From the study guide, Chapter 5, “Developing Professional Knowledge”
Given that the “science of reading” has determined how reading may and may not be taught in many states and, even, around the world, what is your current understanding of this debate, and what impact has it had on your teaching, learning, and leading?
Discuss what you can reasonably do to advocate for and apply a variety of evidence based, principled practices even while complying with a rigid mandate.
Click here for more details about this fall’s book club. You can view previous discussion threads here and here. Full subscribers have access to live monthly professional conversations around articles and books like The Heart-Centered Teacher. The next conversation is November 21 - click here to RSVP.
In Wisconsin, legislation is taking away local control from districts and teachers to make professional decisions for what their students need. For context, Wisconsin is a local control state, the birthplace of unions. So to legislate classrooms is not the norm. When I have pushed back with our local politicians, I either hear nothing or receive defensive reactions such as trying to use test scores as the reason for these laws. I see state laws that limit how teachers can teach or what books we can bring into classrooms as another unfortunate step toward eroding the professional trust and confidence in educators. What I am doing is sharing resources and strategies with colleagues on how to take control of their own narratives through evidence-based practices such as action research and reflective writing.
Nov 7, 2023·edited Nov 7, 2023Liked by Matt Renwick
As I was thinking about this question, I was drawn back to chapter 5 in Regie's wonderful book. On page 111 she writes, "Start with doing what you can within your own classroom and setting to improve teaching and learning. For example, even with a mandated program, choose and use only the parts that are applicable for your groups of students. Be quietly subversive when necessary. Keep in mind we need to raise compassionate citizens who bring high intellectual habits and critical thinking to deal with society's complex problems and political crises. We cannot waste brilliant minds on bits and pieces of "stuff" and egregious, time-wasting activities."
Her words are so important at a time when education has become a dictatorial space. Now more than ever we must remember that we DO have choices and that the choices we make based on our knowledge of research and the children in front of us and what they need most at that time as evidenced by our deep knowledge of who they are as learners AND humans are the most powerful determinants of their success - and how they view literacy in the future. It seems only right then to close with this quote on that same page:
"As we know, teaching well is not just about technique; it's about integrity and compassion, engaging hearts and minds, and questioning what doesn't work or make sense." How can we engage their hearts and minds if we cannot engage our own? And that only happens when we are present and committed decision makers!
Considering this question, it seems appropriate to include the new brilliant open access ILA article: Stories Grounded in Decades of Research: What We Truly Know about the Teaching of Reading written by Catherine Compton-Lilly, Lucy K. Spence, Paul L. Thomas, Scott L. Decker (link below)
"Given the diversity of learners and the complexity of reading, it is impossible to justify a simple or single approach to teaching reading. While inconvenient and difficult to market, there is no program or product that will teach all children to read. Phonics is essential but not enough. The onus remains on teachers who must use formative assessment and careful observation to attend to individual readers and design instructional activities that will help children flourish as readers."
At the very end of the article they give a wonderful TAKE ACTION list. Let's not forget the last one on that list: "When needed, and when possible, shut your door and teach children."
The phonics insurrection in 1996 in California resulted in legislation of the ilk of the Wisconsin law of today; this decision was made by politicians with naive understanding of reading and writing spurred on by a well connected grandmother whose grandson was struggling with reading. The problem facing teachers today is much more intense because 47 states now have these laws, and they are tangled up in the blindness and hegemony of MAGA ideology. Legislation rooted in MAGA at the federal level failed in 2021 which would have opened the floodgates of dyslexia diagnoses, disconnecting the “condition” from a brain-based cause, the crème de La crème of learning disabilities, putting further downward pressure on transforming the role of the teacher into the role of a medical technician giving out “doses” of instruction. This problem is cultural, historical, ethical, and political, not technical, revealing a deep public distrust of schooling probably growing out of decades of unequal and unjust distribution of resources and outcomes. The SoR movement has won this round. Teachers will have a hard time regaining the upper hand by closing their doors and teaching incognito. They will need to open their doors and work together across district and state lines to get these laws rescinded. It feels like a local issue handled by local control. But it is bigger, more insidious.
Such a timely question. My current understanding of this debate is that it is exhausting and so so so unnecessary. Are there teachers who may not know how to educate children to read. Sure. Just as there are people in every profession and every walk of life that might need a little lifting in their department of expertise. But are ALL schools and ALL teachers negligent in teaching children to read. NO!
I have spent countless hours writing testimony, testifying at the capital, pushing against the fray...and I am tired.
The data continues to be misinterpreted and the story of the "Simple View of Reading" is alluring to those that simply do not understand the complexities of teaching a child to read. Those creating the laws are most often people whom have never sat next to a child in a classroom and taught them to read. The term "Science" sounds good. (Yes, legislators in my state of Wisconsin actually said that.) Legislators were paid a visit in the spring by the Lexia lobbyist. Therefore it should be no surprise then that Lexia is named in the law as the vendor of choice.
Well funded by vendors and think tanks, SoR organizations are flooding social media the newspapers with their messaging that children aren't being taught to read. That schools have failed them, and that only they, the SoR people have the answer. It's simple, and the science is settled. The more the message saturates the headlines, the more people believe it must be true. Say it enough, people will believe it. But it isn't true. The science is not settled, as science rarely is. There are a few SoR advocates who have started to push back too, saying that they are concerned that things have been taken too far, the laws becoming to restrictive. But alas, in many states, like mine. It's too late. The law is already in place.
What to do, what to do...
I can, and will continue to advocate for teachers as discerning professionals. Teachers know their students best, and they understand that their students are not homogenous. Children in one area of the state, even in one district within the state, have different lived experiences that play a leading role in their learning. Teaching students to read is a complex process that requires a comprehensive, responsive approach, honoring the diverse and unique needs of our students. This includes honoring their culture, identity, and humanity. It includes teaching from an asset mindset, meeting each child where they are, and allowing them a voice in their learning path. They deserve no less.
