To your question, "What would you want from NRP The Sequel, if it comes to pass?", I think Maryanne Wolf's Elbow Room paper is a good place to start. And language must be included as an integral component of reading, starting at birth. I would also want research and instruction related to multilingual learners and students who speak language varieties front and center, as these children exist in almost every classroom. And for that matter, let's include bilingual education for all.
Actually, it should be an International Reading Panel.
Also, as you say, Implemention science, and translational science, need to be included. And instructional design.
Experts from the Evidence Advocacy Center should be on the Panel as well as parent advocates.
Lastly, I'd want it all to be grounded in what we know about human learning and instruction from the cognitive sciences. The proverbial pendulum has been swinging from pillar to post in the education field in large part because of its insufficient commitment to rigorous science.
But can we have some straight talk about the EAC? Many members of its workgroups endorsed faddish ideas about phonemic awareness. The Reading League is oveerepresented in these workgroups, and its curriculum reviews have shown the organization for what it is: for starters, pretty weak on comprehension and writing. Frankly, those corners of the SOR community are the very reason we need a renewed NRP in the first place. We need to get past the tribalism and the “most is always better when it comes to phonics and PA” that are causing a number of imbalances in reading instruction today.
It’s time to get the advocates out of these conversations, and the most impartial researchers leading them.
Thank you for filling us in on the the hearing. You write: "Teacher prep has been resistant to reform." Here's what AI has to say about this:
"Roughly 40 % of teacher prep programs still teach practices the science of reading rejects.
Well over half of reading instruction professors have historically embraced approaches (like balanced literacy) that aren’t fully backed by current reading science.
Only about one-quarter of programs are fully aligned with science-of-reading research."
What data source is this citation based on? What specific definition of “reading science” is being used here? The research needs to be nuanced and specific. I do think a new reading panel might be in order. But even Karen Vaites is claiming that it’s common sense that kids need to read whole books to build stamina. That’s not “science”, if you’re using the same criteria. That’s the point Tim Shanahan is making. I’m not sure the claim that teacher preparation has been resistant is actually true. Pockets may have been, such as the professor you had the conversation with. What are the essentials now, based on newer evidence? I agree a focus on usable knowledge would be best.
Great questions and comments. The source is the National Council on Teacher Quality. I agree that a new panel would be very helpful, especially for preservice programs. And I'm a big proponent of common sense (see Using Common Sense Can Make the Most Sense https://harriettjanetos.substack.com/p/neuroscientists-and-neophytes-concur?r=5spuf).
I don't find NCTQ's methodology to be credible. That said, I know there is still room for improvement. I read your substack and find much to agree with and to challenge my thinking.
Math instruction desperately needs a reboot as well, which is currently stuck in its whole language phase and is taught in a way that is at odds with research
Getting back to the original topic of your post, I was disappointed that the Subcommittee didn't ask or even mention the other educational crisis we have- math. And they had Bonnie Short right there in front of them! Alabama was the only state to surpass its 2019 math scores on the 2024 NAEP. It passed the Alabama Numeracy Act in 2022, maybe the only state to do so at that time? Other states have math scores as low or lower than their reading scores. Alabama now has a math coach and a reading coach in every public school building in the state. Now that's commitment!
As I said in my other comment, an understanding of findings about learning and instruction from the cognitive sciences is critical for the education field. Sadly, hardly any teacher prep programs provide this, to the detriment of our teachers and our children. The impact is felt nation-wide.
To your question, "What would you want from NRP The Sequel, if it comes to pass?", I think Maryanne Wolf's Elbow Room paper is a good place to start. And language must be included as an integral component of reading, starting at birth. I would also want research and instruction related to multilingual learners and students who speak language varieties front and center, as these children exist in almost every classroom. And for that matter, let's include bilingual education for all.
Actually, it should be an International Reading Panel.
Also, as you say, Implemention science, and translational science, need to be included. And instructional design.
Experts from the Evidence Advocacy Center should be on the Panel as well as parent advocates.
Lastly, I'd want it all to be grounded in what we know about human learning and instruction from the cognitive sciences. The proverbial pendulum has been swinging from pillar to post in the education field in large part because of its insufficient commitment to rigorous science.
I co-sign much of what you say!
But can we have some straight talk about the EAC? Many members of its workgroups endorsed faddish ideas about phonemic awareness. The Reading League is oveerepresented in these workgroups, and its curriculum reviews have shown the organization for what it is: for starters, pretty weak on comprehension and writing. Frankly, those corners of the SOR community are the very reason we need a renewed NRP in the first place. We need to get past the tribalism and the “most is always better when it comes to phonics and PA” that are causing a number of imbalances in reading instruction today.
It’s time to get the advocates out of these conversations, and the most impartial researchers leading them.
https://curriculuminsightproject.substack.com/p/educators-were-sold-a-story-about
Thank you for filling us in on the the hearing. You write: "Teacher prep has been resistant to reform." Here's what AI has to say about this:
"Roughly 40 % of teacher prep programs still teach practices the science of reading rejects.
Well over half of reading instruction professors have historically embraced approaches (like balanced literacy) that aren’t fully backed by current reading science.
Only about one-quarter of programs are fully aligned with science-of-reading research."
I write about my frustrating interactions with a preservice professor in the EGO section of Money, Ideology, Compromise, Ego: M.I.C.E. Can Compromise Literacy Instruction (https://harriettjanetos.substack.com/p/money-ideology-compromise-ego-mice?r=5spuf).
I’m not in the U.S., but deeply appreciate the time and effort, clarity and commonsense you show in your writing, and in responding to others.
What data source is this citation based on? What specific definition of “reading science” is being used here? The research needs to be nuanced and specific. I do think a new reading panel might be in order. But even Karen Vaites is claiming that it’s common sense that kids need to read whole books to build stamina. That’s not “science”, if you’re using the same criteria. That’s the point Tim Shanahan is making. I’m not sure the claim that teacher preparation has been resistant is actually true. Pockets may have been, such as the professor you had the conversation with. What are the essentials now, based on newer evidence? I agree a focus on usable knowledge would be best.
Great questions and comments. The source is the National Council on Teacher Quality. I agree that a new panel would be very helpful, especially for preservice programs. And I'm a big proponent of common sense (see Using Common Sense Can Make the Most Sense https://harriettjanetos.substack.com/p/neuroscientists-and-neophytes-concur?r=5spuf).
I don't find NCTQ's methodology to be credible. That said, I know there is still room for improvement. I read your substack and find much to agree with and to challenge my thinking.
And I REALLY appreciate how you have just challenged mine. This is the only way we can improve. Thank you!
Math instruction desperately needs a reboot as well, which is currently stuck in its whole language phase and is taught in a way that is at odds with research
Getting back to the original topic of your post, I was disappointed that the Subcommittee didn't ask or even mention the other educational crisis we have- math. And they had Bonnie Short right there in front of them! Alabama was the only state to surpass its 2019 math scores on the 2024 NAEP. It passed the Alabama Numeracy Act in 2022, maybe the only state to do so at that time? Other states have math scores as low or lower than their reading scores. Alabama now has a math coach and a reading coach in every public school building in the state. Now that's commitment!
As I said in my other comment, an understanding of findings about learning and instruction from the cognitive sciences is critical for the education field. Sadly, hardly any teacher prep programs provide this, to the detriment of our teachers and our children. The impact is felt nation-wide.
Maybe we need a National Education Panel.