Last I looked, thirty-seven states and the District of Columbia have signed reading laws (Schwartz 2024). Parents, educators, school administrators, and state and local policymakers hear the Science of Reading is critical for children to read, and “evidence-based” and “research-based” are words tagged to make believers. But finding the evidence takes work.
Scholars are raising serious questions about the Science of Reading and its existence, including equity claims. This raises more concerns about the programs purchased by states and school districts promising the Science of Reading.
For example, Elena Aydarova of the University of Wisconsin-Madison analyzed the ambiguous and contested advocacy efforts promoting SoR in Tennessee through an anthropology approach.
In “Whatever You Want to Call It”: Science of Reading Mythologies in the Education Reform Movement, Aydarova states:
Responding to SOR agendas requires careful consideration of their role in the reproduction of social inequalities despite the movement’s claims to the opposite. No matter how neutral or innocent a sign might appear, myths that preclude the possibility of social critique and, ultimately, social transformation are dangerous tools in the hands of those who hold power in the society.
University of British Columbia professor Rob Tierney and U.C. Berkeley’s P. David Pearson recently published a free online book, Fact-checking the Science of Reading, raising further questions.
So, it needs to be clarified why states purchase, often at great cost both in teacher training time and money, selected programs based on the Science of Reading when the term itself appears flimsy.
Some states have banned three cueing, one of many reading strategies. SoR advocates have ruled that Lucy Calkins Units of Study, Fountas and Pinnell’s, and Reading Recovery’s long-time reading curricula are poor programs.
However, while specific programs are villainized, the purchased approved SoR programs provide little of the promised evidence or peer-reviewed research to show effectiveness.
Some newly chosen programs have also been in classrooms for years, so why aren’t they critiqued like the others? Where’s the evidence that they work?
Michigan officials still seem to be considering reading mandates. Teachers currently rely on many reading programs there. Chalkbeat Detroit reported that the following are popular with SoR advocates:
Core Knowledge Language Arts (sometimes called CKLA), EL Education, Wit and Wisdom, and Superkids Reading Program.
And they say:
But even for widely respected and popular programs that claim to use methods derived from the science of reading research, little peer-reviewed research is available on how effective specific curriculum materials are. Available efficacy studies have yielded mixed results.
Why is EL Education, for example, better than Calkins’s Units of Study? Maybe it’s different, but is it better? I don’t know. Who’s checking?
Core Knowledge CKLA has been in classrooms since 2006. Why isn’t anyone grumbling about it failing children? If there are peer-reviewed studies showing that children improve with this program instead of the denounced programs, please share them.
And then there are the standards.
The Science of Reading advocates are quiet about Common Core State Standards (CCSS), which were initially highly controversial, and they have been a part of many online programs also in classrooms for years.
Where’s the review? If students aren’t doing well since the CCSS arrived in 2010, shouldn’t there be more questions about those standards?
For example, should kindergartners be doing first grade work? How has their development changed over the years, or has it? Are third grade standards developmentally appropriate? School districts retain third graders based on a test. What if that test is off developmentally? How much damage might such assessment be doing?
And then there’s Orton Gillingham. If you’ve studied learning disabilities, you know that the research on the effectiveness of OG, which has existed since the thirties, is weak. OG has also been in schools and seems to get away with little scrutiny.
Here’s one of the more recent studies from 2021, concluding:
In summary, the findings from this meta-analysis do not provide definitive evidence that OG interventions significantly improve the reading outcomes of students with or at risk for WLRD, such as dyslexia. However, the mean ES of 0.22 indicates OG interventions may hold promise for positively impacting the reading outcomes of this population of students.
More high-quality, rigorous research with larger samples of students with WLRD is needed to fully understand the effects of Orton-Gillingham interventions on the reading outcomes for this population.
I included the last part, to be fair, but the OG enthusiasts have been hoping to find something positive for many years. If your child has been helped with OG, that’s great, but there’s little documented research to show this program is ideal.
America has become like the Wild West in terms of reading and instructional curricula. Anything goes, except for what a selected group of influential individuals deem poor programs.
It seems like the Science of Reading advocates fail to study all programs and standards, especially the ones where teachers are put in the program’s background, often it’s Direct Instruction or online.
Let me know if you know about the research other than the companies that show these programs work. I’m not against decent programs with results. Most teachers need a basic reading program.
However, finding real evidence is tricky since even today’s research can be biased for or against a program. Casting some curricula aside while promoting others without proof seems more about market competition than helping children learn to read.
