A Bilingual Educator’s Critique of the Science of Reading (SoR) Movement, by Jill Kerper Mora, Ph.D.

Dr. Jill Kerper Mora is the author of Spanish Language Pedagogy for Biliteracy Programs (2016) and thusly abundantly qualified to critique was is regarded today as the "Science of Reading (SoR)." Currently, an associate professor emeritus at San Diego State University, Dr. Kerper Mora is a credible voice in this contentious debate on literacy considering that she has over 40 years of experience in the field as a teacher, researcher, and scholar in these very areas of literacy, including biliteracy, instruction (also see Bowers, 2020; Johnston & Scanlon, 2021; Reinking, Hruby, & Risko, 2023; Thomas, 2022).

Of great concern to Dr. Kerper Mora is that what is not science at all is actually a movement that politicizes, as opposed to professionalizes, the teaching of reading and writing in schools. She encourages teachers to debunk the false claims of this movement which is particularly led by journalist Emily Hanford.

With respect to multilingual literacy, it is clear that the SoR approach compounds an already flawed model for monolingual speakers of English. Dr. Kerper Mora not only debunks various claims that Hanford and others make, but also draws on research from Spanish-speaking countries to make her case. She further shares this pertinent review of Spanish literacy research as part of her evidentiary base for her detailed response to this arguably harmful, and ill-informed movement.

-Angela Valenzuela

References

Bowers, J. S. (2020). Reconsidering the evidence that systematic phonics is more effective than alternative methods of reading instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 32(3), 681-705. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10648-019-09515-y.pdf

Johnston, P., & Scanlon, D. (2021). An Examination of Dyslexia Research and Instruction With Policy Implications. Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice, 70(1), 107-128. https://doi.org/10.1177/23813377211024625

Mora, J. K. (2016). Spanish language pedagogy for biliteracy programs. Montezuma Publishing. 

Reinking, D., Hruby, G. G., & Risko, V. J. (2023). Legislating Phonics: Settled Science or Political Polemics?. Teachers College Record, 125(1), 104-131.

Thomas, P. (2022). The Science of Reading Movement: The Never-Ending Debate and the Need for a Different Approach to Reading Instruction. National Education Policy Center. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED625611.pdf

Mora, J. K. (2016). Spanish language pedagogy
for biliteracy programs. Montezuma Publishing.

Science of Reading: A Critique

A Bilingual Educator’s Critique of the Science of Reading Movement

Jill Kerper Mora

The Science of Reading is a hot topic on the internet and in the media these days. A plethora of Facebook groups and other social media venues advertising themselves as Science of Reading for XYZ group of educators have sprung up recently. These groups are drawing considerable interest and lots of members with hundreds of comments daily. One example is a Facebook group that calls itself Science of Reading for Bilingual Education. Many of the posts in this group are by dual language teachers who are seeking information about whether the instructional programs they are using in their classrooms are “Science of Reading-aligned.” These queries reflect a genuine concern among teachers who seek confirmation and validation that their instructional approaches are maximally effective for the students they teach.

The issue with these social media that tout their bilingual credentials is that there is often no way for teachers to verify the bona fide expertise of group administrators or participants who comment in the group on the Science of Reading (SoR) research. This is especially problematic for teachers in dual language programs who implement instruction for bilingual and biliteracy learners. This concern is what prompts me to post this analysis and critique of the SoR. My purpose is to challenge the claims made in these groups by self-proclaimed “experts” regarding the research on literacy instruction in Spanish/English dual language programs. I present this critique of the SoR as it applies to bilingual learners based on my 40 years of experience as a bilingual teacher, teacher educator and researcher.

This analysis makes an important distinction between the Science of Reading and the Science of Reading Movement (SoRM).  Bilingual educators who visit my website do so with trust in my advocacy for biliteracy learners and their teachers, families, and communities. The term Science of Reading is a global descriptor of research from multiple academic disciplines that informs literacy program design and instruction (reading and writing). In and of itself, the term is not problematic. However, determining the extent to which research meets the criteria for claiming that it is “science” or “scientific” very quickly becomes problematic. Much of what is touted as the Science of Reading does not meet the criteria that the research community sets for itself to ensure the credibility and legitimacy of research and the interpretation and application of research findings. A concern is that the term “science” is being used as a cudgel to marginalize and discredit certain theoretical perspectives and bodies of data that have a track record confirming their legitimacy and credibility, while some other research frameworks claim to be “more scientific than thou.” When we go below the surface, we discover misuse and abuse of the notion of scientific research in service of ideological and political agendas. 

