Americans are getting primed with a trailer for a new documentary called The Truth About Reading. It’s said there needs to be a grassroots movement of parents and educators who are angry and say enough is enough.
Wouldn’t it be better if teachers and parents met and shared their concerns about reading at their schools? Schools do various reading programs that might need review, especially if students have difficulty learning.
The trailer involves half-truths and falsehoods, condemning teachers and public schools for children and adults who fail to read. Some speakers advertise their books and programs.
Adults who can’t read leave unanswered questions.
We hear about adults who never learned to read. Adult illiteracy is concerning, but critical background information about these individuals is missing. What schools did they attend? What reading deficits did they come to school with, if any, how big were class sizes and, were remedial reading classes an option?
We learn most about John Corcoran, the film backer who wrote The Teacher Who Couldn’t Read. He describes in this video about moving around schools as a boy, parents, and teachers who never knew he couldn’t read, his athletic scholarship, and how he became a millionaire realtor and teacher who still couldn’t read.
Corcoran finally learns from First Lady Barbara Bush about literacy programs for adults, gets help, and now he champions children who cannot read.
There’s no mention of how schools and reading programs have changed over the years, including the identification of children with learning disabilities under IDEA.
He’s against calling children learning disabled (I agree), but he disputes learning disabilities, saying he bought into a lie that something was wrong with his brain. He never mentions dyslexia.
Emily Hanford leaves out NCLB’s Reading First.
In the trailer, Emily Hanford, a journalist, who has written about teachers who she and others claim never learned how to teach reading correctly, mentions No Child Left Behind and standardized testing.
She says that NCLB lost track of children in grades K-2 and focused on third grade, but this is incorrect.
NCLB centered on K-3 through Reading First, a scandalous $6 billion (Here’s the critical OIG report), $1 billion per year for six years, a state grant program to implement phonics programs promising scientific evidence.
Phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, and text comprehension were in play, recommendations from the flawed National Reading Panel.
Those behind Reading First promised that these evidence-based reading programs, like today’s Science of Reading, would fix reading problems in children. They added that by 2014 every child would read at grade level.
It’s 2021, and, of course, that never happened.
In Reading First: Scandalous and Ineffective, The Center for Public Integrity summarized that students in schools receiving funds for the program had no better reading skills than children in schools that did not.
The New York Times reported on Reading First with An Initiative on Reading Is Rated Ineffective. Students did better in decoding, phonics, and fluency skills, but there was no improvement with comprehension, a concern.
Reexamine grade proficiency and the expectations of children at each grade level.
The Truth About Reading emphasizes grade proficiency and high-stakes standardized test results showing many children fail to read but are we expecting children to master material beyond their age-appropriate development?
With NCLB, kindergarten is the new first grade, with children pressured to learn to read earlier than ever before!
NCLB, Race to the Top, Common Core State Standards, and the Every Child Succeeds Act has influenced student expectations for years. Who’s reviewing and questioning these standards?
Children have not evolved to where they should be reading earlier than children in the past, including when they’re three years old. But many have pushed down the time and expectations when children should read.
New York City is hiring reading coaches for 3-year-olds. Let that sink in.
The trailer mentions that 1 in 3 students drop out of school but ignores the effects of third-grade retention.
For years third-graders in many states have been retained if they fail their state’s high-stakes standardized test in third grade.
The film ignores the adverse effects of retention, how to provide better reading remediation, and how it is well-known that retained children are more likely to drop out of school later.
There are many serious issues surrounding retention that educators, policymakers, and parents continue to choose to ignore.
They highlight UnboundEd.
They showcase UnboundEd, a nonprofit sponsored by the most corporate reform groups known to de-professionalize the teaching profession.
Their partners include groups that create fast-track teachers and principals and online programs focused on Common Core State Standards. Those groups include:
- Achievement Network (ANet)
- ERS
- Leading Educators
- Instruction Partners
- New Teacher Center
- New Leaders
- Relay/GSE
- Pivot Learning
- Achieve the Core
- TNTP
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and other corporate school reformers sponsor many of these groups.
_________
Many parents and teachers eagerly await this film and will use it to blame public schools and teachers, but if the documentary is like the trailer, it is a biased film that misses the mark.
Reference
Dillon, S. (2008, September 23). An initiative on reading is rated ineffective. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/02/education/02reading.html.
Thank you, Nancy, for filling in some of the missing pieces in this video. When this incomplete information hits the public, classroom teachers, particularly those serving primary grades, reading specialists, and elementary school librarians must be prepared to respond to parents and the media.
We must be prepared with data related to the corporate takeover of teacher preparation and teaching materials and the sharp decline in adequate funding for public schools and educators, including the precipitous loss of fully funded school libraries led by certified school librarians.
Students without access to books in their homes and communities MUST have access to a wide variety of reading materials accessible every school day in their professionally staffed school library. How do we expect students to become readers without librarians and libraries?
Thank you, Judi. All good points! Thank you especially for mentioning school libraries.
Yes school libraries are crucial, and in the rush to teach to the test since NCLB many schools have lost their librarians and libraries. Thank you both!
Nancy, have you seen The Truth About Reading film yet?
No. I have not.
Nancy, would you consider watching The Truth About Reading film I would appreciate it very much.
Dialogue unties knots,
Opens doors,
Resolves conflicts,
Makes persons greater,
Thanks, John Corcoran
John, I watched the trailer. That’s why I wrote the post. I’m wondering if you had time to read it. The groups that were included in the film are mostly nonprofits that are not particularly supportive of public education. I was a long-time reading teacher, and my MEd is in learning disabilities. I worked many years with students who had reading difficulties in a public school system. I strongly support democratic public schools and teachers who study reading and understand corrective reading.
Nancy, yes, I have read your comments about the film “The Truth About Reading” trailer. I have also read a bit about you, I find you to be a person of good will. I’m curious about what people think I would like for you to view the film “The Truth About Reading” and share your honest opinions with me and/or the world about the whole film. Not just the traitor. (1 hour 20 mins.).
Respectably. John Corcoran
,,
Go ahead and send the film, John.
Nancy, thank you. please send an e-mail address I will need an e-mail address to send the link.
Nancy, did you receive the link to The Truth About Reading film?
For the record: I think we need to stop blaming teachers for our illiteracy crisis. We need to properly train them..
The key to teaching a child, teen or an adult how to read is proper instruction..
I don’t BLAME my parents, my teachers, or the schools that I attended. I am thankful that my prays were eventually answered.. .
I went to school for 35 years, 18 years as student (14 years in public schools) and 17 years
as a public school teacher. Reading at a 2nd grade level. I could not write a complete sentence. I learned to read @48 years old. Pat Lindamood broke the code for me. I am here by the grace of God..
I’m sorry for your situation. But teachers have been teaching children to read for years. I have no idea why you slipped through the cracks. But as a longtime reading teacher who got excellent preparation from my education schools, I tire of that teacher blame, and saying they aren’t trained is a indirect way of blaming them. Like any other profession, there will always be some teachers who don’t do well in their profession. But many more are excellent and are being convinced they failed because they will be replaced by screens.
There are many problems with schools today due to terrible school reforms and groups and individuals who know little about education, public schooling, and how children learn. There are many reasons why children today might have reading problems and they don’t all include teachers not being trained well. Maybe consider that kindergarten is the new 1st grade.
I will be on a taped NPR program today talking about the loss or reduction of school recess, an idea that started in the early 80s. Maybe do a documentary on that!
I will try to look at your documentary, but I’ve written about it once, and unless it’s different from the trailer I will not devote more time to writing about it.
I do wish you all the best, John.
Nancy, I appreciate your time and willingness to dialogue with me. Dialogue helps me untie knots. I also appreciate your wiliness to watch the film.
Today, I am an education reformer and literacy advocate much like you, I’m looking for ways to improve the quality of education, that may be, at times: threatening to the status quo. That is not my intent or desire. What I want is change. I want us to focus on the urgent need to break the cycle of illiteracy in America. Reading is the the most important educational, civil and human rights issue of this decade.
Thanks again, please let me know when you have seen the film. John Corcoran. .
I will. Very best.
There are two types of K-2 teachers.
“I will have your child reading immediately.”
“BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH EXCUSES BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH UNFAIR BLAH BLAH BLAH EXPERIENCE BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH”
Anyways, enough of Nancy’s word vomit. As a parent and certified secondary teacher, I can teach any kid to read in a week with a set of Bob books. Go away and stay away from children. We would have had 2 dyslexic children if I hadn’t caught on to the cultist principal who fired all the teachers at our local school to bring in you whole language nutcases. Once I got our girls to the teachers our older son had, they were reading in 3 days and their self esteems were repaired.
Everyone else, quit wasting your time, the denial is too strong here.
This blog belongs in the dumpster where Columbia just chucked Lucy Calkins, good riddance. Nancy could have been a beacon of hope and light for teachers, but she refuses to be in the “Know better, do better” camp.
Unfortunately, aside from your insults, you are presenting situations with little evidence. I have no way of knowing what problems the children you describe really had, at what ages their problems started, test scores, expectations, and why they were considered dyslexic. This is often the case with those who tell miracle stories. And by the way, I taught plenty of phonics.