Here are some other programs states appear to fund. If I left off any also let me know. Ask about any program your school district purchases. Where’s the evidence? How many peer reviewed studies show the program works?
- Amplify
- SPIRE
- Project Read
- Phonics First
- Take Flight
- CORE Online Elementary Reading Academy
- Heggerty Phonemic Awareness
- UFLI
- 95 Percent
- Wilson Fundations
- Lexia
- American Reading Company
- Benchmark Education
- Houghton Mifflin Harcourt
- Open Court Reading
- Wonders
- Savvas Learning Company
Some Assessment
- Aimsweb+ (Pearson)
- mCLASS (Amplify)
References
Schwartz, S. (2024, January 25). The ‘Science of Reading’ in 2024: 5 State Initiatives to Watch. Education Week, Retrieved from https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/the-science-of-reading-in-2024-5-state-initiatives-to-watch/2024/01#:~:text=Over%20the%20past%20decade%2C%2037,to%20evidence%2Dbased%20reading%20instruction
Aydarova, E. (2023). “Whatever You Want to Call It”: Science of Reading Mythologies in the Education Reform Movement. Harvard Educational Review, 93(4), 556–581. https://doi.org/10.17763/1943-5045-93.4.556
So what would compelling evidence of SOR’s effectiveness look like?
Thank you for the question, Jeff. I am assuming the SoR advocates would claim that children would be reading well by third grade. The trouble as I see it, is that many of the programs claiming SoR today have been in classrooms for years. Also, Common Core State Standards have been around since 2010. I’ve yet to see any review relating to why children aren’t doing well when it comes to reading. And quite a few scholars are raising questions about what SoR really involves.
Dr. Bailey, you raise some good points here and I absolutely agree more research is needed. But continuing along with the status quo isn’t an answer, either. Too many minority and poor kids, in particular, have already waited far too long for better answers. Also, some of the programs you criticize, in particular Open Court and Direct Instruction, do have an interesting track record. I outline some evidence about them in this short paper (https://www.bipps.org/_files/ugd/7833d4_5617781b9cf24ad68a0cafaff3c08a97.pdf). It isn’t peer reviewed, but it’s certainly no worse than many peer reviewed papers I’ve read. To be honest, in education peer review provides little confidence. Just because two people with the same biases agree about something doesn’t make that issue right. I do have some questions: Why aren’t education researchers all over places like Laural County and Clay County, Kentucky? And evidence for Direct Instruction dates back decades. Why is that being ignored? Also, what is your understanding regarding brain scan research on reading and the implications for current reading programs?
Thanks, Richard. I need help finding the evidence in the citations you present.
I mention reputable scholars in this post whom I trust and believe are the experts. They are actual educators who understand children and how they learn. They have better track records than Education Consumers and NCTQ, known to be anti-teacher and anti-public education.
I looked up the counties you mentioned but I can’t get a handle on what reading programs they use, but they sound pretty aggressive with the hours they put in for young children. I’d like to see how the students do long term.
For the record, I used Direct Instruction for a while as a teacher, and while some DI might be helpful for children, it leaves out much of what makes learning to read enjoyable. Teachers must do much more than DI; whether it is that effective is debatable. It is cold and easily adapted to online instruction, so teachers are optional. I can’t believe anyone would think that DI alone makes good readers.
Also, regarding neuroscience, most will tell you that connecting brain studies to the classroom is difficult.
“How many peer reviewed studies show the program works?”
That’s interesting. Can you cite a peer-reviewed study that shows that Units of Study works?
I have never used Units of Study, and would have to look.
That’s not the point. If you’re going to say one program isn’t working, you should show where the other programs DO work. Evaluate them ALL!
And where’s the concern about Common Core State Standards?
You’re conflating peer review—a specific practice within academic publishing—with the general evaluation of what is effective or not. While peer review can add value in ensuring the credibility and quality of published research, it is not the definitive standard for assessing all types of evidence or programs.
Educational curricula, for example, can be evaluated using different methodologies that do not necessarily involve peer review. These might include empirical studies, pilot testing, feedback from educators, and performance metrics of students.
Moreover, it’s important to note that peer review is not a component of the scientific method, which is based on observation, hypothesis formation, experimentation, and conclusion. Therefore, while peer review is invaluable in one context, it does not universally determine the efficacy or validity of educational programs.
Thank you for your comments.
