Not only are school districts spending huge sums on laptops with little research to indicate students learn better on computers, they’re also pushing children to face screens to learn the most serious subject, how to read. They’re doing this alongside efforts by corporate reformers to kick teachers out of the classroom, and by promoting the idea that teachers don’t understand a Science of Reading.
The Science of Reading (SoR) refers to explicit systematic or structured phonics. This argument has been around for a long time, but it recently resurfaced, and it seems a bit different. Now phonics is on a screen.
Commercial programs in reading and phonics have always been sold to school districts for teachers to use. In the past, this process usually involved a vetting process where parents and teachers would help choose the district program. Sometimes there has been controversy over those programs.
The difference today is that reading programs are increasingly digital with embedded digital assessment. Phonics fits into software well. Think of it as worksheets on a screen, mini tests where students repetitively click the answer to show they mastered the skill.
The Science of Reading seems to be about this, selling online programs. Many of the crusaders for the SoR are found here promoting Amplify. Amplify is a questionable digital program based on Common Core State Standards.
With all the criticism of teachers and how they teach reading, no one associates reading failure with the phonics in the English language arts Common Core State Standards. They should. Common Core is used in most digital reading programs.
There is also no credible research to indicate that students learn better with technology, including reading. On the contrary, a 2015 OECD report indicated students who use computers very frequently at school do much worse, even after accounting for social background and student demographics.
But there’s money in tech programs, especially those that sell reading programs. If the Science of Reading is found on a computer, who needs a teacher?
This drive means that while some school districts in America can’t find the money to stay alive, other school districts find funds to give every child a laptop like it’s cheap candy.
There’s another side to all of this.
Parents are worried about their children and too much screen time. They’re concerned about data collected on their child when they’re online and whether that data is being used to track students into a workforce pipeline. They also understand that there’s no credible proof that screens are better at teaching children how to read.
Parents worry about the teacher shortage. Some schools can’t find enough qualified teachers to cover classes. Doesn’t it seem odd, that during a teacher shortage, teachers come under attack for the way they teach reading?
The dissatisfaction parents have with the overuse of technology is highlighted in the recent report by Debbie Truong of The Washington Post who wrote “More students are learning on laptops and tablets in class. Some parents want to hit the off switch.”
From Northern Virginia to Shawnee, Kan., to Norman, Okla., parents have demanded schools reduce or eliminate use of digital devices, provide alternative “low-screen” classwork and allow parents to say they do not want their children glued to glowing screens. Some families have even transferred their children to schools that are not so smitten with technology.
There’s also growing alarm about childhood screen addiction, not only with teens and middle school students. According to a NBC report “Is your child hooked on digital devices? (Chuck, Ward, & Sottile, Jan. 2020) researchers at Seattle Children’s Research Institute find computer addiction in the youngest learners.
They describe a 22-month-old who is glued to the reading app Elmo Loves ABCs. The girl is so obsessed with the screen that she ignores those who speak to her and other visual stimuli!
There’s questionable blame when the words “reading crisis” are used and when that crisis, if there is one, is blamed on teachers.
An assortment of problems facing schools, like poverty and the loss of school libraries and librarians and the dwindling services that are supposed to be provided to students with reading difficulties under IDEA are variables that are always ignored by those critical of teachers who promote a Science of Reading.
There is no mention of the substandard digital programs that complement the Common Core State Standards that have been running rampant in public schools for years! They include iReady, Amplify, and iStation. There are others and always new ones to come on the market.
Children learn to read well when teachers are well-equipped with a variety of reading strategies, and when conditions are right for reading instruction to occur. Most children need some phonics for spelling but not an intensive program. Other children might need more phonics, especially if they have dyslexia or reading disabilities.
One problem is that many school districts are not providing students with disabilities the special services they need. Children who do need more structured phonics are lost in inclusion classes, some that have thirty or more children. Some schools are not fulfilling the promise of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
When schools support well-prepared reading teachers with education degrees from reputable universities, the teacher, with feedback from the parent, should be the determiner of what individual students need in order to learn to read. Good teachers have always taught students how to read!