Also, if you want to disagree with me, which I welcome, I ask that you be respectful. If you are unable to do that I will not post your comments. As Diane Ravitch says, my blog is like my living room. You’re welcome if you keep the conversation respectful.
Learning to read is more than phonics and until you understand psychology you just won’t understand the nightmare the predictive texts and 3 queuing does to children.
Our little girls were convinced that they were the only ones in the class who couldn’t read when about 80% of them couldn’t read. I raised hell, most of us in the neighborhood switched schools. We all found out our children who were “on level” were way behind when we got to a school with well trained experienced teachers. The public school system lost a few families because of this situation. I simply could not convince them that the teacher makes all the difference, they just didn’t trust the public school system after watching their local school fail due to a Lucy Calkins cultist. You can watch the fall of this school, it is Whittier Elementary in Mesa Arizona. At the end of the next school year the affected kids will take their 3rd grade literacy tests.
We are teachers, we have a brand, and if we avoid ever saying anything negative, we ruin our brand. We had some stuff to clean up in our house and we are doing it, one Mississippi at a time.
A mistake was made lumping K-2 teaching into K-6 certificates…….we screwed up. Time to fix it, or mandate that every single K-2 teacher is dual certified in special education. This will ensure that we have no more K-2 teachers who don’t actually know how to teach kids to read and usher them towards literacy.
Also, your condescending attitude and refusal to validate my experience invokes the most primal and guttural rage inside me. If any parents are struggling out there, I see you, I hear you, there are people who can help you.
Certainly, I understand that reading is more than phonics, and if you read my posts you would know that. Try the most recent one for an example. Predictive texts and 3-queing should NOT be the ONLY methods of reading instruction, and as a reading specialist I understand that. But many children can learn from those methods combined with other instruction. Every child deserves a personal evaluation to see where they are with reading and what they need.
I’m sorry your daughters had difficulties in school. Children should NEVER feel humiliated. I’m a parent too and had disagreements with some of my child’s teachers. But once again, and I’m not trying to be condescending, but I don’t know what grade your daughters were in or what parents expected for the age-level. I am concerned that expectations for young children have been pushed down. The Univ. of Virginia, and I talk about this often, did a study years ago stating the K is the new first grade. What tremendous pressure that must place on children. Formal reading used to always start in first grade.
So today I read that there are more children in special ed. than ever. Why?
I also look at school reform. There’s been an effort underway for years, for public schools to be privatized. If children are made to fail the tests than parents will naturally look for alternatives. And I see teachers proclaiming that they don’t know how to teach reading all the time. I think they’re opening the door to be replaced by screens that will collect lots of data on children. Many of the SoR heroes do podcasts for Amplify. Yet there’s little research there other than their own in-house reports. And I have never endorsed Lucy. I don’t know much about her program. Teachers should understand the pedagogy of teaching reading. I’m more concerned now about online instruction and data privacy for children.
I do agree that certification is important and K-2 need different instruction that the older grades.
I understand the dilemma parents face when their children don’t read, it’s why I loved my job as a reading resource teacher. I worked closely with parents. Many were friends. But I found that for my students a variety of reading (and writing) techniques worked well. And my ultimate goal was for them to comprehend and enjoy reading. My district provided PD for every new phonics program. This was years ago. Phonics is overemphasized with SoR, and many of the programs being promoted have little proof of success.
I wish you and your daughters the best.
Pushing reading down means more children will “fail” because they won’t be developmentally reading.
Florida tests kindergarteners on a computer to see if their preschool is teaching them enough. This is madness. Then, when they aren’t at “grade level,” they’re retained in third grade.
And why? In Florida, it’s so we can brag about 4th grade NAEP, and ignore that the scores by 8th grade.
Testing little children online is pretty unbelievable. Kindergarteners are also not very good test takers in general. They are thinking about other things.
Thank you for sharing my perspective on this, Steve.
A good friend of mine is a special education teacher in Florida. Most of her time is spent teaching 4th graders how to read and kick them out of special ed because there is nothing wrong with them. She’s so annoyed at how little of her time actually goes to the kids who really have a disability. She had a good laugh when she saw them teaching her children with 3 queueing and predictive text books.
Get on youtube and search “purple book literacy” if you’re unfamiliar with the books.
I appreciate this reply, thank you for taking the time to explain everything. I think the predictive text books are the biggest problem and that while teaching phonics is important, it’s really the controlling them that makes sure no one gets left in the dust.
Our son’s class basically had 3 groups. Those who knew how to read already, those who knew their letters and sounds, and those who didn’t know their letters yet. The ones who knew their letters and sounds were reading before Christmas with little to no effort and Bob Books as homework. The rest were all reading before the end of the year.
With our daughters there were 2 groups……those who were taught to read before kinder and those who weren’t. Our girls knew their letters and sounds, but still failed miserably with the Scholastic version of the predictive text and 3 queueing. Of course they were still “on level” midway through 1st grade even though they couldn’t read when we finally pulled them and sought out our son’s teacher to help them.
Our experience was just like the youtube purple videos
Hi, again Thomas,
I’m curious about your son’s grade if you don’t mind sharing. Your daughters sound like they had some children in K who already knew how to read for whatever reasons, which is typical; however, many Ks are not reading well yet and that’s o.k. too. It doesn’t mean they’re deficient.
You say they were still not reading well in first grade but were “on level.” I’m not sure what you were expecting, and I’m not sure how they were reading, but first grade has always been where children learned to read, and probably, I’m guessing, they were not doing as badly as you assumed. There are children who continue to improve their reading skills and are reading well by 3rd or 4th grade. First grade is very early.
I am concerned about the current emphasis on 3rd grade which never used to be seen as so drastic. It’s true that if children are still struggling by third, there may be some issues to address, but politically this grade level has become much too serious, especially with the use of retention, which has much research to show it’s unnecessary.
Now, I don’t know how bad the Scholastic program was, and perhaps they needed something more or different, but really, I don’t see a problem with children who are not reading fluently mid-first grade. I think parents get nervous when the early precocious readers come through the K door, but usually reading abilities even out for children a little later.
Regarding the video you shared, I turned it off when they showed a report by Karen Vaites. Karen is an entrepreneur, not a reading specialist or educational or psychological researcher. That said, some of the pictures in the intro were somewhat confusing. I like to see one word matched with a picture, the exception being books that are engaging like Richard Scarry’s Busy Town picture books. My own child benefited greatly from those books and liked them, although I’m not sure if you daughters are too old to care about them.
There are many older picture books and chapter books like Junie B. Jones series. If it were me, I’d take them to the library or bookstore and let them choose all the books they like including early chapter books with real stories. If you’re already doing this, great, and I’m sorry to suggest it, but some parents get so caught up with the technicalities of reading, especially in this climate, that they may miss the fun part.
The BOB books are fine for instruction, but most children need more interesting picture books to thrive.
These are just my suggestions, and of course if you disagree you’re free to ignore them. I wish your children happy and fruitful reading.
Good Morning Nancy,
Our son is in 4th grade this year and his sisters are in 2nd and 1st. Their names are Lee(turning 10 this month), Mia(turned 8 in June), and Lucy(turning 7 in January).
Learning to read for our son was absolutely effortless, it just happened and all we had to do was keep giving him access to reading material. After his kindergarten year, the new principal pushed every single teacher out of the school and brought in only teachers who were willing to teach 3 queueing in the K/1 combo class. There was one family with children the same ages as us who had all the same experience, but their family always teaches children to read at age 3 because it’s just something they do. It’s just a thing their family does and now I have the skillset to do it, but we aren’t having any more children.
For a year and a half we were told Mia was on level even though she couldn’t read anything and was just guessing. I have no idea what the levels mean either. If it helps, I recall Mia reaching Level L before we pulled her away from these crackpots because we started learning about literacy AND we found out about a bunch of illegal activity by the principal(That’s another wild story, Andrea Sims is a monster). When we got her to the school where our favorite teacher had fled to, it was obvious that Mia was a year and a half behind, it was like she was finally starting Kindergarten. This was when we researched literacy, got some Bob Books and got to work. Mia is now all caught up, Lucy is already reading on a 3rd grade level and Lee reads at a junior high level.
Every night for her was exactly like that video, except that we hadn’t researched literacy at the time. For a year and a half she came home and we made her cry because she was trying so damn hard to memorize, find the pattern, guess at the picture etc. Meanwhile, we couldn’t figure out why she didn’t even seem to look at the letters, she would just guess and look to our faces to see if we smiled or got angry because she was trained to guess at the picture. Just from knowing our children, I know Mia is just like David Chalk. Her spatial awareness and memory is amazing. If I can’t find something around the house, I just ask her, and it won’t be long before I find it. For a year and a half we saw our happy girl get darker and quieter as she began to feel like more and more of a freak. We had a big parent group in our old neighborhood and we were all worried because something wasn’t right. Those of us who had children with the old teachers were just light years ahead of the ones with the new teachers. We have a large Spanish population in our area, so we had ESL and Covid all masking the problem, so it took us a little while to catch on that it was the instruction.