Purpose of the Critique of SoR

The purpose of this critique of the Science of Reading is to accomplish the following:

• Review criteria for judging the legitimacy and credibility of claims made in the name of science.
• Identify misrepresentations, misinterpretations, and misapplications of scientific research that lead away from, rather than toward, effective literacy instruction.
• Examine what neuroscience research tells us about the bilingual brain and literacy learning to articulate the implications of bilingual brain research for effective instruction for multilingual learners. 
• Present the research that documents the “common thread” of metalinguistic skills between decoding and language comprehension that challenges the SoR proponents’ arguments against “cueing” from the applied linguistics and psycholinguistic perspectives on the relationship between the two components of the Simple View of Reading. 
• Debunk false claims that are unscientific and without a credible evidence base in the research literature made by proponents of the Science of Reading to avoid perpetuating inequities in language and literary education for multilingual learners. 

The format for this analysis is a presentation of a summary of an argument that I make with a link to further elaboration of the argument on a separate webpage. I begin with an analysis of the media’s portrayal of the Science of Reading perspective of the Reading Wars. I elaborate on how journalists are framing an argument around particular teaching strategies for the purpose of promoting fear and distrust of teachers and publishers of instructional programs to promote policies and regulation to mandate more teaching of phonics in the public schools. I present the reasons why this media campaign is detrimental to public education, and specifically to language minority students. I point out that despite claims of “science” as the basis for the policies that the Science of Reading Movement promotes, the media’s portrayal of reading research and the effectiveness, or lack thereof, of certain instructional practices do not qualify as scientific. The SoR Movement seeks to politicize rather than professionalize the teaching of reading and writing in the public schools. The purpose of this analysis is to empower teachers to combat the abuse of the term “science” and to respond with knowledge and expertise to false claims and misrepresented research from the SoR Movement. 

Here I list the related webpages that together present a thorough analysis and critique of the applications of the Science of Reading to language and literacy instruction for multilingual learners. 

Neuroscience Research: Literacy Learning in the Bilingual Brain

Miscue Analysis Research: The Ghost of Whole Language

The Structured Literacy Approach: Implications for Multilingual Learners

Lexical Inferencing: The Truth About Cueing

Science as Metaphor: Debunking the More-Scientific-Than-Thou Argument

Simple View of Reading

Is Reading Natural? A Metalinguistic Perspective

California’s Reading Wars: A Brief History

Science of Reading Legislation: Unconstitutional Laws and Indecipherable Policy

So, without further ado, let us examine together the claims and counterclaims that arise from the new battlefront in the Reading Wars.

CLICK HERE TO CONTINUE READING

Latin alive in Maine schools, but future is of concern

Latin is "un-dead" in Maine at the same time that live languages like Spanish are "dead"--and not only in Maine.... -Angela
Latin alive in Maine schools, but future is of concern
April 30, 2007

PORTLAND, Maine --Latin may be called a dead language, but it's alive and well in Maine classrooms.

Latin courses that were eliminated in schools during the 1970s and 1980s have been revived, leading to a "mini-resurgence" in Maine over the past decade, said Benjamin Johnson, president-elect of the Maine Classical Association, a professional organization for educators. At some schools, students are lining up for the chance to study the language.

One concern now, however, is that Maine may not have enough new Latin teachers to replace the current ones when they retire. The state lists 60 Latin teachers in Maine, but few college students nowadays major in the classics, and those that do tend to stay in academia rather than teach at the high school level, Johnson said.

Students are being encouraged to consider a career teaching Latin, he said. How best to do that will be among the topics discussed at the Maine Classical Association's annual spring conference, scheduled for Saturday at Thornton Academy in Saco.

While Latin is known as a dead language because no one speaks it as a native tongue, there are more than 50 Latin programs at public and private high schools in Maine.

Latin was the language of ancient Rome and remains the official language of Vatican City. Teachers and students say the study of Latin helps with everything from laying a foundation for other languages to boosting SAT scores to figuring out the meaning of the spells in Harry Potter books.

