Education Week - May 12, 2021 - 15

Science of Reading Advocates
Have a Messaging Problem
What does the term actually mean?

I

n case you haven't noticed-and
given a pandemic, political mayhem, and general weariness, you
would be forgiven if you haven't-
a new front in the decadeslong
reading wars has opened up
called " the science of reading. "
To many, the lines of demarcation
separating the sides are ambiguous, even
puzzling. Herein lies a problem for those
wanting to put reading pedagogy on a more
secure-or " scientific " -footing. As so often
happens, the term has taken on a life of its
own, signaling different things to different
people.
There are substantive issues at stake in the
debate over reading, but we are hampered by
how we talk about, or more precisely, how we
don't talk about, the issues.
Certain education terms become lightning
rods for controversy, usually to no good
purpose. Think of " progressive education "
or " back to basics " or " choice " or ... shudder ...
" No Child Left Behind. " Simply stating them
evokes a visceral reaction, pro or con. The
" science of reading " is in danger of falling
into this category, if it hasn't already.
To some, the science of reading means
findings based on principles of scientific
research. To others, the term invokes a
narrow and reductionistic view of the world
or at least the world of reading.
There is large effort currently underway
by those championing the science of reading
to have it become the principal catchword
in local, state, and even national reading
policies. For example, in the " Excellent

By Claude Goldenberg
GOLDENBERG is the Nomellini
& Olivier Professor of Education,
emeritus, at Stanford University and
a former elementary and middle
school teacher.

Public Schools Act of 2021, " the North
Carolina General Assembly declared that the
Department of Public Instruction " shall use
the Early Literacy Program to build strong
foundational early literacy skills utilizing the
Science of Reading. "
As its definition of " science of reading, " the
act says this:
" Science of Reading " means evidence-based
reading instruction practices that address
the acquisition of language, phonological and
phonemic awareness, phonics and spelling,
fluency, vocabulary, oral language, and
comprehension that can be differentiated to
meet the needs of individual students.
This definition is nearly useless. For
starters, what constitutes evidence? For
years, we've tried using " evidenced-based "
as a way to get reliable and valid research
into the hands, hearts, and heads of teachers
and teacher educators. It hasn't worked very
well. Perhaps even more important, what
does " address " mean? Talk about? Teach
occasionally? Teach mixed in with other
things as the spirit moves the teacher or the
students? And so on.
If state legislatures are to put " the science
of reading " into legislation, the definitions
should at the very least be clear, meaningful,
and useful.
What is happening in this new stage of
the reading wars is there for all to see in
North Carolina's and others' use of the
phrase. Instead of spelling out what they
mean, " science of reading " advocates
wrap themselves in the protective mantel
of science, as if invoking science is all that
anyone needs to be credible and persuade
others to join them. Anyone disagreeing is
anti-science, i.e., ignorant.
This is not a great persuasion strategy.
Not surprisingly, those from a different
vantage point argue that no one has a right

"

Certain education
terms become
lightning rods for
controversy, usually
to no good purpose.
to define science in a way that conveniently
fits their perspective.
Since the fog of war engulfs this conflict, I
would like to offer my understanding of what
the science of reading has actually found.
These findings should be uncontroversial, but
I admit that hope may prove naïve.
First, unlike learning to speak and
understand spoken language, learning to
read (and write) is not a naturally acquired
skill or set of skills. But it is entirely possible
for the vast majority of individuals to learn
to read. However, much depends on what we
actually mean by " reading. " If we mean being
able to read-decode or recognize-words
and text on the page or screen, well over 90
percent of students can learn to read at an
early-elementary level, provided they receive
the right kind of instruction. The primary
limitation on continued progress is language
proficiency, including vocabulary.
We don't have comparable estimates
for English-learners, but with the right
instruction, they could also attain much
higher levels of reading proficiency than they
currently do.

iStock/Getty Images Plus

The right kind of instruction, for
both speakers of English and Englishlanguage learners, includes explicitly and
systematically teaching students (or anyone
learning to read) the letters that represent
sounds, how letters are used to sound out
words, and how to fluently read words,
sentences, and paragraphs so that reading
development can proceed. These so-called
foundational skills, often grouped together
under the not entirely precise label " phonics, "
constitute what most people would consider
common sense. Here, I am happy to report,
common sense and educational research
converge.
Moving past reading words on the page
or screen to being able to comprehend
at appropriate levels of sophistication-
the whole point of reading-requires
the foundational skills and much more.
Successful reading programs must also
include language development (vocabulary,
syntax, discourse), strategies that help
students comprehend what they read,
making sure students acquire specific and
general knowledge, and providing students
with motivating reading material and
instruction that is engaging, organized,
purposeful, and effective.
There are two final points the science of
reading supports:
As is true of all complex human behaviors,
some students will require a great deal
of foundational skills, i.e., " phonics, "
instruction; others will require much less;
almost all will require some.
We don't know all there is to know about
promoting optimal reading development
for every learner. There is more to learn and
there will probably always be more to learn.
Personally, I don't see how anyone could
object to these findings. The supporting data
are compelling and should help determine
what programs of instruction to use. But first,
we must fix the messaging problem.
Once we get past the logjams, wars, ad hoc
recriminations, and so forth, we can make
sure anyone teaching our kids to read has,
understands, and can use the best knowledge
and tools available. For that to happen, we
must stop getting distracted and mystifying
others with opaque language. It's just not
helpful.

EDUCATION WEEK | May 12, 2021 | www.edweek.org/opinion | 15
http://www.edweek.org/opinion
Education Week - May 12, 2021

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Education Week - May 12, 2021
