on the fad of the day; the shiny new thing called the “science of reading”. Ironically, this law is based on misconceptions and un-understandings related to both science and reading. This law states that I and other literacy professors in Minnesota must follow, with fidelity, the mandates put forth by state lawmakers. These are lawmakers who have never taught a kid to read, who have never read a research article related to reading instruction, and whose knowledge about reading instruction is reliant on the information given to them by radio journalists and podcasters (present company excepted). As part of the Read Act, the Minnesota Department of Education is now forcing me, a literacy professor at Minnesota State University, to teach things to my students that a wide range of research has shown to be ineffective in helping young children to become literate (that is, to use reading and writing for real purposes). I am forced to teach the preservice teachers in my literacy methods courses at Minnesota State University to engage in educational malpractice in their future classrooms. The Minnesota Department of Education mandates that these future teachers learn strategies that will impede their future students’ ability to achieve their full literacy potential. I must promote the de-literalization of children by telling teachers to focus primarily on lower-level reading subskills instead of higher-level cognitive functions related to reading and comprehension. Worse, I must teach them how to suck all the joy out of reading.

I could live with a science of reading if the SoR zealots applied the scientific principles they claim to worship and adore to all of reading reality.  That is, if the scientific principles that they insist be used to determine what is effective reading instruction were also used to establish cause and effect, I could live with the zealotry.   But, they abandon their cherished scientific ideals when identifying problems and evaluating solutions to problems.  Look at the reading laws passed by 32 state legislatures.  Look at the testimony by “experts”.  You will see the word “science” used a lot, but science if much different from ‘I-think-isms’, anecdotal evidence, and personal experiences.