In Wisconsin, legislation is taking away local control from districts and teachers to make professional decisions for what their students need. For context, Wisconsin is a local control state, the birthplace of unions. So to legislate classrooms is not the norm. When I have pushed back with our local politicians, I either hear nothing or receive defensive reactions such as trying to use test scores as the reason for these laws. I see state laws that limit how teachers can teach or what books we can bring into classrooms as another unfortunate step toward eroding the professional trust and confidence in educators. What I am doing is sharing resources and strategies with colleagues on how to take control of their own narratives through evidence-based practices such as action research and reflective writing.
As I was thinking about this question, I was drawn back to chapter 5 in Regie's wonderful book. On page 111 she writes, "Start with doing what you can within your own classroom and setting to improve teaching and learning. For example, even with a mandated program, choose and use only the parts that are applicable for your groups of students. Be quietly subversive when necessary. Keep in mind we need to raise compassionate citizens who bring high intellectual habits and critical thinking to deal with society's complex problems and political crises. We cannot waste brilliant minds on bits and pieces of "stuff" and egregious, time-wasting activities."
Her words are so important at a time when education has become a dictatorial space. Now more than ever we must remember that we DO have choices and that the choices we make based on our knowledge of research and the children in front of us and what they need most at that time as evidenced by our deep knowledge of who they are as learners AND humans are the most powerful determinants of their success - and how they view literacy in the future. It seems only right then to close with this quote on that same page:
"As we know, teaching well is not just about technique; it's about integrity and compassion, engaging hearts and minds, and questioning what doesn't work or make sense." How can we engage their hearts and minds if we cannot engage our own? And that only happens when we are present and committed decision makers!
Considering this question, it seems appropriate to include the new brilliant open access ILA article: Stories Grounded in Decades of Research: What We Truly Know about the Teaching of Reading written by Catherine Compton-Lilly, Lucy K. Spence, Paul L. Thomas, Scott L. Decker (link below)
"Given the diversity of learners and the complexity of reading, it is impossible to justify a simple or single approach to teaching reading. While inconvenient and difficult to market, there is no program or product that will teach all children to read. Phonics is essential but not enough. The onus remains on teachers who must use formative assessment and careful observation to attend to individual readers and design instructional activities that will help children flourish as readers."
At the very end of the article they give a wonderful TAKE ACTION list. Let's not forget the last one on that list: "When needed, and when possible, shut your door and teach children."
https://ila.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/trtr.2258?fbclid=IwAR3CNrQWKsuXC4buupfGiWeEXwZbMUkOd7O_C1z0Ugnd8ZGzfSQ7xQWsi1Y
The phonics insurrection in 1996 in California resulted in legislation of the ilk of the Wisconsin law of today; this decision was made by politicians with naive understanding of reading and writing spurred on by a well connected grandmother whose grandson was struggling with reading. The problem facing teachers today is much more intense because 47 states now have these laws, and they are tangled up in the blindness and hegemony of MAGA ideology. Legislation rooted in MAGA at the federal level failed in 2021 which would have opened the floodgates of dyslexia diagnoses, disconnecting the “condition” from a brain-based cause, the crème de La crème of learning disabilities, putting further downward pressure on transforming the role of the teacher into the role of a medical technician giving out “doses” of instruction. This problem is cultural, historical, ethical, and political, not technical, revealing a deep public distrust of schooling probably growing out of decades of unequal and unjust distribution of resources and outcomes. The SoR movement has won this round. Teachers will have a hard time regaining the upper hand by closing their doors and teaching incognito. They will need to open their doors and work together across district and state lines to get these laws rescinded. It feels like a local issue handled by local control. But it is bigger, more insidious.
Such a timely question. My current understanding of this debate is that it is exhausting and so so so unnecessary. Are there teachers who may not know how to educate children to read. Sure. Just as there are people in every profession and every walk of life that might need a little lifting in their department of expertise. But are ALL schools and ALL teachers negligent in teaching children to read. NO!
I have spent countless hours writing testimony, testifying at the capital, pushing against the fray...and I am tired.
The data continues to be misinterpreted and the story of the "Simple View of Reading" is alluring to those that simply do not understand the complexities of teaching a child to read. Those creating the laws are most often people whom have never sat next to a child in a classroom and taught them to read. The term "Science" sounds good. (Yes, legislators in my state of Wisconsin actually said that.) Legislators were paid a visit in the spring by the Lexia lobbyist. Therefore it should be no surprise then that Lexia is named in the law as the vendor of choice.
Well funded by vendors and think tanks, SoR organizations are flooding social media the newspapers with their messaging that children aren't being taught to read. That schools have failed them, and that only they, the SoR people have the answer. It's simple, and the science is settled. The more the message saturates the headlines, the more people believe it must be true. Say it enough, people will believe it. But it isn't true. The science is not settled, as science rarely is. There are a few SoR advocates who have started to push back too, saying that they are concerned that things have been taken too far, the laws becoming to restrictive. But alas, in many states, like mine. It's too late. The law is already in place.
What to do, what to do...
I can, and will continue to advocate for teachers as discerning professionals. Teachers know their students best, and they understand that their students are not homogenous. Children in one area of the state, even in one district within the state, have different lived experiences that play a leading role in their learning. Teaching students to read is a complex process that requires a comprehensive, responsive approach, honoring the diverse and unique needs of our students. This includes honoring their culture, identity, and humanity. It includes teaching from an asset mindset, meeting each child where they are, and allowing them a voice in their learning path. They deserve no less.