Today teachers are blamed for not understanding the Science of Reading, while school districts purchase more iPads and scrounge around to cover classes so students at least are supervised. What does this say? Teachers leave, but the un-scrutinized tech programs stay.
In the end, that’s what parents who can’t afford an expensive private school will end up with, whether they like it or not. Their children will get phonics on a screen with facilitators supervising their children at the nearby online charter school, or parents will have to teach their child to read at home.
Thank you so much. I do believe all of this “science of reading” push has a financial benefit for those pushing it.
I’m also concerned that every issue is getting the label of dyslexia. I hate the idea of any child being given a label that will impact them the rest of their lives.
My own 8 year old is such a meaning based and struggling because of the emphasis on phonics. If his teacher had the ability to practice actual best reading practice and had he been given opportunities to write from the start, he’d be just fine.
But now he hates to read. What if we are doing all of this and we have a generation thar can’t read nor want to read. What then?
Shame on all of the outside forces that have no business telling teachers how to teach.
Money and power trumps best practice.
I hope you are still reading to him. There are so many good children’s books these days to get kids wanting to read that you can enjoy reading to them. Bedtime reading was always a favorite time in our household.
Thanks, Stef. I am confused about labels too. Some labels are accepted and others are not. You raise excellent concerns. Thanks for commenting.
Nancy, we can end the reading wars if we can create awareness among our readers that the problem is not with phonics but the wrong way phonemes of letters are taught.
Everyone has their idea of a miracle. As a teacher who taught whatever phonics was peddled in my school district for years, there is no perfect program for every child.
It’s always those who are outside of the classroom with something to sell telling us there is, and it always comes down to their program.
Cannot open video. Says it is private.
I have been stating in my blog since 2010 that most of the kids classified as dyslexic are actually instructional casualties.
Many kids shut down from learning to read when they are confused.
Kids get confused when phonemes of letters are taught wrongly.
Kids get confused when they are taught phonemes of letters without being told that many phonemes are represented by each letter.
Do read the articles in my blog.
A majority of kids classified as dyslexic are instructional casualties.
One of the two main problems is that pronunciation of phonemes are taught wrongly to kids.
Kid predisposed to shutting down will disengage from learning to read when they are confused and are then wrongly classified as dyslexic.
You are welcome to grill me on what I have written which is based on my teaching of more than 70 so-called dyslexic kids since 2004 on a one on one basis.
I taught students with reading disabilities. I also studied reading disabilities including dyslexia. If you would like to share what you found works for students with dyslexia feel free. But I don’t permit advertising.
Thank you, Nancy. Ever since I left school I worked in the accounting/auditing field.
In 2004, I was cajoled into teaching a kid who had gone to kindergarten for one year and one year in primary one and was unable to read even one sentence in English.
After teaching the kid for 3 days I told his father that his son is unteachable. He then told me that his son has been diagnosed as dyslexic by experts in Singapore and later in Australia.
I had never heard the word dyslexia until then. I decided to check the internet and took it upon myself as a challenge to teach this smart kid who spoke good English.
Having worked in the audit field I was curious.
After a short while, I decided to quit working and take in more such kids and started teaching them on a one on one basis.to find out why such smart kids could read in Malay but not in English.
By 2010 I had already successfully taught more than 20 so-called dyslexic kids. There were kids who went to Chinese schools and they could read in Romanised Mandarin and Malay but could not read in English.
I observed and ‘interviewed’ these kids while teaching and realised that they had all shut down from learning to read due to confusion.
Their confusion was a result of mainly 2 things.
i. They had been taught the pronunciation of phonemes wrongly.
ii. They had not been taught at the onset that most letters reprsented more than one phoneme.
I takes me approximately one month to get them to un-learn what they have learned. It takes me 4 months to wean them from coming to my house for tuition as they are then ready to learn from any other tuition teacher.
