A troubling feature of the Science of Reading (SoR) is the connection between those who believe in the power of phonemes (and more) and those who want to privatize public schools. The old NCLB crowd has been rejuvenated and seems onboard with digital instruction replacing public schools and teachers.
Understanding this connection is critical for how this country moves forward. There are implications, not only for the way children are taught reading, but how schooling works. Will it be public anymore? Will poor children wind up in cyber charter schools facing computers, where personal data is collected about them despite privacy concerns. And will university prepared teachers be a thing of the past?
For example, former gov Jeb Bush has been crusading for the Science of Reading, praising Emily Hanford for her advocacy for the SoR, implying teachers haven’t understood how to teach reading.
But the former governor also:
- promotes digital learning,
- loves charter schools and school choice,
- despises the teacher’s union,
- wants to reimagine teaching, with advice from a Teach for America alum,
- was one of the only Republicans who supported Common Core State Standards, until he didn’t,
- has implemented a third-grade retention rule promoted around the country, despite research showing its harm,
- emphasizes A-F school grading which ignores a variety of variables, and shutters schools.
- and has fought against lowering class size in Florida even for grades K-3 when children learn to read.
Recently Bush’s ExcelinEd held a National Summit on Education. Scroll on the link to see the sponsors, then see below about them.
Emily Hanford, who never questions online reading programs that I can see, spoke there, and Robert Pondiscio, journalist turned urban teacher turned fellow for the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, who loves school choice, penned The Noose Tightens Around Failed Reading Programs in Schools for the American Enterprise Institute. There he cheered for the ExcelinEd Summit.
Therein lies a huge problem with the Science of Reading. Phonics (and more) is important, but what is this movement really being used for?
Why do virtual reading programs, charter schools, and private schools get a free pass when it comes to being evaluated for how they address reading, especially in the data they accrue about children?
Will teachers be needed in the future if reading is only online? Will public schools cease to exist?
Phonics is a useful tool and, plays an important role. Like many tools, however, it’s appealing because it’s “mechanical.” It’s easily transferred from Direct Instruction (read from a manual by anyone) to online instruction.
All of this is reflected in the sponsors who hosted Bush’s Summit. It was interesting to review them. I’ve provided the link and synopsis about each. This is the marketplace in action where there’s no apparent conflict of interest noted in advertising while funding a so-called education meeting.
I welcome comments. Feel free to disagree but please be civil.
Education Summit Sponsors
Daniels Fund, gives money to charters, school choice, and nonprofits.
Walton Family Foundation, the Waltons are not pro public schools. Here they talk about community and funding entrepreneurs and innovators.
WGU, a private online college.
Bezo’s Family Foundation, it’s unclear how they’re helping public schools or reading.
College Board, calls itself a not for profit though in 2021 they had $242,428,000 in investment gains alone.
Donors Choose, requests can be creative, but some teachers beg for staples.
Stand Together Trust, seem to be about school choice, with funding going to families not public schools.
American Federation of Children, former ed. sec. Betsy DeVos’s organization for school choice.
Amira assesses children’s reading abilities online including a dyslexia screener and tutoring, doing what the teacher has no time to do.
Amplify in August they announced $215M in fresh growth spending, an online program for reading, math, and science starting out poorly, revitalized by Laurene Jobs’s Emerson Collective. Those involved with the Science of Reading do podcasts, but research seems slim.
Charter Schools USA has a not-for-profit corporate Governing Board not a public-elected run school board.
Cognia hired by school districts focuses on school performance standards highlighting Robert Marzano’s work surrounding proficiency-based systems (highly tech oriented).
Curriculum Associates (Creator of iReady and Brigance), online programs that collect data on children.
Edmentum K-12 digital curriculum, assessments, claiming to be in 43,000 schools in the U.S. and over 100 countries worldwide.
Lexia, All for Literacy, a variety of online blended learning programs.
McGraw Hill, a part of the school reform movement for years and now include online learning.
NWEA, described as a research-based, not-for-profit organization, highlighted during the pandemic, often telling how students had fallen behind (crisis talk), but sell online assessment like MAP which collects data on students.
Pearson, huge multinational book and online publishing company and all about standardized testing and school reform for years.
Saga Consult, school districts can pay for high dosage tutoring programs.
Triad Foundation, has Philanthropy Roundtable logo, and interesting story about Roy Hampton Park, founder of Duncan Hines, but not sure how this affects reading.
Cambridge Assessment International Education, online assessment and instructional program available around the world by Cambridge. They develop their own standards.
