Recently, two families in the Massachusetts have deposited a first of its kind Continuation targeting publishers and authors of literacy programs. Families are looking for a status of collective appeal for Massachusetts students who have learned to read with programs programs that say minimize the importance of phonetics in early reading and have harmed their children.
THE Families are looking for financial compensation And an injunction that defendants provide them with a free program that incorporates “reading science”, claiming that it is a set of research on how children learn to read, including phonetics.
The science of reading is not a research corpus – it’s a Reform movement intended to modify teacher study, teaching and training programs. As a life educators with a history of pre-k, elementary and secondary literacy, we know reading research. We believe that children must be taught to read commonly and to go and think critically. For those who also like to think in a critical way, to question the affirmation that “science of reading” is “established science” is worth it.
The field of reading has been a passionate debate site since the 19th century, with opinions on how children learn to read and in disgrace. But today, the “reading wars” have hardened and polarized. Media reports presented an error and false statements on reading, Only to bring them back later. These reports have confused public and animated legislators who probably want an easy response. Currently, 40 states and the District of Columbia jumped on board, adopting the science of reading laws. However, no clear empirical evidence supports a reductive and singular approach to reading. We know of Decades of research And theory This reading is much more complex and nuanced than most defenders of reading science say.
Many would like to find a simple solution to teaching reading that all teachers could implement – but only one size does not correspond to learning everything. The truth is that reading is a complicated company, and children accomplish it in various ways. They learn differently and have different learning trajectories. They bring their culture, history and linguistic knowledge in the reading experience, integrating all this into the letters and the sounds they try to master. No unique program corresponds to each learner. Research shows Whether the different approaches to reading teaching have more or less success depending on children and the teacher. In other words, this is not the program that is as important as human beings engaged in the learning process.
The science of reading laws prescribes or prohibits specific reading programs according to the “reading science” criteria. The approved programs implement a singular reading model in which the explicit teaching of decoding / phonic skills dominates the teaching of reading. A lot Approved science of reading programs is scripted lessons Who tell teachers what to teach, when to teach and how to teach. School authorities monitor teachers to ensure that they follow the script.
This approach often combines with the Tent to delete stories books classrooms. Histoire books are an essential element of a successful reading program. They inspire and delight children and motivate them to read by seeing a world of various identities, which often include them.
The Science of Reading movement has unnecessarily polarized the field of reading and public education. We looked at Reading programs We know and respected are vilified when phonetics has always been important in teaching reading, especially for beginner readers. We have seen children who need a lot of systematic phonetic instructions and others who seem to navigate reading independently without it. As a cognitive scientist Mark Seidenberg maintains, “Teaching in subdictures such as phonemic consciousness is justified insofar as it advances the objective of reading, not for itself.”
So when the pendulum oscillates in both directions, promoting different points of view and reading philosophies, how do we serve our students? There are answers in the writings of Elena Aydarova,, Rachel Gabriel, And many others, which show us how the science of reading mythologies increases the agendas of the private sector at the expense of poorly served communities. Millions of dollars, Aydarova explains, Enter the science of reading reforms to pay products, consultants and services, allowing legislators to deal with these reforms as a substitute for social security nets and to find real solutions to poverty.
Teachers do not need another new reading mandate. What they need are widened options in their reading toolbox: skills to observe the strategies that children use in their early reading and their options to provide the best interventions at any time in the development of reading Any child. Training in an approach that reduces reading to a technical skill where all children get the same exercise will not serve children or teachers well and will ultimately not improve reading scores.
There is no “established science” in teaching literacy. The reality is that young readers improve while reading. Massachusetts has a chance to do things well, and the science of reading movement needs an emergency of a mid-term correction.
We are concerned about the way the movement is undergoing the effectiveness of teachers at a time when educators leave the profession. If the State continues on the current path, it more undresses teachers’ workforce. Worse, this may create a generation of functional readers unable to assess what they read and not be able to discover the wealth and joy that come from reading.
Nancy Carlsson-Paige is Professor Emerita at Lesley University. Julie Hackett is a superintendent of lexington schools.