From 2004 to 2010 I read almost all news, articles and blog on dyslexia. At that time not a week will pass without someone writing that the cause of dyslexia is ‘phonological awareness deficit’ which at that time was a theory of about 35 years old.
I could not agree with that theory as all my students could read in Malay and those that went to Chinese schools could read in Romanised Mandarin.
As such I wrote to more than 30 universities and many professors including William Tunmer, and Joseph Torgesen. No one accepted my theory. We agreed to disagree.
In 2010/2011 there was a lot of activity in my blog by students from universities.
In 2015, apparently research reports surfaced and that theory was debunked.
The other theory that has yet to be accepted is that a majority of kids classified as dyslexic are actually shut down kids and can easily be brought back to grade level by explaining to them that many of the letters in English represent more than one phorneme and more importantly teaching them the correct pronunciation of phonemes.
You are welcome to grill me on what I have discovered.
I wish you well.
Wow, I never thought about this but I agree with what you are saying. I also think this all ties into this false narrative about failing public schools and the push to privatize with “school choice”. Mostly because every article from these people make teachers look like they can’t be trusted to make instructional decisions.
Also if you follow what is happening with systematic phonics in Tennessee, now they are pushing to a K-2 statewide reading assessment (and a reading record benchmark to get a reading level is not what they mean). This leads me to believe that there is some link to publishing companies that now will build curriculum and test prep materials to fit the test (probably also made by them).
When our school adopted iReady, I looked for research of the efficacy and I could not find anything other than the studies that Curriculum Partners did themselves. I should look again because it’s been a few years. I find that iReady learning isn’t transferring – it’s not sticking once they move on and barely realize when I am teaching something they already “mastered”.
Thanks, Lindsay, I agree that there’s that connection. Tennessee seems like it is in a state of confusion! And it’s not the kind of chaos that will lead to anything good.
I appreciate your sharing the iReady story. The companies do great research on their own products!
The latest Educational Leadership magazine from ASCD is out on reading. I am struggling to get through the first article, which is an ode to phonics and the “science of reading.” Since they have spent several years now beholden to all things deformist, I am wondering if this is the year to cut ties even though they do run some informative articles that are less cult-like. As much as I would like to still be teaching, I am so glad I do not have to navigate the toxic environment of data driven instruction.
Ugh! Yep. I haven’t seen it, but I’m guess they highlight the National Reading Panel and the NCTQ.
I echo your thoughts about teaching. Thank you!
I cut ties five years ago. It’s very sad because. i used to keep up on professional readings with my ASCD membership and I’m not an admin. Now it is mostly unprofessional readings.
So many associations have gone down this route….
Thanks, Sheila.
I have seen a lot more than phonics programs going digital. Digital programs are prolific with math. There are other areas going digital as well. There is the reversed classroom using tech of some sort. Khan Academy and more, If tech is trying to push out teachers, it isn’t a SoR thing. SoR is so much more than phonics or what can be done on a computer. It’s kind of like a sign that said, “Please don’t confuse Google with my Medical degree.” People are trying everything they can to take whatever they can “digital” and then work hard to sell it. We are also a data-driven world at this point. SoR or not, math or reading, medical or education, etc., So, this article has some good thoughts with some that seem a little misdirected.
I try to welcome criticism. Certainly going digital is happening in other subjects as well. But the SoR issue is controversial in and of itself. I’m saying here that it is driven by the push to put reading instruction on screens. Why else are so many of the SoR drivers promoting digital programs like Amplify?
As a retired teacher who spent a chunk of my life teaching phonics etc. to students with reading disabilities, I’m tired, as are many reading specialists, of hearing that a “special kind of phonics” is missing from the classroom. Teachers have taught phonics for years!
We used to also identify students with reading disabilities and give them special help in resource classes. We also didn’t push K to read before they were ready!
The focus should be on special education. Students with reading disabilities like dyslexia, need to be identified and given the support they need in a resource class. General ed. teachers with class sizes of 30> are not able to do this effectively.
And quit making K read before they’re ready!