Scholarly peer-reviewed educational research could be better. Even with research, there needs to be more concern about how it’s conducted today.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4975196/#:~:text=It%20functions%20to%20encourage%20authors,published%20without%20prior%20expert%20review.
That said, where is the scientific method you’re proposing? Most of what I see is hearsay. I have, for example, seen little questioning of Common Core or any online reading programs.
You might be interested in this, Brian. It explains well who’s driving the changes in reading and education, and it looks different from the experts.
https://education.indiana.edu/news/2024/jan-jun/research/2024-04-17-CEEP-report-warns-public-media-on-expertise-of-think-tanks.html
As Sam Bomarito aptly points out, it is crucial to evaluate “ALL the evidence” when discussing the effectiveness of educational programs. In this spirit, and echoing Professor Andrew Johnson’s insights on the nuances of peer-reviewed research, we must consider evaluations from credible and independent organizations. EdReports, a respected nonprofit that conducts detailed reviews of educational materials, has assessed the Units of Study program and found it lacking in several key areas, including text complexity and foundational skills instruction.
Professor Johnson elucidates the peer-review process, highlighting its importance but also its flaws. He notes that while peer review is a critical part of scientific research, it is not without biases. This aligns with our need to critically analyze all available evidence, including the EdReports findings. He also emphasizes the concept that the real test of any educational strategy is whether it works with the students in front of you, reminding us to consider practical outcomes alongside published research.
Moreover, Lucy Calkins and her team have recently incorporated more phonics into their curriculum, reflecting an evolving approach to reading instruction. However, major educational entities like Columbia University and the New York City Public Schools have moved away from the Units of Study due to its limitations highlighted by organizations such as EdReports. This shift underscores the imperative for parents and educators to advocate for curricula that align with current educational standards and evidence-based practices, as identified by rigorous and independent evaluations.
In conclusion, while peer-reviewed research plays a significant role in educational evaluation, as Professor Johnson points out, we must also consider broader evidence and practical effectiveness. Evaluating educational programs thus requires a comprehensive approach that looks at various types of evidence to ensure that we are choosing the most effective methods for teaching our children to read.
I usually agree with Bommarito and Johnson but find it strange that they would support EdReports, a known nonprofit and anti-public school-teacher group that is not what anyone (other than those in their corner) would consider scholarly peer-reviewed.
Certainly, you can evaluate programs with more than peer-reviewed studies, but I see incredibly little review of the online programs and SoR that have come onto the market. What few studies are done are inhouse which raise further questions. I’ve also seen SoR advocates wonder why some programs are being adopted. So I’m not alone here.
As I continue to say, ALL programs demand scrutiny, not just Calkins. You might try checking out some of the others and quit obsessing on that particular one. And maybe do some research into the origins of Common Core. It may surprise you.
I cannot really comment on the research, but as a practitioner (12 years as an elementary school principal) I can respond to the behavior of districts in response to reading programs. All of my encounters with various reading programs involved some level of sales. In other words, most of the programs you cite are in the business of making a profit. My eight years in Alabama, I was also an Elementary principal in North Carolina for five years, included at least four different reading programs and five different companies overseeing the high stakes testing. It seems to me that the problem is that in most cases, the policy makers and politicians who make curricular decisions have little experience as educators particularly as it relates to the classroom. My anecdotal experience tells me that teachers are rarely trusted to make decisions for the good of their students. Also, when interviewing candidates out of college, too many of these prospective educators spend meaningful time exploring how students learn or the roadblocks to reading. When Emily Hanford began advocating for SoR, not reporting as most journalists are trained to do, she spewed numerous examples of poor reading practice along with expert analysis from many of the representatives who had financial interests in the subject of reading instruction. I am sorry to sound cynical, but too much of this debate is influenced by the almighty dollar. What I do know is that the thirty plus years of high stakes testing we have experienced actually show that when any reading program is taught with “fidelity” within districts, the results, as identified by assessments, change very little from previous efforts. What would be novel is if we let classroom practitioners determine strategies that respond to the needs of their students after these professionals have had meaningful exposure to reading instruction. All of this caterwauling about curriculum has gotten us nowhere.
Very well put, Paul. I find it interesting that looking back over history, I see that this same complaint has been repeatedly raised. Emily Hanford has biasedly reported only on a few programs, ignoring many that are online and have been in classrooms for years. As a teacher, my school districts often changed reading programs or added new ones, and as you noted, none seemed to push the needle any differently. Thank you!