Now I understand our misunderstanding, you’ve never seen these types of books. These are specifically made for this teaching style. Please watch the purple videos to know EXACTLY what we went through. The little girl in that video sounded just like our Mia who we kept accusing of making up words, guessing, being lazy, etc. because we had no idea she was told NOT to sound words out. It was bonkers.
It was seeing the purple videos, hearing sold a story, and this video by a random teacher in Australia that gave us the knowledge and advocacy to switch schools in February. Most families waited until summer, but not us, so it is right now that they are coming to us saying “OMG, everything is going so smoothly now at their new school, it’s night and day difference”.
Here is that random video that will show you these distinct style of books. They are definitely not the normal children’s books like you’re thinking of as picture books. I’m looking at a video of a busy town book and it looks amazing, I love it, our daughter would love to read it now.
I’m sorry your daughters seemed to have had a rough start, but it sounds like all your children are on the road to reading success. I have to agree that the material and directions given by the teachers in the videos, especially the recent one, seem weird.
However, I could only find good write-ups about the principal you mentioned, and the school, so I am a little confused there.
Oh yea, there isn’t anything public about the principal, she was quietly removed and an interim principal put in place a few weeks ago after she was investigated for all kinds of things. I was just giving you the information so you can keep an eye on Whittier as those affected grades reach Arizona testing ages. The interim principal is a very well known and liked retired principal who came out of retirement to help for a year, so I really hope she’s able to turn everything around along with help those affected grades(the current 1st and 2nd graders).
I’m sorry about the misunderstanding about what a “picture” book is. These predictive text 3 queueing books are awful storylines with uncontrolled phonics and pictures that make it too easy to guess at without knowing what is actually going on. Dolphins like swimming……whales like swimming……repeat ad nauseum. Part of the curriculum is the teacher reading it to the class first for every book so every kid is hyper attuned to memorizing the pattern instead of actual decoding.
Being able to use text to predict what’s happening is a critical comprehension skill of course, but what I saw was confusing. I’m afraid many underestimate a child’s abilities and give them strange exercises that are dull and confusing.
I wonder why they’re keeping the principal’s problems silent. But I guess time will tell.
Don’t worry about the misunderstanding. Reading has become a heated topic, especially when parents become upset with their schools. There’s so much pressure on children and strange ideas and programs floating around. There are also a lot of alternative teaching programs. Sometimes it might be hard to know what the teacher’s background includes.
Nancy, what happen to my reply to your last post? Pease post it. Are you willing to watch the film The Truth About Reading? If you are willing to witch the film please let me know and I will send your a link to it. thanks, John
John, I went back and looked and could not find it. I post all comments unless they are inappropriate. I think the film from what I saw in the trailer is pretty negative about public education and reading, so I don’t think I want to watch it. I’m sorry about your difficulties reading, but I’m not sure if you attended public schools and what exactly happened. I’m happy you got the help you needed.
Nancy, Happy Thanksgiving! Have you seen The Truth About Reading film yet? You should have received the link to the film about 30 days ago. May I hear from you. John Corcoran
Yes, we need libraries and books for kids to read but how do we expect kids to read when they are not taught to decode?
When is ‘No kids left behind’ going to be a reality?
Teachers have been teaching phonics for as long as I can remember. The idea that decoding is something new is not true. Read about Reading First. One more time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Lan72cVDRg
Great, now I see my comment and let us have a debate/discussion with an intent to learn from one another.
If teachers have been teaching phonics for as long as you can remember then why is it that the % of kids leaving school as illiterates is still high?
There are many variables as to why children have difficulties learning to read. But phonics has been around for a long time. I taught phonics to students with disabilities in a resource class of small numbers. But now many students are in general ed. classes with 30. Some children with auditory processing difficulties don’t do well with phonics. Every child needs to be carefully evaluated as to why they aren’t doing well in reading.
There’s also concern that children are being pushed to read too early. Kindergarten is now the new first grade. You can check on my blog about this. There’s an actual study.
Thanks for commenting, Michel.
I listened to George Hruby’s video a number of times. I wrote to him in January and again in September this year. Among the number of questions I had asked which were not responded to are:
George Hruby:
Reading difficulties are not inevitable, permanent, or, as some have claimed, “incurable.” In fact, researchers such as Frank Vellutino and Donna Scanlon have shown that instruction that is targeted to the specific needs of individual students can significantly reduce the incidence of reading difficulties.
Luqman Michel
Why targeted to the specific need of individual students and not to all students? As far as teaching kids to decode is concerned, don’t keep saying that one size does not fit all.
…..
Teach all kids the correct pronunciation of phonemes and that will reduce the number of kids classified as dyslexic.
Yes! Pronunciation! The ‘schwa” is a pile of baloney. It is only lazy speech. Teach correct pronunciation and children will be able to read.
I taught in college for 45 years. Many of my students could read but didn’t read or liked to read.
Thank you, Nancy! “What they leave out” is impossible for people without background knowledge to detect. I will save this entry and share it with my teacher ed colleagues and students.
I appreciate that Carrie, Thank you!
Thank you. Continue to push back on kindergarten is the new first grade. Here in Florida, children are tested early in their kindergarten year — on a computer! — to assess their pre-K learning and punish the “bad” pre-K schools.
Thanks, Stephen. That kind of assessment in kindergarten is hard to believe.
Same in Idaho!
I continue to believe that the motivation for these films are chiefly monetary. Stir up another why can’t Johnny read controversy so that we can sell some snake oil.
People will learn to read when they have secure and stable situations wherein they learn to love to read. Barring that, no one will learn anything.
I agree with your last paragraph, Roy, and part of the first.
But I think there’s a darker motive, a drive to replace teachers with screens, end professional teaching and public schools altogether. Privatizing public schools has been the objective for years.
But the secure and stable environment is right on. Thank you!
The “drive” is made clear; students need to learn how to read. That is what kids go to school to learn. To read. Data is clear; A large percentage of the nation’s children are not reading proficiently. Teachers are not being prepared in many programs to teach all the foundational reading skills in a way science indicates brains learn how to read. That is why so many state laws have been passed to increase teacher knowledge of reading. Many teachers don’t know what they don’t know , particularly about dyslexia nor how to remediate reading struggles, leaving students and families struggling to get help. The fact teachers aren’t prepared to help students pushes districts to find solutions that are computer base and companies ready to fill that need – heard of Amira? If districts don’t have appropriate solutions families move children out of district to help their children learn to read. That’s what this story is about. It chooses not to mention 3rd grade rentention, because it’s not the issue of the film.
Thank you for your comment and opinion, Sam, but I must disagree. Teachers have been teaching children to read for years. And they have worked hard to better understand children with disabilities since 1975 and the passage of the All Handicapped Children Act.
The current claim to criticize teachers is meant to privatize public education and deprofessionalize the teaching profession. For proof simply look who’s doing the advertising in the trailer.
And third grade retention should be mentioned because it is a serious problem for children expected to pass a reading test in third grade. One test! The research is clear this is problematic.
The trailer and I’m assuming the film, also looks to leave out MUCH history. It’s therefore biased and has an agenda.
Why isn’t anyone doing a documentary of schools that have removed school libraries and librarians? There’s research to show the importance of school libraries it too.
Nancy, the science is clear on how to teach kids to read. For the past 30 years, a whole language approach has taught kids to read by memorizing with no reliance on the smallest units of sound in the word. The result has created millions of adults that struggle with reading and spelling. The National Reading Panel got it right. The problem is that so many colleges of education never got the message and don’t want to get the message which continues to perpetuate this problem. Your blog misses the mark.
I appreciate your comment, but I’m afraid I have to disagree. Phonics has not been missing from the curriculum. My third grade class in the late 50s did phonics, and I worked with children student teaching in the 70s with phonics. Please read about Reading First which focused on phonics. Students learned to sound out words but they couldn’t comprehend what they read!
The NRP didn’t get it right. Please read the writings of Joanne Yatvin who was a panel participant. There were many problems and why I wrote a post calling for a NEW National Reading Panel. I hope the following is available to you.
https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/opinion-i-told-you-so-the-misinterpretation-and-misuse-of-the-national-reading-panel-report/2003/04
I find the SoR alarming and it doesn’t address the massive push to make children read earlier than ever. It is definitely not settled science.
As a reading resource teacher, my district pushed phonics years ago. It helped students but so did reading out loud and a variety of reading activities.
Last, this is my favorite. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Lan72cVDRg
Nancy,
Help me understand where this teaser video conveys anything, at all, about criticizing teachers, privatize public education, or deprofessionalize teachers. It seems you have made many assumptions that simply are not true.
I have been working-pro Bono- on this project since day one. As for funding, it is 100% grassroots, from people not connected to the film in any way. Donations are not from anyone interviewed. No instructional method, company, or organization is being promoted. All of that is very purposeful so the director and his team are influenced by what the learn through their research and interviews.
As you state in your comment, you are assuming many things. They are off the mark., as is often the case with assumptions.
