The Science of Reading goes to Washington
Outtakes from this week's Congressional hearings. Do they portend national action on literacy?
This week’s congressional hearings on the Science of Reading made for interesting watching.
California’s Representative Harder called it “one of the few bipartisan education hearings we’ve had in Congress in recent years.”
Personally, I was pleased to see speakers straight out of the implementation trenches: Holly Lane, the researcher who developed the viral UFLI phonics program; Bonnie Short, an Alabama leader working to replicate Mississippi’s reforms; and Larry Saulsberry, a leader in Huntsville City Schools (AL).
I wish we had seen voices from Louisiana and Tennessee, given their insights on curriculum-led reading reform. Maybe next time.
Here were the high points.
No Surprises Here
I was unsurprised to find that…
Representatives had done their homework on the Southern Surge. Multiple reps name-checked all four Southern Surge states. They cited gains and policy nuances.
Notable comments:
Rep. Robert Aderholt (AL): “Much of this progress has been achieved with fewer financial resources per pupil than are available in many other states, which demonstrates that increased spending alone is not always the answer.” Good to see implicit recognition that blank checks to schools aren’t the answer.
Rep. Josh Harder (CA) described the hope inspired by the replication story in the south, even as he asked the million-dollar question: Why haven’t gains replicated in all the other states that have taken legislative action in recent years?
If Congress drills down on this pair of questions, an important national conversation could flourish.
The role of weak curriculum was front and center: Holly Lane didn’t mince words in talking about issues in the curriculum market:
"Programs are bloated with useless activities that do nothing to promote learning, and few programs these days have children actually reading real books or tackling content of substance."
"I have heard it said that most programs nowadays are designed to be successful in curriculum adoption processes, not in the classroom. I concur with that statement."
Educators in social media cheered.
Holly isn’t anti-curriculum, mind you… she created a program after realizing that teachers couldn’t teach phonics effectively with training-alone, during her own research efforts! However, she is anti-crummy curriculum, and I’m with her.
Curriculum Matters. It’s a lesson of the Hanford era. Even Louisa Moats, who developed the widely-used LETRS training, believes weak materials are a barrier. As she remarked to me this week: “If they don’t have a program that is aligned to what they learned, teachers will be shaped by the program they are using.”
That’s a consensus position. What can Congress do? Holly’s testimony noted issues with the way What Works Clearinghouse (the only federal effort to signal product quality) presents information. That needs action, at the very least.
Pleasant Surprises
I was more surprised to see…
Teacher prep in the hot seat: Representative Aderholt went right to the heart of it. "Should federal dollars support preparation programs that continue to teach approaches that lack empirical support?," he asked. Great question! Teacher prep has been resistant to reform. The power of the purse is probably the best lever for change.
Calls for a new National Reading Panel: Rep. Rosa DeLauro (CT), the ranking member of the Appropriations committee, called for a new National Reading Panel (NRP), since it has been 26 years since the last such effort. “What topics now should we be focused on?”
It’s a good question!
The last NRP focused on ending debates about Whole Language vs. phonics. Those debates are broadly-behind us; there is widespread agreement that all schools should teach phonics systematically. But they’ve been replaced by new skirmishes about phonics (what’s the best dosage and type?) and comprehension (what’s the role of knowledge vs strategies instruction?). Heck, the lead author of the NRP has openly questioned the need for books in curriculum (!), because we don’t have research proving that replacing books with collections of passages does harm.
IMHO, we could use a pointed effort to answer today’s open questions.
Imagining ‘NRP The Sequel’
Just as the National Reading Panel was a synthesis of existing research, NRP The Sequel could probably answer many debates by distilling existing research into usable insights.
The NRP hasn’t aged perfectly. Its “five pillars” for presenting reading essentials have been critiqued for a number of reasons: they imply reading comprehension is a teachable Thing (ie an instructional input), when it’s really an outcome. The NRP arguably sowed similar confusion about phonemic awareness. It omitted writing, even though writing instruction can boost reading comprehension. The NRP could use a glow-up.
If federal action comes with new research funding, I’d like to see them channeled toward the questions educators are actually asking, not just the questions the research community wants to explore.
If it takes research to prove the obvious—that reading books builds reading stamina better than reading a bunch of passages—let’s do the research, I guess, because common sense and the precautionary principle aren’t prevailing.
I’d also want NRP The Sequel to have more of an implementation lens. First of all, it could speak in dosage: How much time should go to phonics vs text-based lessons vs writing, given the known constraints of the school day? Researchers need to move beyond giving “fold in the cheese” advice to the field and offer their best recipe for success, including cooking time.
Educators want to know the efficacy of specific programs. Such research is seldom done, which is why I have called for a national curriculum usage database, to enable insights. Can we do more to address this void?
NRP The Sequel could bring an implementation science lens to state reforms. Piles of research show that professional development-alone doesn’t raise outcomes. Yet most states have grounded their reform efforts in teacher training (paging Rep. Harder, this is one answer to your question!). Let’s take on that disconnect.
Lastly, NRP The Sequel should definitely broaden its lens beyond K-12 schools. Children’s oral language development is essential to literacy, and much of it happens before children enter kindergarten. In the age of “technoference”—the parenting tendency to speak less with young children due to smartphone use—we must connect these trends to children’s literacy prospects. NRP The Sequel should be written for parents and pediatricians, not just education practitioners.
What would you want from NRP The Sequel, if it comes to pass? What else should Congress be considering? After this week’s events, these questions are timely.
Related Reading
As always, Sarah Schwartz at EdWeek covered the hearings brilliantly.
While I have you…
The Curriculum Insight Project just published an invaluable deep-dive into writing, curriculum, and the supplements that in-the-know districts are using. Don’t miss it.
Next Wednesday at 7pm, Marnie Ginsberg and I will be discussing the reasons Everyone’s Sweating State Curriculum Lists. (Don’t get me started on this… or do!) Join us.
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.
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).