Thank you for your comment.
Amen!
I should apologize, and I do. I agree with so much you are saying here.
I’m just confused about the SoR and digital programs connection. I have been diving deep into SoR. I’m very familiar with OG, have been reading research summaries and research studies. (Seidenberg, Moats, Ehri, Kilpatrick, Dehaene, Chall, etc.), and I’ve been listening to SoR webinars, Reading League videos, etc. I can’t recall ANY push for digital programs.
I do see computer programs at schools saying this will give us great data, or this has been shown to help our kids. I’ve seen parents go to Lexia or Nessy as they are hopeful that a $100/yr program will take the place of a tutor. I’ve seen problems with teaching through a computer program.
Can you help me understand your point more? I want to understand it. Right now I’m really confused about the connection. Which big SoR researchers are promoting going to programs? Who is promoting Amplify? (I honestly have learned that program exists through this blog post.) The dots haven’t connected for me, and if they are connected, I’d like to know rather than make assumptions about how you are drawing your conclusion.
Thank you. And thank you for your dedication to literacy.
Thank you for your civility, and you don’t need to apologize. Heather. I’m not sure you clicked the links.
Many of the programs listed like Amplify, iReady etc. are being purchased by school districts for teachers to use around the country even though a lot of parents and teachers dislike those programs. Most of them support Common Core and a SoR.
Many reading teachers and professors who have studied reading and reading disabilities, and who have taught reading, don’t believe there is a one-size-fits-all perfect reading program. The SoR is controversial. In this post I express concern that it is related to unproven tech programs that are crummy.
Many of the individuals pushing a SoR can be found here in this link doing podcasts for Amplify. Scroll. https://amplify.com/science-of-reading-the-podcast/
I am not opposed to OG but OG in all the years it has been around has no research to indicate it is best. This might be one of the reasons. https://www.understood.org/en/school-learning/partnering-with-childs-school/instructional-strategies/orton-gillingham-research
Also I am not against some use of tech. I think Khan Academy can provide good supplemental help to students, but I don’t think it can totally replace a school or teachers. My post did not refer to Khan.
And I am also as I said before not opposed to phonics. I’m not sure the late Jeanne Chall would be on board for this SoR either.
I got a chance to look through the list of speakers for the Amplify podcasts. Some were familiar names, but most actually were not familiar to me. Without going into more detailed research of everyone’s bio, my first impression was most, not all, of the list, are more on the implementation/reporting side based on research, not the actual researchers.
I think there is a lot to learn about reading from the actual research and careful summaries of it.
I also have been having the feeling for a while that there are many that are jumping on to the SoR bandwagon and promote it as the cure to all things. Tech is one of the vehicles to “cure it all.” It makes me wonder if we can collectively go through stages of grief. Denial at one point, getting angry and yelling at others at another, going to bargain at another as now if we do this it will “fix” things, depression and then acceptance.
I went through those stages with my son’s reading. “Oh, he’ll get it. The teacher says so.” “He has dyslexia and now we can get the right reading program that will take care of it.” Then, eventually, there was the acceptance. The reading program was a better match, but it didn’t magically fix everything. It was still a hard, long road.
Could SoR be in the “Bargaining” stage of grief? Can “Balanced Literacy” be doing something similar? The mixture of denial, anger, bargaining, and depression could make the “Reading Wars” a fiery one indeed if so. I hope we get through to an acceptance stage where the fighting stops.
There are good people on all sides of the issue here.
Thanks for taking the time to answer my previous questions.
This is nice. Thanks for a lovely analysis, Heather. I understand that parents struggle to get their children the services they need. I think your answer about your son is often the reality.
My concern is that a one-size-fits-all program becomes the only program. I fear that program will be technology, and that the so-called research isn’t really that. Take care and stay in touch. I hope your son continues to grow to love and do well reading.
P.S. I want to know where in the chain of the research to the student the “push” for computer programs actually is happening. I don’t doubt that it is happening. Your information may help me figure part of that out.