Nick, the producer and director, would love to interview you for the film so you can share your insights and help educate him. Please let me know if you are interested and I will connect you with the story producer for the film.
Thanks for your reply, Nora.
I used the word assuming referencing the rest of the film, which we haven’t seen.
When it is said, “across the country children are not being TAUGHT to read” it appears the reference is teachers. Many veteran teachers are uncomfortable in the way they’re portrayed as failing to teach students the Science of Reading.
Hi Nancy,
Thanks for that clarification. I expect (assume!) you and I could agree that many students (and adults) are not proficient readers to the degree that they easily and fully participate in a literate world. Many people struggle to read and suffer from it daily.
This is a problem. Does there have to be blame assigned or is it possible to look at this as a problem that would benefit from working together for a solution? Should we blame the learners? The parents (‘If you read to your child she would be able to read’ I was told – and she’d been read to extensively from birth)? The teachers? Balanced Literacy? Science of Reading? Phonic? 3 cueing? Politics? Greed? Power? Every one of these aspects could be assigned some degree of blame I suppose (on this comment thread apparently the parents are to blame). What good does blame do? Blame is a slippery slope and a worthless endeavor that serves to suck up endless time and energy while leaving the situation unchanged. The goal of this film is multi-faceted and continues to evolve as the production crew learns more. However, I can assure you that assigning blame will not be any part of it.
On the list to be filmed is a principal from Missouri (as of this year she is now a superintendent in Wisconsin) whose state scores went from 13% proficient 5 years ago to 100% proficient last year. Most were highly proficient, including Special Education students, and this was in the midst of a Covid year. This type of rapid progress is possible, so why aren’t more schools and districts doing it? It seems that most don’t think it is possible. Let’s fix it, by teaching them (meaning both the teachers and the students) in a way that works most effectively and efficiently.
Enough blame. Enough posturing. Enough ‘I’m all right and you’re all wrong’. When we all work together toward a solution then anything is possible. It is the goal of this film – all children and teachers are deserving of that effort.
It sounds like interviews are still be conducted for this film; is that right? If so, I recommend (along with Nancy!) that the filmmakers get in touch with Paul Thomas of Furman University, Susan O’Hanian (google her), Jeff McQuillan (Backseat Linguist), and Stephen Krashen, professor emeritus of USC.
Hi Carrie,
Yes, interviews are still being conducted. Thanks for sharing these recommendations. It would be great to connect with these people you suggested. Do you have contact information for any/all of those you listed? Getting an email intro helps expedite the process of moving forward. Would you please email me-Nora@ebli.com,with your response?
As someone with an undergraduate in elementary and special Ed and a masters in Literacy I was never really taught to teach my students to read. I knew nothing about syllable types or phonological awareness…. The “agenda “ is 60% of students in this country are not readers and something needs to change. Emily Hanford’s documentaries go into detail about the history and concerns you raise and I believe she does a beautiful job explaining this in a non-biased way. I suggest you all read her research as well as reading the “Knowledge Gap.”
Neither Hanford nor Wexler are educators and while they might do research and make some good points, they are not practitioners. Nor do all universities teach reading the same way. There have been changes however to college education programs. I’m not sure where you went to school but special ed. programs used to offer MEds in learning disabilities where reading instruction was a prominent feature.
I also suggest you review the controversial Reading First scandal. Phonics has not been missing from the curriculum.
I fear teachers are doing themselves a grave disservice by telling the world they never learned how to teach reading. It makes teachers look unprofessional. I’m wondering what university you attended that didn’t teach you how to teach reading.
I believe the SoR proponents are getting desperate as there is much opposition to their tactics.
Privatizing public schools IS monetary.
Thanks for your comments, Carrie. Much appreciated.
I administered every grade 8 ELA exam under both NCLB (NYS standards) and RTTT/ESSA (CC standards) – and I read every one of them. The Common Core standards and companion exams (SBAC, PARCC, Pearson, Questar) DO NOT test basic reading comprehension. Using these test scores to pass judgement on basic reading ability of children and young adolescents is and act of abject fraud.
For proof, look no further than student scores on the federally mandated science exams in elementary and middle school (grades 4 and 8). Compare them to Common Core ELA scores and hope your brain does not implode from the cognitive dissonance. In my district ELA passing rates were about 33% compared to 67% in science. That makes no sense unless you were privy to the actual ELA tests produced by vague and highly subjective CC standards. Subjective standards cannot be tested in an objective MC format, yet that is precisely what kids are up against.
What crummy tests. SoR fans ignore CC and the tests. Common Core dominates so many curriculum programs.
School boards need to evaluate these tests and online programs to see the harm they’re doing.
Thank you, Rick. I hope others read this comment.
“Using these test scores to pass judgment on basic reading ability of children and young adolescents is and act of abject fraud.”
.
Have you seen the 2018 NAEP Oral Reading Fluency report? https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/subject/studies/pdf/2021025_2018_orf_study.pdf
And do you realize the many variables that could be the cause of questionable test scores? I studied reading remediation and was a reading resource teacher who also taught a lot of what’s being pedaled as the Science of Reading. Maybe this will help.
https://nancyebailey.com/2019/03/20/reasons-children-have-reading-problems-that-corporate-reformers-dont-talk-about/
I couldn’t agree more, Nancy. I am so curious about what the “Science of Reading” will look like in public schools. I want our schools to improve and I believe in public schools. I’m a private tutor because my disabilities prevent me from working in a high-stress environment anymore. It gives me an interesting perspective. I work with homeschoolers whose parents generally believe in letting children learn things when they’re ready. Of course, they ask me about developmental norms and when to be concerned. But other than that, we move forward at a pace that feels challenging but not overwhelming to the child. Some kids are reading before they are five, and no one has taught them anything formally. Some kids are starting to read basic phonetic readers coming up on age 7. But I’ve never had anyone over 7 and still not reading. I try to analyze the weak points for each student, not with assessments, but by noticing error patterns when they read. One student I have now was struggling to sound out words sound-by-sound. By the time she got to the end, she had forgotten the first two sounds! (Working memory issue?) I taught her to look at chunks instead, so instead of c…a….t – sit?? She would read c….at – cat! Another good reason to lower class size even more in the primary grades. There isn’t one method or one problem that can be the magic bullet to solve all reading problems. Teachers need time with their students in very small groups or even one-on-one to help resolve these issues. Special Ed and remediation also play a part as kids get older and continue to struggle.
Thank you, Beth. Lowering class size is so important, especially in the early years. These are excellent points! I certainly agree.
I’m sorry to say, but your practices will not turn those readers who struggle with blending into proficient readers by 4th grade. If anything, the way in which you are instructing them will be detrimental to their reading success, most especially when they teach 3rd-4th grade and are expected to begin that fine line transition from learning to read, onto reading to learn. Have you studied the actual science? I’m referring to the most recent functional brain scans of children. Comparing the brains of a student who is progressing well given direct and explicit instruction in tier 1, versus a student who not responding well to tier 1 instruction only. The results show how 8 weeks of appropriate/ intensive intervention aligned to structured literacy practices has now shown that this student’s brain and its neural pathways are developing and becoming stronger, when beforehand this was not evident in the scan.
Teaching chunks is counterproductive if the child doesn’t solidly know and understand the alphabetic principle and all 44 phonemes and corresponding graphemes. In fact, students who are given research and evidence based instruction in their tier 1 program and who do not have significant learning differences will begin to develop “chunking” naturally as they begin to orthographically map words and word patterns to their visual word form area of the brain. With appropriate structured literacy instruction and multiple practice opportunities, and instruction in fluency to enhance the accuracy, automaticity and prosody during appropriate reading tasks, this process of orthographic mapping takes place in the brain. This process is absolutely not due to teaching random chunking, word families , or glued sounds. By teaching that way, all you’re doing is clogging up more of a child’s cognitive brain space by requiring that they now memorize more than the 44 phoneme/grapheme representations. Please study extensively and do legitimate research before making claims about the EVIDENCE that is The Science of Reading. Find peer reviewed research articles and journals with science to back your claims instead of merely working off of opinion and your specific experience.
Did the students you work with actually ever have stand out learning differences or challenges learning to read the words? Or was this just a time filler for parents who were able to afford this added luxury. They’re wasting their money if their goal is to get their kids to acquire the brain processes required in learning to read accurately and automatically. There’s also such a thing as over compensating, most especially in the younger years when children learn to memorize various words, and they ‘appear’ to be these high level readers. Have you followed all of these children up into 4th grade and behind to see how they fared with reading and writing at the upper and middle school levels? It’s quite alarming how many students hit a wall, and fail miserably. WHY, might you ask? Well, it’s because we never actually taught these kids HOW to read any word that’s put in front of them. We allowed them to “move at their own pace” without doing any screening measures and without comparing them to national norms. We decided that our informal observations of them reading was enough for us to prescribe next steps for instruction and ensure that they were acquiring absolutely every necessary skill needed to become a strong reader. This blog and entire thread of people trying to defame The Science of Reading clearly haven’t spent the time trying to learn more about the real and legitimate evidence that has come about from legitimate research that spans over 30+ years, and continues to be conducted to this day.