Class Wallet, online shopping platform allowing certified school staff to use instructional funds to purchase classroom materials and supplies without a credit card or paper purchase.
CODE, online programs to teach children computer science.
The Council, National Work Readiness Counsel, national nonprofit focused on workforce development, training, and advocacy. They call themselves a pioneering sponsor of the only nationally recognized career readiness credential validating mastery of the foundational employability and soft skills most in-demand by employers today, by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Flexpoint Education Cloud, international, full-service online Kindergarten-12th grade digital courses for schools and districts worldwide. FlexPoint™ is a trademark of Florida Virtual School.
iTeach, an online alternative teacher certification program, courses and all.
Kyra Solutions, provide technology solutions and partner with local governments.
Lincoln Studios, create videos to move people.
MGT, have management and technology solutions to transform school systems, and the CEO and Chairman of the Board is a Florida legislator and owner of a K-8 charter school.
NAF Be Ready, name a future or be future ready for the workforce and even open an academy.
Power School, cloud-based K-12 software that claims to simplify schooling and which helps to make sense of data.
Responsive Ed., say they support public schools, but seems they’re referring to charter schools: Founders of Classical Academy Schools, Ignite Community Schools, iSchool Virtual Academies, Premier High School, and Quest Collegiate Academy.
Thinking Nation, Yes, provides a shifting the Paradigm of History Education, online.
Every Kid, provide grants for all kids to play sports, but not sure how this affects public schools.
Zearn, online math instruction.
Stride, same online program as K12, Inc. that has drawn public school funding for years with lackluster results.
Avela, provides online information for choice.
edChoice, talks about education freedom and school choice.
Merit, claims to connect people, information, and technology in an inclusive and engaged environment.
Odessy, supports Education Savings Accounts (“ESAs”) and microgrant programs for school choice.
Pathful, K-12 online career exploration.
Optima Ed., non-profit corporation meant to connect schools with donors to provide private, philanthropic support which public schools will have to rely.
Sibme, quote about online program, “The system that we’ve built in Sibme has taken us from checking the activities of the teachers to measuring and capturing the impact on students in classrooms.”
Student First Technologies, claim to be powering the choice movement, by giving parents frictionless technology.
Strategos Group. provide data-driven targeting approach for the pipeline development process.
Thanks to you for doing the research to support our suspicions and suppositions. Imagine someone who actually supports their ideas with facts. For a long time I have taken the rather cynical position that too many for-profit enterprises are more interested in profit than the actual efficacy of their programs and products. As a former public school teacher, it has been glaringly obvious to me that teachers are often regarded as an impediment to these plans by educational entrepreneurs. It seems to be a never-ending assault. I’m glad you still have the energy to call them out.
Thank you! Thanks for the point. I found these groups interesting to research and I learned much in the process. Sadly, I’m not optimistic about public schools, or reading instruction, and I’m not sure how much longer I will be writing a blog. But for now, there are a few more topics to still explore.
There were no positive results with NCLB The Common Core has only caused more emotional suffering due to many developmentally appropriate standards, There have been many studies on the “science” of reading. Real practitioners can easily see when the studies seem reliable and valid. We are only hurting our most vulnerable students when we accept flawed research and jump on meaningless bandwagons. Teachers , credible researchers, public school administrators, and parents need to speak out and support our public schools. Our public schools serve all eligible school age children. They may be the only vehicle for many for a quality education.
I agree. Thank you, Judy. I think the SoR is rather narrow but notice many teachers branching out to include more fluency, comprehension etc., so I would not say that I disagree with some of what it’s about, but how it is being used and whether it is “settled science”.
For the longest time I have been wondering why a journalist with no experience in the classroom would be at the forefront of an education movement, and all she does is to make it clear how Heinemann products have been the root cause of reading problems.. Thank you so much for sharing this lens of the chaos. If educators themselves cannot have civil discourse about something they disagree on, all hope is lost. At the end of the day, students walk away with nothing.
Thank you for your comment, Maribel. To be fair, Emily talks about more than Heinemann. She’s critical of much more and more programs too. She has every right to write about whatever she wants including reading. But like you I’m troubled by teachers suddenly proclaiming they’ve been poor teachers, and their universities failed them. We’re left with a lack of information. We don’t know about the students they taught, their reading problems if any and much more. It’s terribly generalized. We also have Teach for America corps members with 5 weeks of training waiting in the wings, along with computer programs and profit-making companies.
And there are many Heinemann authors whose work I highly recommend: Nancie Atwell, Donald Graves, and Mary Howard to name a few.
