Fresno Unified teacher says the ‘science of reading’ failed 20 years ago | Opinion

In recent op-eds and comments by Sacramento journalists and Fresno Unified school board members, there have been calls for reforming how we teach reading in our schools and for utilizing the “science” of teaching reading in our instruction (apparently professional teachers are using false beliefs and urban legends to teach reading currently).

Well, “It’s deja vu all over again” (I love Yogi Berra!). I’m old enough to remember the reading instruction mandates 22 years ago with the passage of the bipartisan No Child Left Behind law (NCLB cost taxpayers over $100 billion) during the Bush administration. These mandates, we were told, were all based on science.

From NCLB, a National Reading Panel was born. The panel surveyed thousands of studies, which were narrowed down to 92 that met the panel’s scientific criteria. From these “highly scientific” studies, so-called effective methodology was gleaned and mandated in our schools through the launch of the Reading First program (at a cost to the taxpayers of $1 billion per year). Schools were threatened with penalties and withdrawal of funding if they refused to follow the “scientific” mandated strategies and if reading scores did not improve. Finally, thanks to science, all our children would reach grade level proficiency in reading!

In short, it didn’t work. The Brookings Institution found no evidence that NCLB and Reading First mandates raised student reading proficiency. The respected National Assessment of Education Progress (referred to commonly as The Nation’s Report Card), found more of the same. Reading growth at the fourth-grade level was negligible under Reading First methodology. Reading levels of eighth-graders actually trended downward. The NAEP also observed that gaps in reading proficiency among racial subgroups stayed constant, and in some cases widened, during the NCLB era.

Opinion

Dr. Elaine Garan, a literacy professor at Fresno State during that time, revealed in her book “Resisting Reading Mandates” (Heinemann, 2002) that the actual studies the National Reading Panel cited as the gold standard for effective reading instruction did not accomplish what they promised.

Taking a closer look, Garan found that while the National Reading Panel touted direct phonics instruction as a major component of the “science” of learning to read, the actual results of the studies indicated otherwise. The methodology of direct phonics instruction failed to help students achieve what most of us agree is the ultimate goal of reading: Understanding what we read. Garan noted other NRP studies that promised much but delivered little about students comprehending text. I’m moved to remember that just because something is called “science” does not necessarily make it so.

Did anyone benefit from No Child Left Behind and Reading First? Commercial publishing companies of educational materials found NCLB and Reading First to be cash cows. The New York Times noted in 2005 that McGraw-Hill (which peddled the Open Court and Language! commercial reading programs to schools) made revenues of 5.3 billion in 2004 while the profit was $755 million. McGraw-Hill, NCS Pearson, Houghton-Mifflin, and a few others were the main publishing companies that made millions supplying canned reading programs based on the NRP findings. The grift was on.

But the nonsense continues (literally). California and other states are currently pushing legislation to test every student in K-2nd grade for dyslexia. At face value this sounds reasonable. However, parents need to know that their children will most likely not be tested on their ability to comprehend text, but on their ability to read a list of nonsense words like “wub, zoj, vov” in 60 seconds or less. Students who can’t pronounce the words quickly and correctly may be labeled as dyslexic. Unfortunately, labels oftentimes lead to self-fulfilling prophecies.

Before history repeats itself, can I suggest we stop using the word “science” to push our personal and pedagogical biases on others?

Also, our school districts need to resist the urge to buy the latest expensive commercial program that promises miracles but will more than likely be gathering dust on our shelves in a few years.

Finally, would it be possible for our school districts to consult with the graduate education literacy specialists at Fresno Pacific and Fresno State universities to help teachers and administrators set a course for sound literacy instruction for our wonderful children?

Derek Boucher of Clovis has taught social science in the Fresno Unified School District for 29 years.