There’s an overwhelming amount of research to unpack. There’s no way most people will ever be able to learn it all. It’s a constant learning process for educators and professionals. If you’re not willing to put in the work and grit required to ensure that we get every child reading at a level of proficiency in ALL AREAS, not just one, then it’s very difficult to take anything that you say truthfully and seriously. We don’t know what we don’t know. I’ve been there before and I’m still there now. But I’m highly motivated to now start learning and knowing what I didn’t know before, because the work that I’ve done so far with my students has simply amazed me (working in a large very poor inner city district, not frills or butterflies).
Public schools across the country are already implementing SOR aligned approaches and practices, have you read or researched anything about that??? And guess what, those areas implementing structured literacy with fidelity, ones that have high expectations and high levels of support for their teachers have seen tremendous improvement and growth in their state’s reading proficiency rates across the board. I just don’t understand how people can argue with science. Most especially science that they’ve never even taken the time to dive deep into.
I was a reading resource teacher and I taught at the time (I am now retired) what’s being pushed as the SoR with district PD in all the latest programs. My undergraduate work involving elementary education also provided a heavy background in reading including corrective reading. My M.Ed was in teaching students with learning disabilities an actual credentialling title. My school district had PD involving the latest reading programs promising student success, also involving MUCH phonics and fluency etc. I taught these programs and other instructional programs as well.
You might want to pick up a book about teaching phonics.
I suggest reading up on the problems involving the NRP. Check on the reviews of Joanne Yatvin, who was the only real educator on the panel. They had NO early education teachers on that panel which is unbelievable to me.
The NCTQ is an astroturf group backed by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and others like them who would like to see an end to public ed. and the teaching profession. So I see where you are coming from.
Yes, I have done the research and I have called for a new NRP that looks at ALL the research since the old panel left out a lot. There are many like me with reading and research backgrounds who don’t buy into the SoR.
Here’s one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Lan72cVDRg
You might also read the work of Stephen Krashen and Paul Thomas for starters. Many researchers are concerned about reading programs and what is happening across the country with the push for very young children to read before they’re ready and the reduction of reading instruction to online reading skills.
You say, “Comparing the brains of a student who is progressing well given direct and explicit instruction in tier 1,”
How are teachers doing this? Please provide where you got this, what paper you’re citing.
Thank you.
Wow! Christie. I have been looking for someone like you who knows about science. I have been saying for the past decade that consonants should not be taught with extraneous sounds as that is the main cause of kids shutting down/ disengaging from learning to read.
Kids are blamed for being unable to blend but the kids I taught told me that they were unable to blend because of extraneous sounds.
Timothy shanahan has asked me for evidence i.e. he wants research reports to say that consonants should not be taught with extraneous sounds. Would you be able to help, please?
My thanks to Diane Ravitch.
https://dianeravitch.net/2021/10/18/nancy-bailey-the-truth-about-reading-isnt-true/
Nancy, did you see the whole film or just the trailer?
I only saw the trailer as I say. Has the film been released?
The movie is still being produced.
It is important to hear all sides of a debate. Learn more about what the science tells practitioners. Join the Facebook group, Science of Reading-What I Should Have Learned in College. https://www.facebook.com/groups/704498996666615
I believe the debate is one-sided. I already belong to that group but disagree with much that is stated there so I don’t comment. “What I should have learned in college” implies that teachers don’t know what they’re doing and that’s a dangerous message.
I am the first to admit the name of the group is condescending. The group was created out of frustration. What it implies is that colleges of education need to be including evidenced based practices into their training and many continue to ignore these practices leaving teachers with little resources and knowledge to help struggling readers. This FB group continues to grow exponentially because there are many teachers that feel ill equipped to address the needs of all learners.
That’s a general statement but universities aren’t all the same. What colleges and what are they ignoring? This claim that universities are not teaching teachers how to teach reading correctly is vague and it makes parents distrust teachers.
What I am saying is that colleges and universities are ignoring the 40 plus years of brain research the teaches us how the brain takes in information, processes it, and how to optimize learning for students. It is definitely not the teachers fault that the are not getting this information but the colleges of education. In addition, teachers are using materials that have been officially reviewed by Ed Reports (F and P and Lucy Calkins) as not meeting expectations or as inadequate. Not sure what the official rating is called. This is a combination that causes teachers to have little recourse on what to do when students struggle.
Here again, I simply disagree. What schools? Are you certain there’s no discussion about the brain? I’m not sure what colleges teach teachers about reading these days, and maybe they’ve changed, but I know when I was a student, and I was in the special ed. area we talked quite a bit about the brain when it came to language and learning disabilities.
It is also troubling to me and I have not used F and P or Calkins materials, but I do know many children that have benefited from at least F and P. Reading Recovery is also often criticized and I know parents who thought it worked well for their children.
Saying it isn’t the teachers’ fault is irritating too. It is a step away from gaslighting. Teachers are facing huge classes, where are the SoR folks on that? Or the push to get children reading in K?
I don’t mean to argue, Donna. I appreciate your comment. I just am tired of the reading criticism and the idea that there’s one perfect way to teach it.
Nancy, I would love to have an open discussion on this topic. This forum is not conducive to doing that. If you are interested let me know .
The truth of the matter is that TEACHERS DON’T KNOW WHAT THEY’RE DOING. At least a very vast majority do not. This is coming from a Public School teacher for the last 13 years. This is coming from a teacher who was never not once taught a single tidbit about phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, oral language and comprehension in my university studies, a University with whom took pride in being known as an “Education” school. I get sick even talking about it! I spent thousands of dollars only to NOT be prepared whatsoever for instructing children based on scientific research and evidence based practices. Additionally, the hundreds of educators I’ve had the pleasure of working with the last several years have willingly and outwardly expressed that this crucial information pertaining to the explicit, direct and sequential steps that need to be implemented in order to build strong and successful readers was NEVER mentioned in their programs. For starters, the state schools in PA. My alma mater, West Chester University,… nope. Not adequate in training and preparing us for the monumental task of teaching America’s future ways in which to develop and build strong skills in reading and writing. Kutzttown, East Stroudsburg, Cabrini College, LaSalle University, Holy Family University and the list doesn’t end! I have yet to meet a fellow educator who can truly say that any of this Science was embedded in their coursework, Practicum experiences or studies in general. I ask you to prove me wrong and find me evidence that the majority of universities HAVE done a great job at preparing us and HAVE included legitimate scientific research into their teacher prep programs. Reviews have been done on this very subject. The NCTQ reviewed over 1,000 teacher training institutions that offer courses in reading instruction. Only 29% of the institutions required coursework pertaining to 4 or 5 if the essential components instruction (PA, Phonics, Vocabulary, Fluency, Comprehension) identified by the NRP (2000). 59% of the schools addressed 2 or fewer of those essential components- taking into consideration all relevant courses offered by the institution. Furthermore, 78 percent of the schools were deemed inadequate in providing preparation for teaching “struggling readers” which in idea students with learning disabilities and with learning differences.
Yep, sounds very familiar to me. Again I wasted thousands to gain nothing, and ended up spending my first 4 years of teaching completely lost and in the dark. I knew I didn’t know how to teach them, but I didn’t know how to get the support or training needed to fix or change that. I almost quit after 3 years, because teaching just didn’t make sense to me. The way we were being told to teach reading did not add up. I didn’t see progress that I expected to. I was encouraged to use these decoding strategies everyday during small group “ Let’s memorize the pattern in this book. It will help us learn how to read.” What a complete joke! Still, I get so angry at what I COULD have been learning versus what my district chose to train me and 10,000+ other teachers in. We were told 20 minutes a day MAX for phonics, spelling and word work. I knew this wasn’t right. Comprehension in small group was shoved down our throats. Our district hired and paid millions of not BILLIONS of dollars for CLI to come into our buildings and provide us with Early Oteract Coaches. This decision was the worst mistake they could have made. Truly, a WASTE of millions. The entire model was based around balanced literacy. Oh those Beannie baby posters, the daily 5 where kids basically sat and did nothing because what they really needed was more explicit and direct instruction so that they could actually read books that were put in front of them. But no! 20 minutes a day and that’s it. The whole “let’s sprinkle in some phonics” idea that is frighteningly dangerous. If it were not for all of this credible research, if it were not for these very people who have taken the time to kindly respond to your assumptions and your comments based merely on what other people have told you or what other people have “thought”, those are the true and most genuine of trainers, or pure advocates for real change in regards to real crisis happening all over. They are the kindest and most accepting of people who are the legitimate experts; and who want nothing more than to give every single person a real opportunity, a real chance to reach the highest levels of reading proficiency. The Matthew Effect is alive and well. Us teachers see it everyday in one way or another.