This is the kind if conversation that I wanted to have with fellow educators. My hope is that these events and turmoil can unify us to make it better for our students. Thank you, Nancy.
You and I are shaking hands, Maribel! I have said repeatedly that we need a new National Reading Panel, one that this time includes parents and teachers to have such a conversation, to debate these issues fairly. I hope that happens someday soon!
I see what you are saying Nancy about Hanford’s right to write what she wants but I would assume journalists have a code of ethics and if so, her reporting and abusing others in her reporting doesn’t seem to follow that code.
Definitely agree. Thanks, Stef.
In my experience with two large urban school districts, Hanford’s supposition than phoneme based reading instruction is the exception is patently false. In both Charlotte, NC and Huntsville Alabama state departments of education and district leaders could not dive into the scientific philosophy fast enough. If we really parsed the data from NAEP, which is abused by these same advocates, we would acknowledge that declines in reading can be attributed to these “scientific” reading strategies that have prevailed over the last two decades. I recently listened to Ezra Klein’s podcast conversation (November 22) with Maryanne Wolf, a scholar at the UCLA School of Education, that was perhaps the most profound conversation about reading I have heard. She posits that the digital age has resulted in a prevalence of “skim reading” and that time for deep reading is what is needed to improve student reading. This requires a focus, not on phonemes and fluency, but ideas and interests. It all requires a time commitment we are not allowed in today’s classroom. Too many of the education grifters you list above are about one thing: Driving reading instruction into their technological investments. Treating reading as if it is a mechanical brain function is education malpractice.
Thank you, Paul. Thanks for sharing that about the Klein and Wolf podcast. I’ll check it out. I continue to see little peer reviewed research that online reading programs are best for comprehension and meaning or even phonics. I don’t see any debate.
I agree. There has been no trending that I’ve read about or experienced that has veered away from phonemic instruction. Teachers and educators flock to it partly because testing culture has only intensified since nclb. I fear the trend toward charter schools and technology replacing teachers- not because we are teaching best practices but because teachers are our only hope for a richer more child centered approach to literacy. SOR is not new nor is weaponizing it for mechanized simplistic thus anti teacher anti student initiatives.
I once attended a charter school in Long Beach CA in middle and high school both shut down. I heard that there is a lot of online learning now and the results are a disgusting mess. Got to heck Mr Steinhauser the former superintendent of LBUSD since I was a young child. He messed over those in special education so much and now the Charter school and Online learning fiasco.
I witnessed an online class for those with severe disabilities early last year during the pandemic. The teenager was of course learning nothing. My mom was the boy’s babysitter and she is a substitute teacher. but was out of regular work due to pandemic, and she had to help keep him on task during those futile “lessons”.
The school district seemed connected to privatization groups aplenty. Like they won the Broad Prize and were highlighted apparently by McKinsey & Company. I can see why they’re excited about online. How sad.
Thanks for sharing, Bill, although I’m sorry it’s such a gloomy report. I taught as a special ed. teacher. You sound like you have a kind mom. Thank her for me.
Lincoln Public Schools is piloting Amplify CKLA K-6 reading curriculum this year for implementation next year.. LPS says it takes an equity minded, cross curricular approach to reading. What are your thoughts on this program?
Hi Wayne, feel free to search Amplify on my blog. Here’s the most popular post. I think there are some concerns.
https://nancyebailey.com/2020/01/24/problems-surrounding-amplifys-core-knowledge-language-arts-to-teach-reading/
This is a great post, I have searching for independent research on Lexia and Active Achieve. WHC site has Lexia at moderately effective, but not for comprehension, nothing on Active Achieve
It seems high schools are flocking to Active Achieve to read literature, the kids just sit in front of their screens with rather low level thinking questions, and box checked standards, the site offers minimal teacher input,
ESSA is pushing very low ELLs into mainstream incomprehensible ELA classes, so they sit on this site all of it easily translated on Chromebook-not translanguaging just flat translating with crappy Google. The latest thought is to site them on Lexia English to support deficits-a site also easily translated. Even if it was not, this site is only k-5 and I cannot find any real education science research.
I would say that in high school many teachers do not have a background in reading instruction. In Virginia at least, qualification have greatly softened overall for licensure. I see far less teaching and oversight with data collection as the goal as opposed to instruction and learning.
Thanks, Katie. I am afraid you’re right about the softening of requirements for licensure and reading instruction. The World Heritage Center, I think that’s WHC, is questionable so not sure what to make of their review of Lexia and Achieve.