At Hampden Academy, where Johnson is one of two Latin teachers, nearly one in four of the 750 students take Latin.

Scarborough High School last year had a waiting list for first-year Latin, said Shane Davis, the school's Latin teacher. This year 50 students are taking beginning Latin, and almost as many are taking higher-level courses.

"It's a zombie language. It's kind of undead," said Paul Bayley, 16, a Scarborough High School junior. "It's awesome. You learn so much."

But the difficulty in finding new teachers is one reason York High School plans to drop its Latin program when its current Latin teacher retires at the end of this school year, according to Maryann Minard, curriculum director for the York schools.

Minard said the school district believes Latin has educational value. But other factors, including limited financial resources and few students taking Latin in a school of more than 660, prompted the decision to cut the program, she said.

------

Information from: Portland Press Herald, http://www.pressherald.com


© Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

In War Over Teaching Reading, a U.S.-Local Clash

MADISON, Wis. — Surrounded by five first graders learning to read at Hawthorne Elementary here, Stacey Hodiewicz listened as one boy struggled over a word.


March 9, 2007

By DIANA JEAN SCHEMO

“Pumpkin,” ventured the boy, Parker Kuehni.

“Look at the word,” the teacher suggested. Using a method known as whole language, she prompted him to consider the word’s size. “Is it long enough to be pumpkin?”

Parker looked again. “Pea,” he said, correctly.

Call it the $2 million reading lesson.

By sticking to its teaching approach, that is the amount Madison passed up under Reading First, the Bush administration’s ambitious effort to turn the nation’s poor children into skilled readers by the third grade.

The program, which gives $1 billion a year in grants to states, was supposed to end the so-called reading wars — the battle over the best method of teaching reading — but has instead opened a new and bitter front in the fight.

According to interviews with school officials and a string of federal audits and e-mail messages made public in recent months, federal officials and contractors used the program to pressure schools to adopt approaches that emphasize phonics, focusing on the mechanics of sounding out syllables, and to discard methods drawn from whole language that play down these mechanics and use cues like pictures or context to teach.

Federal officials who ran Reading First maintain that only curriculums including regular, systematic phonics lessons had the backing of “scientifically based reading research” required by the program.

But in a string of blistering reports, the Education Department’s inspector general has found that federal officials may have violated prohibitions in the law against mandating, or even endorsing, specific curriculums. The reports also found that federal officials overlooked conflicts of interest among the contractors that advised states applying for grants, and that in some instances, these contractors wrote reading programs competing for the money, and stood to collect royalties if their programs were chosen.

Education Secretary Margaret Spellings has said that the problems in Reading First occurred largely before she took over in 2005, and that her office has new guidelines for awarding grants. She declined a request for an interview.

Madison officials say that a year after Wisconsin joined Reading First, in 2004, contractors pressured them to drop their approach, which blends some phonics with whole language in a program called Balanced Literacy. Instead, they gave up the money — about $2 million, according to officials here, who say their program raised reading scores.

In New York City, under pressure from federal officials, school authorities in 2004 dropped their citywide balanced literacy approach for a more structured program stronger in phonics, in 49 low-income schools. At stake was $34 million.

Across the country — in Illinois, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Maine and New Jersey — schools and districts with programs that did not stress phonics were either rejected for grants or pressured to change their methods even though some argued, as Madison did, that their programs met the law’s standard.

“We had data demonstrating that our children were learning at the rate that Reading First was aiming for, and they could not produce a single ounce of data to show the success rates of the program they were proposing,” said Art Rainwater, Madison’s superintendent of schools.

Both the House and the Senate are laying the groundwork for tough hearings on Reading First, which is up for renewal this year.

Robert Sweet Jr., a former Congressional aide who wrote much of the Reading First legislation, said the law aimed at breaking new ground by translating research into lesson plans. Under the law, the yardstick of a reading program’s scientific validity became a 2000 report by the National Reading Panel.

That panel, created by Congress, with members selected by G. Reid Lyon, a former head of a branch of the National Institutes of Health, set out to review the research and tell Americans what worked. It named phonics and related skills, vocabulary, fluency and reading comprehension as the cornerstones of effective reading instruction.

Mr. Sweet firmly believes that phonics is the superior method of instruction; he is now president of the National Right to Read Foundation, a pro-phonics group. His e-mail address begins phonicsman.