Us teachers also know very well that this ISN’T our faults. We signed up for this and we paid thousands of dollars to put the trust of our development as pre-service teachers into the hands and laps of so called “experts”, only to find years later that we got played, or scammed so to speak. The men and women behind this documentary have never once implied that the reading crisis falls in the shikdeds of the teachers. In fact, I personally feel as though they sympathize with us in that we were cheated out of the education that we should have been given and that we had ever right to receive. This is far more complex than a teacher problem. It’s a money problem. It’s an ego problem. It’s a POWER problem. It’s a problem at the local, state and National levels and one that teachers have absolutely ZERO control over. Please do not lump all of us into your category of thinking, because it’s highly inaccurate. I encourage you to have those very important conversations with both Nora and Donna who have willingly offered to discuss your concerns and assumptions in greater detail. Hopefully you will soon begin to realize that the impression you have of those men and women behind the documentary “The Truth About Reading” couldn’t have been further from the truth in their intentions.
Could you send me the citation that goes with the following statements: 1) that 78 percent of the schools in America were inadequate in providing preparation for teaching struggling readers; and 2) that half of Black and Hispanic 4th grade students cannot read at a basic level.
Thanks, Ruth. Good questions.
Christie, I couldn’t agree more. The truth about reading from Nancy’s blog should be the true about reading according to Nancy Bailey. No, she won’t come to the table to discuss. Several in the balanced literacy arena were asked to be interviewed and declined. What I can’t understand is the resistance to accepting scientific studies and refusing to come to the table as Nancy suggested be done.
I say, set up the meeting. We will be there.
I’m calling for a new National Reading Panel that looks at all the research, not a biased group intent on making a documentary. The last panel failed to be inclusive and didn’t have any early childhood teachers. They didn’t look at enough research either. You might want to read the writings of Joanne Yatvin who was on the panel.
Does the science say that pre-k and kindergarten students should be reading?
Or does it say some current practices are developmentally inappropriate.
Children will learn to read when all the pre-reading skills are in place which includes good receptive and expressive language and phonological and phonemic awareness and the alphabetic principle. And like learning any new skill, there is a range of what is considered to be in the normal range to acquire skills. If that happens in the pre-K years that is fine; if it is later that is fine as well. As long as the child has the necessary skills needed to become a reader.
That’s certainly my understanding of the science. However, that’s not the practice. Reading instruction keeps being pushed earlier and earlier.
I absolutely agree, Stephen. Thank you for pointing this out. It is troubling.
That may be the case. But that’s because it’s being pushed by completely separate entities and those who have no knowledge or who do not support the science. The CCSS need to be more clear. Teachers are being forced by admin to get 5 year olds writing sentences before they can even form an alphabet letter. This is NOT what The Science of Reading is about. Maybe if more decision-makers and Instructional Leaders took the time to acquires knowledge base for what SOR and structured literacy IS about, these demanding and inappropriate expectations would diminish greatly. Know better, do better, and it must start from the Leadership and those making reservations critical decisions for us.
I disagree and so do many others. Other entities? I never see anyone from the SoR camp speak about overpushing early reading instruction. It’s all about selling programs.
Nancy thats not entirely accurate when you say, SOR “is all about spelling programs” and shows your lack of knowledge of what SOR camp is trying to do, which is help teachers understand all the different components of the SOR. The components that as educators were never taught in college. There are many strands all which work together and build on each other. I have never met anyone that was truly knowledgeable about the science who expected a 4 year old to read.
I have been kicked out of a number of SoR FB pages for asking relevant questions.
What about you and your colleagues commenting on my posts at http://www.dyslexicfriend.com
All your posts will be allowed and responded to.
I wanted to share this podcast of an interview with the documentary team, including the producer/director Nick Nanton. There is information about funding sources and the unfolding of the project. It will help clear up some misconceptions about the film, which is still under production.
https://www.literacypodcast.com/podcast/episode/4c33939a/ep-84-the-truth-about-reading-documentary-team-back-again?fbclid=IwAR1-fOZbVsugjKviRDXwtN3HmfR0_MeVnt1KpKepAYLz1svd569ImlwR180
I read the paragraph below on Noelle Mackenzie’s blog: https://noellamackenzie.com/2021/09/30/explainer-what-is-the-science-of-reading-sor/ and then in Reading Research Quarterly.
“The science of reading is the latest version of the reading wars brought to national attention by the popular press. The media have asserted a direct connection between basic research and instructional practice that, without sufficient translational research that attends to a variety of instructional contexts and student populations, may perpetuate inequities’ (MacPhee et al, 2020).”
As someone who has been an educator for more than 30 years and served as a classroom teacher, literacy coach, school librarian, and classroom teacher and school librarian educator, this abstract sums up the “reading wars” situation for me. Yes! to Deborah MacPhee and colleagues for their suggestion for more collaboration and conversation rather than conflict.
Thank you, Noelle, for your Explainer!
MacPhee, D., Handsfield, L. J., & Paugh, P. (2021). Conflict or Conversation? Media Portrayals of the Science of Reading. Reading Research Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.384
When are we going to come to the table and discuss reading in America? Everyone wants to blame…or call it a reading war. Cognitive scientists have proven that all children’s brains learn to read the same way. Now it is time to teach children to read. Stop the war, stop the blame, and start looking at the data. We need to say enough is enough, we can no longer teach to the top 35-40 percent of readers. We can do better as a Nation for our students.
When referencing that Reading First didn’t work, read the research https://www.readingrockets.org/blogs/shanahan-literacy/did-reading-first-reveal-phonics-instruction-be-futile
Continue to read the research, seek to understand, and have conversations. Nancy, have you personally reached out to the producers of the movie or to Emily Hanford? Have you had a conversation?
Not everyone believes that how to teach reading is a settled science. You point to Shanahan but look up Reading First on my blog search and you will find contrary reports. You might read some researchers who have spoken out well on this issue. Start with Stephen Krashen and Paul Thomas. Hruby’s video is a good one too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Lan72cVDRg
I do agree that we need to have a new National Reading Panel. The last one didn’t even include teachers on the panel!
I had reached out to Emily Hanford in 2017. She promised to investigate my discovery but never did. My reminders were ignored.
I have written to the producers and awaiting their response.
You may write to me and discuss this matter with me openly here or in my email.
Having taught for over 20 years before stumbling on the science of reading, I must say you seem a little out of touch of what is happening in schools right now. There’s a mish mash of all kinds of programs mixed with different philosophies about the teaching of reading. Most schools are looking for a curriculum that will serve as a silver bullet. We all know that does not exist.
Most schools literacy programs are a mess and structured literacy along with strong systems in place could truly clean up the mess. “The Truth About Reading” is a documentary that needs to be played on repeat for every school in the world.
This idea of SOR pushing kids to read earlier is another misconception floating around. To my understanding, the science of reading can expose them to literacy in a variety of natural ways and when they are ready, why wait? Kids like to play games with words like rhyming or alliteration, they like to listen to bedtime stories and learn about the world, they enjoy singing the alphabet and doing ABC puzzles. If they are interested, might as well teach them. I did it with my own kids. I really wish I learned about SOR when I was in college, but I didn’t. I wish I learned about it when I attended hours and hours of district-provided PD, but I didn’t. Unfortunately, I learned about balanced literacy and sadly it only worked with about 40-50% of my students. (To be honest, anything would have worked with those students.) Thank goodness I found What I Should Have Learned in College-Science of Reading Facebook Page. They connected me to some of the best and most useful professional development opportunities I’ve ever experienced. Have you listened to Margaret Goldberg? She’s currently teaching 1st grade and is not out of touch of what is REALLY happening.
https://youtu.be/nXKTkf4AKQE
I highly encourage you to talk to Donna and connect with others living it. This is urgent and blogs like this just cause more roadblocks. We don’t need anymore roadblocks. A grassroots movement is needed and it’s coming. Please consider learning more before making all these assumptions. Talk to Nora. She is a great resource and is trying her best to create needed changes as well.
I agree about the mish mash of programs. So why do you never hear SoR enthusiasts raising questions about the programs aligning reading to Common Core?
https://nancyebailey.com/2019/06/22/why-is-common-cores-phonics-missing-in-reading-and-dyslexia-discussions/
‘Some children with auditory processing difficulties don’t do well with phonics’. I have known this for some time.
However, the % of kids who have APD is about 1%. The kids leaving school as functional illiterates during the Whole language period as well as the Phonics period is about the same – about 20%. How do we explain this, please?
Where did you get the 1%? Curious. Please provide citations. It helps me to better understand your points.
Regret I can’t find the article that said less than 1% but here is one citation that says 4 to 5 % https://kidshealth.org/en/parents/central-auditory.html
It is generally said that 20% of kids are dyslexic. As such, why are the remaining 15 % unable to read despite phonics being taught.
What do researchers mean by instructional casualties? What have they been instructed wrongly?
One such quote is from Nancy Hennessy who was president of the International Dyslexia Association (IDA) from 2003-2005.
“……even if we settle on a middle number, let us say 10%; that still leaves a lot of children who are not dyslexic, whose brains are not wired any different way, who have reading difficulty.
We are not supporting the learning of our teachers in order for them to do what we are talking about. We still don’t have the capacity nor the will to change what it is that we are doing with reading early on and so consequently unless we make those significant changes we are not only going to lose the dyslexics but I am also concerned about these other children; these other struggling readers.”
