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.
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.