Education Week - September 29, 2021 - 17

Science of Reading Advocates Need
To Acknowledge Uncertainties
We can learn a lot from
COVID-19 immunology
on that score
T
he COVID-19 pandemic has provided
front row seats to an underappreciated
truth about science. I'm not referring to
white coats and spinning test tubes. I'm
referring to the part of science dealing
with uncertainty.
Those who tout the science of teaching-
particularly the science of reading-should take note.
In the beginning of the pandemic, uncertainty was all there
was. What's this new virus? How do we stay safe?
Since then, masking and social-distancing regulations
have undergone continual changes as variants emerge and
data are collected and analyzed. Data and understanding
have increased. So have frustration, confusion, distrust,
and cynicism.
But-as President Joe Biden might say-here's the thing:
Data offer no guarantee, don't answer all questions, and are
often contradictory.
There are now some well-established facts about the
coronavirus. Most importantly, the vaccines are extremely
effective in preventing serious disease and death. Masks and
social distancing also contribute to slowing the spread of the
virus. But there are no guarantees, as the rise of the Delta
variant and waning of vaccine efficacy have shown.
Responsible medical professionals say two things: First, they
emphasize what we know minimizes the disease's spread.
Second, they acknowledge what we still don't know and don't
overpromise.
This is what gives science its credibility: the systematic
search for answers coupled with a willingness to acknowledge
uncertainty.
" All science has uncertainty, " scholars Baruch Fischhoff and
Alex L. Davis wrote in the journal Proceedings of the National
Academic of Sciences. " A healthy scientific community
rewards members who raise problems before their critics and
penalizes those who overstate results. "
Which brings me back to reading science. In contrast to what
we've generally heard during the pandemic, the unknowns
around the science of reading are rarely acknowledged
adequately by reading-science advocates. This can give the
" science " part of the " science of reading " a bad name.
Torgesen and a network of researchers quantified the extent to
which early reading failure could be prevented if beginning and
early reading instruction focused on " foundational skills. " Most
people know these, a bit simplistically, as " phonics " or " decoding. "
Here is what Torgesen said we know or can claim with
reasonable certainty:
Early reading failure could be reduced if instruction focused
on the foundations of word recognition-letters and sounds,
phonemic awareness, and knowing how to use letters and
sounds to read words. Children who begin school without
good phonological skills and understanding of the alphabetic
principle are at risk of developing reading difficulties.
But just how much foundational-skills instruction is needed,
how intensely and explicitly, varies. All children benefit from
at least some explicit instruction in foundational skills. Some
will require very little; some will require a great deal.
Children who are poor readers at the end of 1st grade
rarely become at least average-level readers by the time they
finish elementary school. Early intervention focusing on
foundational skills with children at risk for or experiencing
reading difficulties in K-2 will increase the likelihood that they
become at least low-average readers by the end of 2nd grade.
In six experimental studies that Torgesen reviewed,
interventions with either the poorest readers or children at risk
for reading failure brought most of the students (56 percent to
92 percent) to at least the 30th percentile (the beginning of the
" low average " range) in word-reading skills. If the procedures
and conditions used in these studies were implemented
nationwide, the failure rate in early reading-the percentage
of students who would not reach the 30th percentile on
basic word-reading skills by the end of 2nd grade-could
theoretically be reduced to between 2 percent and 6 percent.
In 2004-at a time when laboratory scientists were
slowly chipping at the mRNA research that would lay the
foundation for the COVID-19 vaccine-education researcher
Joseph Torgesen laid out these reading-science knowns and
unknowns. Unfortunately, his contribution has not had nearly
the impact on the science of reading that mRNA has had in
creating life-saving vaccines.
By Claude Goldenberg
GOLDENBERG is the Nomellini & Olivier Professor
of Education, emeritus, at Stanford University and
a former elementary and middle school teacher.
Finally, much more than foundational skills (language,
knowledge, experience) are required if we are to prevent
reading failure after 2nd grade.
Here is what Torgesen said were the uncertainties:
* How effective are early interventions in the absence of solid
classroom instruction (i.e., Tier 1) that effectively taught
foundational skills to most students in the studies?
* What conditions need to be in place so that virtually every
child can acquire adequate word-level reading skills in earlyelementary
school?
* How effective are early interventions in preventing reading
failure from 3rd grade on?
Torgesen acknowledged that the standard he used to
judge success-the 30th percentile on basic word-reading
skills-is very limited. The criterion for success at preventing
early reading failure, he wrote, must include reading
comprehension at the end of 3rd grade.
Torgesen noted that such studies did not exist. The
significance of attaining near-average word-reading skills
lies in the expectation that doing so will promote reading
development and help prevent reading failure beyond 2nd
grade. But there remains an urgent need for research looking
into the role of language, comprehension, knowledge, and
experience in preventing reading failure.
The science of reading is not as clear on fundamental facts as
is the science of COVID-19 immunology. Phonics, decoding,
and associated skills provide no immunizations against poor
reading outcomes. But they do provide a foundation upon
which we must build.
More so than vaccine skeptics, " phonics skeptics " have
some reason to be skeptical. There is more to reading than
recognizing words.
Most important, there's still a great deal we don't know
about how to assure virtually all children become successful
readers. As researchers Sharon Vaughn and Jack Fletcher
point out, " There are some rather large holes in our collective
knowledge. "
Skepticism is an important part of science. As the Delta
variant began spreading, a once-skeptical Arkansan who had
been avoiding the shots due to false reports that they cause
infertility, learned through online research that vaccination
was the way to go. She told The Washington Post, " Skepticism
is a good thing. But to be ignorant is a different issue. "
Spoken like a true scientist. n
EDUCATION WEEK | September 29, 2021 | www.edweek.org/opinion | 17
Jorm Sangsorn/iStock
http://www.edweek.org/opinion
Education Week - September 29, 2021

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Education Week - September 29, 2021