Dr.G.Reid Lyon in ‘Children of the code’ said the following:
“Ninety-five percent of those kids are instructional casualties. About five to six percent of those kids have what we call dyslexia or learning disabilities in reading. Ninety-five percent of the kids hitting the wall in learning to read are what we call NBT: Never Been Taught. They’ve probably been with teachers where the heart was in the right place, they’ve been with teachers who wanted the best for the kids, but they have been with teachers who cannot answer the questions: 1) What goes into reading, what does it take? 2) Why do some kids have difficulty? 3) How can we identify kids early and prevent it? 4) How can we remediate it?”
Thank you for the link.
Did you know Reid Lyon once said “If there was any piece of legislation that I could pass it would be to blow up colleges of education.”
Teachers are on the frontlines working with students, not people like Lyon. So it’s hard to trust anything he says. He has always had an agenda.
Also, dyslexia itself is controversial. It is usually described as a brain disorder, but I see parents often arguing against that and claiming dysteachia where teachers have not taught their students correctly.
All of these cases fail to be described well. We don’t know what disabilities children bring to school, or even if their teachers have real credentials from an accredited university. But we do know that more students are included in the testing.
And then there are schools in lousy conditions. Read about why students in Detroit had trouble learning to read. There was an attempt to blame teachers but look further and you’ll find crumbling classrooms in crummy buildings.
Who’s complaining about this? I won’t even get into poor children and lead exposure. Where’s the concern about this?
For the record, Michel, I taught phonics and believe in its importance especially for children with reading disabilities. I just believe that other reading instruction is important too. My students never cared much for phonics. They found it boring.
Thank you for your response. I have had too many blogs where my comments are removed or left unanswered.
I am not a trained teacher and I worked in the audit field until 2004 when a neighbour cajoled me to teach his son to read. His son had completed a year in kindergarten and another year in primary one. I was curious as to why a smart kid was unable to read.
I decided to research this and ended up teaching more than 70 similar kids on a one-on-one basis. I observed them and interviewed them and learned from them the 3 reasons why they had shut down /disengaged from learning to read in English but were able to read in 2 other languages.
The main reason for kids shutting down from learning to read is teachers teaching them the wrong pronunciation of sounds represented by consonants. They get confused and disengage from learning to read and we wrongly lump them as dyslexic. These are instructional casualties. I believe a majority of so-called dyslexic kids are instructional casualties.
In 2010, after 6 years of teaching and researching on this subject, I wrote several articles disputing the more than 35 years old theory that it was phonological awareness deficit that is the cause of dyslexia. That theory was debunked around 2017.
In 2019 I quit teaching kids and started going to schools to make presentations on why kids are able to read in Malay and Han Yu Pin Yin but not in English. (Both languages use the same 26 letters as does English). My talks were well received.
The talks were abruptly ended with the emergence of covid19.
I have since then started helping parents in many parts of the world to teach their so-called dyslexic kids using WhatsApp and Zoom. I have recorded 2 of many such cases on my blog. One is a child in Kenya and one from Victoria, Australia.
I am able to confirm if the kids referred to me are disengaged kids simply by listening to a recording of sounds represented by the letters. I know this sounds incredible but please read one of my posts where I assured a distraught mother I met on Twitter to be able to teach her kid. I heard a recording and knew at once that the kid was a shut down kid.
Please read the post of my Twitter conversation with this Australian mother/teacher at https://www.dyslexiafriend.com/2021/09/tips-to-australian-teacher.html
The above is not an isolated case. I did not teach the kid. I referred her to my lessons on my blog and my YouTube channel which is being used by many parents. They are all free of charge, of course.
Your conversation is interesting, and it is nice that you helped this child. It sounds like he looked up to you and saw you as a mentor.
I found the article at https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fneur.2021.607907/full
It talks about the % being .5 to 1%. But that is not important for our discussion. I like your questioning mind. Perhaps we have something in common.
Thanks. I appreciate your interest in this issue and your research.
Thank you. If you can find a little time to read my current post on http://www.dyslexiafriend.com you may understand a little more about what I have discovered. Unfortunately, many educators cannot accept what I say because they cannot understand why kids can read in 2 languages and yet be classified as dyslexic in English.
How can it be the lack of phonemic awareness?
If more educators are willing to engage in such debates we can end the reading wars.
Good luck to you and stay safe.
Thanks, Michel. You have research and write a lot of blog posts here. I look forward to reading them.
I have responded to several of the points raised here on my blog post this morning at https://www.dyslexiafriend.com/2021/12/the-truth-about-reading-is-missing.html
You are all welcome to comment and I will respond.
Your post is a bit confusing, Michel, and I am not happy about your calling another’s ideas idiotic just because you disagree. But I am posting it because there are some good points.
I also don’t understand the following comment.
“For decades children are leaving school as functional illiterates and educators like Nancy are blind to the fact that kids are unable to read due the teaching of pronunciation of sounds represented by consonants.”
Not sure what you mean but as a teacher who worked with students with reading disabilities I find the comment offensive.
I welcome debate but this borders a bit on disrespectful.
Thank you ma’am. I regret if that has offended you.
Idiotic ideas are ideas expressed in writing that influence others.
Who in his/her right mind will say that teaching sight words to be memorised by rote memory leads to dyslexia? Would you agree with such statements?
A parent with 3 dyslexic kids from Minnesota was keen on following my free-of-charge lessons but decided not to when she found out that her sons had to memorise Dolch words.
Can you imagine the harm done by these so-called educators?
You should read what is written by educators such as Debbie Hepplewhite, Pam Kastner and many others who say that Dolch words should not be taught by visual memory. Do you know of anyone at all who teachers Dolch words to be memorised visually?
If those are not idiotic statements then nothing is.
Nancy, the main reason kids are leaving school as functional illiterates is because of consonants being taught with extraneous sounds.
I urge you to have a zoom meeting where I can explain in detail and answer any and all questions you may raise based on what I say.
All I am interested in is in reducing illiteracy.
Sorry for having been disrespectful.
I have been at this for more than a decade and educators are not reading before they respond and that is upsetting.
Hello Nancy, just a short note, on your comment above: “Your conversation is interesting, and it is nice that you helped this child. It sounds like he looked up to you and saw you as a mentor.”
To date, I have not uttered a word to that child. I have not spoken to the mother either. The discussion was only via Twitter and my only means of assessing the child was the recording of the letter sounds.
May you have a happy and healthy 2022.
I’m concerned about so many comments on this thread which demonstrate the disconnect between education and research.
NCLB was replaced by ESSA.
As of NAEP 2021, only 1 in 4 students reads Proficient, Only 1 in 7 Black or Brown students reads on grade level. interpreted as grade level. 4th, 8th, and 12th grades are measured. NAEP Trends measures more.
Only 10% of graduating students that go to college require NO remedial reading or math classes (MAPS).
Education in the 50’s was vastly different than education now. More importantly, phonics was thrown out of most schools of Ed and therefore classrooms starting in the late 1960’s with Kenneth Goodman’s Whole Language theory, which argued that readers read words as whole units and use picture, context, and syntax. It taught readers to guess. The famous paradox is exemplified by Pony is close enough to horse for kids to get the “gist” (a picture of a horse and rider). Kids are taught to guess or skip words they do not instantly recognize. Skippy Frog and Lips the Fish (“Get your mouth ready.”) are just two of the ridiculous strategies, all of which teach students the compensatory methods of new/poor readers. Science research indicates that proficient readers use the sound and meaning structure, the code, of the language to decode words they don’t instantly recognize (true sight words – recognizable upon sight).
Balanced Literacy was born from pressure to reinstate phonics. The response was unsystematic phonics, used only as a Hail Mary when 3-cueing failed and used only for that particular word.
Marie Clay, a child psychologist (not teacher) burdened us with Reading Recovery. Fountas & Pinnell moved out from under her wing and created LLI for the students for intervention. They use their own BAS to assign levels. A coin flip is equally “successful” at identifying known dyslexics (previously diagnosed). Calkins jumped in with Writers Workshop, with the premise that we are all born writers. She jumped into reading curriculum, as well. EdReports reviews rate these as ‘DID NOT MEET EXPECTATIONS’ at teaching foundational skills required for reading. That includes phonemic awareness, Phonics, vocabulary, fluency (accuracy and rate, as well as prosody), and reading comprehension – the true goal of reading.
Just these two BL curricula out of the many that use the same “strategies” are used in the majority of districts across America (and other countries who have since banned 3-cueing over the past few years.
Phonics lessons are generally only 10 minutes out of the entire day. The rest is devoted to looking at pictures and attempting to derive meaning from syntax, which isn’t explicitly taught. I’m continually dismayed that students are asked to write in journals without ever being taught what a complete sentence includes.
If you are going to argue against research, then at least be aware of current research and practices in the classroom.
https://www.breakingthecode.com/the-three-cueing-system-and-its-misuses/
Hi Renee, I’d like to know your background. Are you a degreed teacher in the area of reading? If so, is your degree from a legitimate university? Have you been a reading teacher in public schools? Why do you consider yourself a research expert?
