The Pseudoscience of Reading
How the New York Times Gets It Wrong Again
The lofty New York Times has chosen, for some reason, to weigh in on the latest dust-up over reading instruction. Since they love nothing better than a horse race, a simplified narrative, they have decided that the latest iteration of phonics, called the Science of Reading, has the magic pill to cure all the problems in education. It’s a new battle in an old reading war.
First there was a column by Nicholas Kristof, declaring that the problems in education could easily be solved — but not by decent funding, wrap-around services, or clean schools. The Times frames the phonics reactionaries as the rebels, taking on the “education establishment.” They applaud a new (but not new) teaching method, one that claims the mantle of science. We’re all for science, right? The pandemic showed us that people who reject science and embrace quack responses to disease can cause thousands to die. So the phonics crowd has adopted the term “science” to claim that their views are incontrovertible.
They suggest that the opposition, the bad guys in this battle, are teachers who advocate whole language approaches. Really the vast majority of teachers favor what is called “balanced literacy,” which simply means mixing holistic, reader choice experiences with phonics, the skill of sounding out and decoding words.
The New York Times salivated when well-respected balanced literacy leader from Teachers College in New York, Lucy Calkins, modified her approach to reading instruction. Never mind that scholarship always means adjusting, qualifying, and revisiting projects. But in driving their narrative of good guys (phonics) vs. fuzzy-minded liberals (balanced literacy), this was a moment to crow. And it was followed up by a ridiculous discussion on the Times’ broadcast, The Daily, which declared that thirty years of “faulty” reading instruction had created a generation of illiterates.
The Daily’s Michael Barbaro declares, “A generation of American students have been given the wrong tools to achieve literacy.” He goes on to claim that some 60’s counterculture ideas suggested that “all learning should be based on the child’s curiosity, that children could naturally figure it out on their own if given the right environment.” According to him, these were all “romantic ideas” with the teacher as guide instead of the transmitter of information.
Barbaro and reporter Dana Goldstein give a vague accounting of the actual studies and their methods, the apparently great discoveries that the Science of Reading adherents are claiming. It’s basically: Brain waves. . . something. . . something. . . neuroscience. . . something. . . something. . . MRI machines. . . something else. They cite lab experiments that are far, far from any classroom, from the experience of students who are marginalized and attacked inside of and outside of schools.
Not content to rest with their simplified formula for reading instruction, Barbaro and Goldstein insist that Lucy Calkins must declare her mea culpas and be punished, “Because, according to the science and research, she and those she worked with have led lots and lots of kids astray.”
This continues the narrative of blaming teachers. First, we were told that “education” is the only solution to all social problems of inequity — leaving income inequality, structural racism, housing and employment discrimination, a bloated military budget off the hook. Next, it turns out that teachers have been romantic fools, holding back a generation of readers, because they did not use the proper method of reading instruction.
In an article for the National Council of Teacher of English entitled, “The ‘Science of Reading,’ Education Faddism, and the Failure to Honor the Intellectual Lives of All Children: On Deficit Lenses and Ignoring Class and Race Stereotyping,” Paul Thomas has thoroughly unpacked the issues. The problem of the narrow focus on the failure to learn being in the student (grit and growth mindset) results in one-sided instruction, with poor kids least likely to get opportunities for critical and complex thinking, reading, and writing. Billing itself as the equity engine, the Science of Reading reinforces the racist practices of schooling — top down, disempowering, and encouraging passive learners.
What is the skill of reading and how do we think about the teaching of it? The first tenet we must embrace is that reading is not an individual act, one child hunched over a book, face scrunched up, puzzling out the inky symbols on the page. Reading is a social activity, pursued within a context, in the presence of others, with access to prior knowledge, community conversations, and a sense of safety and playfulness. In other words, we must consider an interactive model of the reading process, the relationships among reader, text, and context.
No phonics quick fix will work if the student is hungry, distracted, marginalized, angry, or discouraged. Young people who learn to read and become good readers are able to exercise agency and to bring their own selves to the exchange, to “talk back to the text” with their own insights and interpretations. Simple decoding of symbols, without the social dimension, is designed to produce compliant, passive readers, those who can become the good worker bees, unlikely to rebel or think critically.
No technical fix, developed by software engineers, whether it was Lexile Framework (look it up) or the Science of Reading, will produce the holy grail. Young readers need teachers, and other adults and older students, to provide modeling, scaffolding, and guidance. The professional experience of the teacher models enthusiasm, insight, and the joy of reading to the student.
As Berkeley professor David Pearson says, “The point of any skill instruction, be it phonics, vocabulary, or comprehension, is that students can understand, appreciate, and critique what they read; in fact, the ultimate test of the efficacy of any skill instruction is not whether students can perform the skill as it was taught but whether it improves their understanding and, ultimately, their knowledge base. In a sense, the job of phonics is not completed until a reader finds joy, inspiration, knowledge, or fault in a text.”
In real life classroom practice, teachers have never eschewed phonics (decoding sounds) but they recognize the social and emotional dimension of reading. They tend toward what Pearson calls “an enlightened eclecticism,” a spirit of improvisation and creativity. As a high school teacher, I often met students who were declared essentially illiterate or “reading at the 4th grade level.” Did this mean that the student needed 6 years of drilling to catch up to 10th grade skills? Not at all. If the student became motivated, saw a purpose to the pursuit, they could come up to a decent reading level in a matter of months.
It is supremely hypocritical for the liberal New York Times and state legislators and talk show hosts to jump on the Science of Reading bandwagon. After all, these are the people who are furious about the attacks by Florida governor DeSantis on school curriculum and books. “Let the teachers teach,” they declare. But when it comes to kids learning to read, about which there are thousands of studies and millions of experiences, these liberals presume that they can mandate instruction, disregarding the professionalism of teachers.
In response to the new phonics fanaticism, there have been many reasoned responses attempting to bring some clarity to the discussion. Besides Thomas and Pearson, mentioned above, consider the articles in Education Week or in Valerie Strauss’ column in the Washington Post. And Maren Aukerman of the University of Calgary does a more thorough analysis of the media reporting for the Literacy Research Association.
But, as with No Child Left Behind, another data-driven technical fix that produced extensive fraud such as the so-called Texas Miracle (of scores shooting up under the new system), Science of Reading has garnered support among many concerned with equity and the challenges their students face. Today we must recognize that the simplified, narrow dogma of the Science of Reading proponents conforms to what Evgeny Morozov calls “neoliberalism’s relentless cheerleading for self-reliance and resilience.” It is “the adaptation bias — the aspiration that, with a technological wand, we can become desensitized to our plight.” Our plight is complex and social, it requires reprioritizing resources, honoring education and the knowledge brought by experienced educators. This is where we must focus our struggle for the children and for the future.