I hope what I just posted will help. Take care.
What we need to do is get back to good old fashioned REAL phonics. Nancy….have you ever heard of a supposed phonics program called Tapping with Tiles. It looks like the robotic Direct Instruction that is not real education.
Hi Karen, Thanks! That is not a bad idea. If the program worked before, why wouldn’t it work again? I’m not familiar with Tapping Tiles. Nice to hear from you.
The research is clear. Kids need phonics instruction. I have been following Amplify and have been blessed with so much science based information none of which suggested looking at a computer screen or asked me to buy anything. And it is not just about phonics. I’ve learnt so much about reading, the various ways in which reading has been taught and what the science says.
Thank you, Kylie. Unfortunately, I have to disagree and agree. The research that pushes phonics often hinges on the flawed results of the National Reading Panel. Overconfident claims are made based on the NRP.
While phonics is important, it is only one facet of reading instruction. Some children need more phonics than others. To saddle every child who comes to school with an explicit phonics program could drive some children to dislike reading.
I’m unclear what you mean about Amplify. If you are relying on them for science. Amplify is a digital program being purchased by school districts. There’s no research to indicate it works well teaching children how to read.
There’s also concern that phonics is being used too early to introduce children to reading and pushing children to read too soon. There’s no research to indicate this is appropriate.
I was trained in SOR last year and there was absolutely no mention or endorsement of any digital programs, in fact, it was quite the opposite. The messaging throughout my 20 plus days of training was how important a well trained teacher is in the process of teaching reading and how nothing can replace a teacher. Explicit instruction in phonics can only be taught by a teacher, as there really aren’t any digital programs that actually teach using methods based on evidence based SOR methods. If educators are being trained in SOR with the message that there are particular programs to purchase, especially ones that replace the teacher, this is very concerning. When you were trained in SOR, what type of messaging did you receive?
I was trained to teach phonics years ago. My M.Ed. focused on learning disabilities. I taught resource classes for students with learning disabilities in middle and high school, especially in reading at the high school level. I had P.D. in various phonics programs in vogue when I was teaching. I am not opposed to phonics instruction, but am concerned that kindergartners are being pushed to read too early, and are thereby developing reading difficulties.
I also believe children learn with a well-rounded literacy program that focuses on their individual needs.
I am curious, what program do you use, what age level do you teach, and what do you recommend?
The digital concern arose when I realized that some of the advocates for SOR are doing podcasts for Amplify which is a flawed program. You can read about the problems teachers had in Oklahoma with Amplify on my blog. So the digital connection is a concern for me. Scroll down. https://amplify.com/science-of-reading-the-podcast/
Thanks for your comment, Amanda.
Hi Nancy,
I understand your points. I have been doing a lot of reading and listening to podcasts about SOR. I have learned a great deal about what happens in the reading process. Your findings are interesting and you bring up a lot of things to consider. As I read your comments I noticed that you say often that
“we need to stop pushing K to read before they are ready.” I am a product of phonics education (ABEKA) I started learning to read at 4 years old and I have loved reading my enitre life. As an educator I have worked with students who absolutely hate to read. My point is that we cannot put an age limit on when children are ready to read. We just need to introduce them to it and set soft goals for them to reach. I have a collegue that says that children are not developmentally ready to read until eight years old. I don’t understand how this can be true when I have seen children read at many different ages. To conclude my thought, I apply the principle of walking to reading. Toddlers begin walking at different stages, my daughter did not start walking until 13 months my son began walking at 9 months, everyone is different. We should not place our timetables on others let each one develop as they were intended to develop.
Hi Renee. You might want to read my recent post about Jim Trelease and reading aloud to children. Also this https://nancyebailey.com/2014/02/02/setting-children-up-to-hate-reading/
I’m saying that reading instruction for young children has become highly pressured, and children may hate reading in the long run.
I have never said that young children can’t learn to read early when the conditions are right, only that they should not be pressured to do so. There’s a lot of pressure with early reading programs marketed for this purpose and this is the concern.