You jump around to the usual talking points, but I have known parents with children who have learning disabilities who appreciated Reading Recovery.
What phonics programs are you promoting?
Also, the Breaking the Code link you share…I have no idea the educational background of those individuals. I see no university attendance or degrees in education.
Also, many variables could affect NAEP scores.
EdReports appears to be an astroturf group. The funders are no friends to public education or teachers.
https://www.edreports.org/about#:~:text=EdReports%20is%20funded%20by%20Broadcom,Foundation%2C%20the%20Charles%20and%20Helen
EdReports is funded by Broadcom Corporation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Carnegie Corporation of New York, Charles and Lynn Schusterman Family Philanthropies, the Helmsley Charitable Trust, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the Overdeck Family Foundation, the Samueli Foundation, the Charles and Helen Schwab Foundation, the Stuart Foundation, the Walton Family Foundation, and the Oak Foundation.
Nancy, I am a former research statistician. I’m published. I have taught educators how to design experiments for their doctoral theses and have performed their analyses, helping them write their dissertations and their publications. I have worked in special education for the past 15 years, in statistical reporting when NCLB was passed, as a paraeducator, and as a teacher. I have focused on literacy and math, particularly dyslexia, dysgraphia, and dyscalculia.
You hit the usual talking points of someone unfamiliar with the body of research from neuroscientists and educators that study literacy acquisition, as well as research practices in general. You may know individuals who feel their children benefited from RR; however, anecdotes are hypothesis generators. Research has already debunked the misguided hypotheses that non-systematic phonics is effective, that phonics is taught in the majority of classrooms, and that teacher prep programs properly prepare educators to teach students to read and write.
Phonics alone is insufficient, anyway. Morphology, Spelling, and Syntax are essential additions. Structured Literacy is the most efficient way of getting students to reading and writing proficiency/mastery. For students with language disabilities, it is the only way. There’s a huge body of research out there to explore. Given that Jeanne Chall wrote her first book in 1967 summarizing the body of reading research starting in the early 1900s and that evidence has continued to mount, I’d say you won’t run out of reading materials for a long time.
NCLB proponents said ALL STUDENTS would be reading by 2014!
I’ve written blog posts about NCLB’s destructive results, especially pushing kindergartners to read before they’re ready. As a special educator, I have huge concerns about inclusion, large class sizes, and other variables hindering children from reading well.
I am familiar with and appreciate Chall’s work, and I’m not even against morphology or decoding. I taught Morphograph Spelling. My M.Ed was in learning disabilities when it was a legitimate area of study in universities (it still should be).
But I believe there’s a push to deprofessionalize teachers and end public ed. with cyberlearning focused on data collection.
Feel free to send me some of your publications. I’d be more than happy to take a look and see if we can find common ground.
Great comment, Renee. Thanks for sketching out the big picture.
Actually, as a reading specialist with university credentials and years of experience, it is unfortunately a very narrow picture.
https://www.breakingthecode.com/10-reasons-three-cueing-ineffective/
What do you think of the 3-Cueing System, Nancy?
Thank you!
All this from a 4 minute synopsis?
The post seems very certain of what is ‘missing’ from the full documentary…yet was written by someone who hasn’t actually seen it lol. I wonder what the revision of will be like if/when many of these points are in fact addressed in the full film. I could state many, but just as one example: Emily Hanford has done her research and gone in depth publicly about Reading First.
Therefore, it would not be a surprise if it is also discussed in the full documentary. But I personally will wait and actually view the documentary before telling people what is/isn’t in the documentary (crazy idea to go in open minded instead of making defensive assumptions, I know).
The people mentioned in the synopsis are from groups that are about corporate school reform. I taught reading and have a M.Ed in it. And I disagree about Emily’s research about Reading First. She was incredibly biased and hardly covered it at all. You’re welcome to disagree.
We have 3 children. The oldest got spalding and was reading midway through kinder. The other two got that awful three cueing garbage and weren’t doing anything but guessing just like in the “purple video” on youtube.
Within 3 days at a new school they were decoding and reading. This nonsense needs to stop. The states who are prosecuting people for the three cueing method have the right idea.
I have a huge appreciation for classroom teachers. I’m also the director of our local adult literacy program. Sorry, but the documentary was spot on. The way we are teaching reading does not work for 2/3rds of readers. Implementing the Science of Reading is not a bad thing.
The schools that received the funding for reading first, did they do it with fidelity? Was everyone trained or just elementary teachers? Did the children actually get served is the question, because looking at our local schools, I can tell you, that’s a huge problem. Even with the legislation in place, very few teachers and administrations are working the programs correctly. In my state, two-thirds of our third graders are below level. Way too many of our middle schoolers have no reading ability whatsoever. Not to mention, kids are often put to the side if they are struggling into special ed programs where their performance won’t hurt the school on standardized tests, even if the child has no special needs.
I work with adults all day long that didn’t learn to read. It’s a huge myth that that has anything to do with their want to or work ethic. It has a lot to do with how the public school system handled them. (I’ve also worked in the public schools, so I’m not pointing fingers here.) We know better now. It is time to do better.
You’re making many biased and unfounded generalizations here. But even so, thanks for the comment. It demonstrates the reading divide.
At our local school we had great Spalding, OG, and SOR teachers until we got a new principal who ran them all out. They were replaced with all 3 cueing teachers. Everything fell off a cliff immediately. When the district caught them, they forced them to do wilson fundations, but did not eliminate the 3 cueing and leveled readers. Everyone is fleeing the school, fundations is no match for 3 cueing. Kids are just guessing away, “tapping” frivolously and can’t spell worth a damn.
It takes 5 minutes to google enough information on this subject and learn enough about literacy to eliminate 3 cueing. It is finally time to blame any teachers who are still doing it. I’m with the states who have made it illegal.
I should add:
36 million American Adults Cannot Read
1 in 5 Arkansans Cannot Read
1 in 4 in my 5 County Area Read, Write, and do Basic Math Below a Functional Level
If what we were doing was working, this would not be the case.
Could you show me where you got your figures? Also, there are many reasons why a person might have reading difficulties and many of them have nothing to do with school or how they learned or did not learn to read.
Learn about the Science of Reading. Learn that it is more than just exposing learners to “phonics”. Obviously that isn’t sticking. I just started tutoring 5th graders who cannot read at a rate that supports comprehension. As I drilled down, I found out there are some fundamental, basic reading skills they still do not have but we’re passed along anyways. Before content and reading material gets harder, these students need direct, explicit., systematic instruction in foundational reading skills, or else they will not be able to successfully access middle school and high school reading.
This documentary is on point and accurate. I see first hand exactly what they are trying to convey. That if teachers were trained in the strategies of the science of reading, and implemented them in their classrooms from PreK on, we could overcome this epidemic of illiteracy in the US, and passing on/graduating droves of students who cannot read.
You’re certainly shilling for the documentary, and you sound on board for teacher blame and pro-retention which has much research against. Thank you for commenting I appreciate the debate, but I disagree with you.
I have had the same experience, Jill. I took a few free and low-cost trainings on the Science of Reading. I had never been taught how to teach reading since I got my credential back in the days of “whole language.” I bought a few simple items and changed the way I taught reading. I tutor students one-on-one, and every child is different, but they all learn better with this approach. Some seem to think it is all phonics. Sadly, they haven’t taken the time to learn about it.
Suggesting people (like me I suppose) have not taken the time to learn about the SoR is insulting. I have read about it extensively and simply disagree with you. It’s part of a larger agenda to discredit teachers and replace them with online programs.
Way didn’t you post the John Corcoran’s post? An up date on The Truth About Reading Documentary.
Hi John, Could you give me a link? I’ll try to do another post if I can.
As a special education teacher, I have to disagree with your representation of the film. You provide very little (if any) evidence to support your own claims and why the missing information would have any kind of impact. I think the biggest thing this documentary will do, is to start a conversation about the gaps in “most” reading instruction occurring across the United States. Plenty of statistics were presented in the film demonstrating the ineffectiveness of literacy instruction across the United States. I would love to hear why you feel the meta-analysis done by the National Reading Panel is flawed. I review that article thoroughly during grad school and while not all of the methods are not 100% solid, the information is solid.
The changes need to begin at the federal and state levels. Teacher preparation programs need to provide solid instruction on the methods of teaching ALL students to read. Districts need to provide ongoing professional development to prevent the majority of us from going back to more “traditional” methods of reading instruction.
As someone who has seen the film in its entirety, I am excited to see the conversations to begin!
What is it about the post do you question? I explained my concerns well and backed up my information. I think the film is biased and generalizes much and focuses on those who are in nonprofits who are critical of teachers and how they teach reading in schools.
I’m not even sure Mr. Corcoran went to a public school yet much of the film uses his situation to blame public schools.
Please see the work of Joanne Yatvin when it comes to the NRP.
Also, ask why it is now considered fine to insist that kindergartners be reading by first grade, or why children are retained in third grade if they aren’t in line with the standards.
Nancy, can you please explain the Mississippi Miracle?
I’d love to hear your mental gymnastics for that one.
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH
I already wrote a post about it.