Are We Getting the Right Information When It Comes to the Science of Reading?

Tim Shanahan

Recently, I heard from my colleague and friend, Claude Goldenberg. Claude is one of the most knowledgeable experts on second language literacy. He is not only intelligent, sensitive, and reliable, but someone who takes the idea of applying science to education seriously. 

He noticed a problem and pointed it out to me. It was something that I had recently noticed myself in a very different context, so I was intrigued. He and I became a kind of mini “committee of correspondence”, exchanging emails about our concerns.

These days there is much attention to the science of reading in public discourse and policy making. It is aimed at instruction for both native speakers and English Learners. Claude and I are cool with that.

However, some of what is being promoted is not really science. It fits into the science drawer about as well as Kanye West fits into a Taylor Swift festival. 

This blog emerged from our round robin – providing you with the wisdom of two experts for the price of one.

Sometimes an argument ends up in court. The plaintiffs and defense hire experts to support their case. Judges evaluate their expertise to determine the value of their testimony. Not every tool in the shed is sharp enough to gain “expert” status.

Journalists face a similar problem when it comes to literacy education. They usually address this by seeking a range of opinions. Expert #1 says phonics is effective and helps young children learn to read. Expert #2 disagrees.

The resulting news story concludes something like: “Educators don’t agree on the value of phonics.”

The problem with that is that most educators do not disagree over that issue.

Trying to reveal both sides of an issue is admirable. 

But this kind of “on the one hand, on the other hand” reporting can make it look like a raging “reading war” when most reading scientists agree that some early phonics instruction is a good idea and should be part of any complete reading program, including those aimed at English Learners. 

But what counts as expertise in this kind of kerfuffle?

Recently, I was asked about phonics by a reporter. After I told him about the instructional studies that had consistently found phonics instruction conferred a learning advantage, he expressed skepticism. He had already discussed the matter with another expert, whom he indiscreetly named. That expert assured him phonics couldn’t work.

I was gob smacked. 

The named expert did know reading, but his/her expertise regarding decoding was decidedly circumscribed. This expert had never taught or supervised at the grade levels in question, had never done research on phonics or any related topics, had never prepared teachers to teach beginning reading. The study proving phonics didn’t work was an analysis of phonics generalizations from 1963 that showed exceptions to many of the “rules” then being taught!

READ MORE...