In one way, ground zero for the “science of reading” movement can be traced to Emily Hanford in 2018, but cognitive scientists (Daniel Willingham and Mark Seidenberg, for example) focusing on reading and advocacy for students with dyslexia (or struggling to read in ways that some label as dyslexia) have also played key roles in the movement.
The “science of reading movement” has not been simply a media event, however. That advocacy has resulted in state education/reading legislation that has included third-grade retention of students based on reading test scores, mandating systematic intensive phonics (phonics first) for all students, and new mandates for teachers of reading and teacher education programs.
What is absent in most of the media and political endorsement of the “science of reading” is a critical lens for the claims as well as historical context.
The “science of reading” narrative, at best, is incomplete, and at worst, is deeply misleading.
Below are the key elements and links to help anyone better understand the issues:
The “Science of Reading,” an Overview
Systematic Intensive Phonics (Phonics First, Phonics versus Whole Language/Balanced Literacy)
To Read or Not to Read: Decoding Synthetic Phonics, Andrew Davis
Does Phonics Deserve the Credit for Improvement in PIRLS? Stephen Krashen
National Reading Panel (NRP)
Reading Programs (Lucy Calkins)
Teacher Education and National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ)
Mississippi 2019 NAEP Reading Scores
This blog post has been shared by permission from the author.
Readers wishing to comment on the content are encouraged to do so via the link to the original post.
Find the original post here:
The views expressed by the blogger are not necessarily those of NEPC.