You can't buy the science of reading

#5 of 5 things school leaders need to know about the science of reading

Photo by Precondo CA on Unsplash

As a principal in a previous school, a reading interventionist engaged in action research chose to focus on a challenging student.

For reasons beyond school, this student struggled to transition from the classroom to this teacher’s room. Learning a little bit more about the student’s background and interests, the teacher decided to place a venus flytrap in her room. Then she invited this student to feed the plant a dead fly every time they came to work with her. And if memory serves, the teacher also integrated texts around this and related topics.

The result after several weeks:

1. a small pile of dead flies next to the venus flytrap (the student started bringing their own food supply, and the teacher had to limit how much they were feeding the plant), and

2. a more engaged and effective reader.

You will not find this learning experience categorized or sold as “the science of reading”. Not because it was an ineffective approach, but because the student’s success relied as much on the teacher’s ingenuity as on their instructional skills.

If every resource is “the science of reading”…

I’ve thought about this example as I notice almost every literacy curriculum program available to schools states it is aligned with "the science of reading".

I know this, as our school recently went through a literacy curriculum resource acquisition process. Every program we reviewed had this "stamp" of credibility. And because many of these resources come from major publishers familiar to educators, I imagine the common response is acceptance instead of inquiry.

Acceptance, even when a curriculum resource lacks:

• Allocated time for independent reading or reading aloud

• A focus on classroom libraries

• Opportunities for student choice and voice

And maybe the most glaring omission is a commitment to long-term, relevant professional learning for teachers.

No doubt, money and time are significant constraints.

Without the additional funds from federal and state legislation, our school would not have been able to upgrade our literacy curriculum resource, let alone match that financial commitment toward classroom libraries and professional development.

However, I cannot imagine acquiring a new literacy resource without the internal and external professional support to implement it with integrity. Lacking investment in teachers to utilize a resource from a place of authenticity, these initiatives devolve into implementing a program with fidelity. A curriculum resource apart from a school’s shared beliefs, instructional framework, and students’ needs only serves itself.

If you are suspicious of a program's proclamation that they align with the science of reading, consider these two responses.

#1 - Ask the curriculum representative to explain their understanding of the science of reading.

When we asked for a publisher’s understanding, we generally got two responses.

The more common one was a closed definition, for example citing the five practices recommended by the National Reading Panel. The less common yet more inclusive definition we heard was the integration of explicit skill and strategy instruction with authentic literacy experiences that build reader engagement and identity as well as enhance skills and strategies.

#2 - Share your school's shared literacy beliefs (your science of reading) along with your questions about what is missing in the resource.

For example, when we noticed in one resource that independent reading was not part of the main lesson, we asked how students would see the connection between instruction and independence.

"Independent reading is in the program, as an additional component you can include when time allows."

Also noticing the unscientific recommendation of 45-75 minutes of foundational reading skill instruction, we could see why there was no time for independent reading (as well as what this publisher valued about reading and for readers).

What we learned from this experience is, schools cannot buy the science of reading. If all the money goes toward the program, it can communicate to teachers that they are not the priority in the process of teaching readers. Follow the script, not the student.

A pathway to literacy success for all students is forged by a community of dedicated and knowledgeable teachers. This pathway is paved with professional trust, a clear vision for success, and the necessary time, resources, and support for continuous improvement.

Put another way: investing in knowledgeable, student-centered, and self-directed teachers is the science of reading.

From November 7 through December 16, I will be responding to Teaching Readers (Not Reading) by Peter Afflerbach (Guilford, 2022) and inviting readers to join me.

In this book study, you will develop a deeper understanding of the science(s) of reading and build greater confidence in conversing about literacy instruction with teachers and other colleagues.

You can purchase the book on the publisher's website, Amazon, or wherever it is sold.

Here are two ways to participate:

#1 - Watch this space for future responses to the book. Read along and leave a comment on my posts or on others’ comments when something resonates.

#2 - Become a regular here (ahem…subscribe). I’ll be sending out another round of invitations to the new community for active readers here based on newsletter analytics, i.e. those opening these emails and reading recent posts.

And here is the suggested schedule for reading together:

• November 7 - 11: Introduction, Chapters 1-3

• November 14 - 18: Chapters 4-5

• November 21 - 25: Chapter 6

• November 28 - December 2: Chapters 7-8

• December 5 - 9: Chapters 9-10

• December 12 - 16: Chapter 11, Conclusion