With Reading First, he said, “we felt we could put education on a new path.”

Dr. Lyon, another architect of the legislation, also strongly favors phonics. Teaching children to read by reason and context, as Parker did in Madison, rather than by sounding out letters to make words, is anathema, he said in an interview, suggesting that teachers of the whole language approach be prosecuted for “educational malpractice.”

Mr. Sweet agreed. “You’ve got billions used for the purchase of programs that have no validity or evidence that they work, and in fact they don’t, because you have so many kids coming out of the schools that can’t read,” he said.

But educators in Madison and elsewhere disagree about the effectiveness of phonics, and say their results prove their method works.

Under their system, the share of third graders reading at the top two levels, proficient and advanced, had risen to 82 percent by 2004, from 59 percent six years earlier, even as an influx of students in poverty, to 42 percent from 31 percent of Madison’s enrollment, could have driven down test scores. The share of Madison’s black students reading at the top levels had doubled to 64 percent in 2004 from 31 percent six years earlier.

And while 17 percent of African-Americans lacked basic reading skills when Madison started its reading effort in 1998, that number had plunged to 5 percent by 2004. The exams changed after 2004, making it impossible to compare recent results with those of 1998.

Other reading experts, like Richard Allington, past president of the International Reading Association, also challenge the case for phonics. Dr. Allington and others say the national panel’s review showed only minor benefits from phonics through first grade, and no strong support for one style of instruction. They also contend that children drilled in phonics end up with poor comprehension skills when they tackle more advanced books.

“This revisionist history of what the research says is wildly popular,” Dr. Allington said. “But it’s the main reason why so much of the reading community has largely rejected the National Reading Panel report and this large-scale vision of what an effective reading program looks like.”

Under Reading First, many were encouraged to use a pamphlet, “A Consumer’s Guide to Evaluating a Core Reading Program Grades K-3,” written by two special education professors, then at the University of Oregon, to gauge whether a program was backed by research.

But the guide also rewards practices, like using thin texts of limited vocabulary to practice syllables, for which there is no backing in research. Dr. Allington said the central role Washington assigned the guide effectively blocked from approval all but a few reading programs based on “made-up criteria.”

Deborah C. Simmons, who helped write the guide, said it largely reflected the available research, but acknowledged that even now, no studies have tested whether children learn to read faster or better through programs that rated highly in the guide.

Fatally for Madison, the guide does not consider consistent gains in reading achievement alone sufficient proof of a program’s worth.

In making their case, city officials turned to Kathryn Howe of the Reading First technical assistance center at the University of Oregon, one of several nationwide paid by the federal Education Department that helped states apply for grants. But early on, they began to suspect that Dr. Howe wanted them to dump their program.

At a workshop, she showed them how the guide valued exposing all children to identical instruction in phonics. Madison’s program is based on tailoring strategies individually, with less emphasis on drilling.

Dr. Howe used the Houghton Mifflin program as a model; officials here believed that approval would be certain if only they switched to that program, they said.

In interviews, Dr. Howe said she had not meant to endorse the Houghton Mifflin program and used it only for illustration, and had no ties to the company. She added that she might have been misunderstood.

“I certainly didn’t say, ‘You should buy Houghton Mifflin,’ ” she said. “I do remember saying: ‘You can do this without buying a purchased program. It’s easier if you have a purchased program, so you might think about that.’ ”

Dr. Howe said Madison’s program might have suited most students, but not those in the five schools applying for grants. “Maybe those students needed a different approach,” she said.

Mary Watson Peterson, Madison’s reading chief, said the city did use intensive phonics instruction, but only for struggling children.

After providing Dr. Howe extensive documentation, Madison officials received a letter from her and the center’s director, saying that because the city’s program lacked uniformity and relied too much on teacher judgment, they could not vouch to Washington that its approach was grounded in research.

Ultimately Madison withdrew from Reading First, said Mr. Rainwater, the superintendent, because educators here grew convinced that approval would never come. “It really boiled down to, we were going to have to abandon our reading program,” the superintendent said.

A subsequent letter from Dr. Howe seemed to confirm his view. “Madison made a good decision” in withdrawing, she wrote, “since Reading First is a very prescriptive program that does not match your district’s reading program as it stands now.”


Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/09/education/09reading.html?_r=1&oref=slogin