USA: Some historic background shared by IFERI committee member, Bob Sweet

News articles, interviews, research, events and lots more - ready for your comments.
Post Reply
User avatar
Debbie_Hepplewhite
Posts: 2498
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 4:42 pm

USA: Some historic background shared by IFERI committee member, Bob Sweet

Post by Debbie_Hepplewhite »

The background to Bob's brief synopsis, below, of historic developments in the USA regarding the promotion and implementation of research-informed reading instruction came about following a discussion of the usefulness, or otherwise, of 'open letters' to challenge the status quo, where necessary, when official guidance and materials for reading instruction are clearly not informed by the findings of a body of research.

Bob contributed this message:
There has been some discussion about the 40 Linguists who published a letter in support of this approach in the State of Massachusetts in the 1990s. The thought now is whether we could replicate that on a world wide basis, and I am for that too. But, a bit of history in the U.S. might also be of value on where to, as Jim said, “take a bite of the elephant” in 2018!

The election of George W. Bush as President of the United states in 2000 offered a unique opportunity to, as President Elect Bush said, “change the paradigm” in how reading is taught in U.S. Schools. The genesis of his decision to make “changing the paradigm in how reading is taught” a national priority was the “flat” reading scores of several decades no matter the research findings, or the increasing federal financial resources spent to remedy this problem.

The President-elect met with Dr. Reid Lyon to discuss the findings of research in reading instruction presented in the report of the National Reading Panel in 2000, the “Snow Report” in 1998. Dr. Lyon oversaw the research conducted by the National Institutes of Child Health and Human Development over a period of more than a decade. The consensus of these findings, coupled with similar findings elsewhere in the world convinced the President that there really was an answer to the persistent and consistent findings of poor reading ability and he was determined to use the power of his office to address this matter of national concern.

There were many steps taken in this effort that I will chronicle here:

Election of George W. Bush President of the United States (2000)

The appointment of NICHD Associate Director Dr. Reid Lyon as “Reading Czar”

The charge to the U.S. Congress to come up with legislation that would transfer the findings of reading research into a federal funded incentive for states and local communities to “change the paradigm” of how reading was being taught to ALL children. NOT just those labeled as “dyslexic” or “struggling readers.”

The preparation of Reading First and Early Reading First authorizing language as part of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) bill.

The passage of NCLB by both the House and Senate that was signed into law January 8, 2002

The distribution of the Report of the National Reading Panel to every school in the U.S. (how many read it is a question no one can answer)

The appropriation of nearly $6 billion for RF and ERF that offered an incentive to states to re-train their teachers in the findings of reading research that were consistent with at least two decades of NICHD funded research studies.

Dr. Lyon and his colleagues were tireless in speaking to most of the large teachers organizations in the U.S., including the schools of education, and to the U.S. Congress from 2000 to 2006.


I think this is likely the largest and most comprehensive campaign for improving reading instruction in the history of the U.S.

However, the result was marginalized because the USDOE did not follow through with the intent of the RF legislation, and did not hold states accountable for changing the way reading was being taught in the local schools. As is often the case, the power of “money” superseded the desire to really help improve reading instruction. The RF law was dependent on states and local communities wanting to change the paradigm of how reading was taught, and that did not occur in most instances. There were some states where it did work, and there were thousands of teachers who were presented with the findings of reading science.

It is difficult to maintain momentum on changing deeply held beliefs. The whole word juggernaut that had been underway for more than a half century since the days of John Dewey was not easily deterred….then came a change in the U.S. President. For a variety of reasons, NCLB was not reauthorized and thus went the way of so many other national initiatives of merit.

Was it worth the effort? I would say it was, because the reverberations continue to resonate with many because the job remains undone.

Now we are nearly two decades away from this initiative, the test scores remain abysmally bad, especially for our minority students…84% of African Americans students still graduate from High school unable to read proficiently, and the situation is the same for Hispanic students. More than 60% of ALL students still cannot read proficiently. A tragedy for them for sure, and that is why we all continue to try and think through ways to address this issue as best we can.

I think that we are developing a world wide consensus now that was not there in 2000.

I am in favor of having a letter drafted that is consistent with what the 40 linguists did in the 1990s in MA. It needs to be updated to reflect the significant findings over the past two decades, and then signed by as many organization, and eminent linguists, teachers, producers of good “SSP” reading programs and then publicized as widely as possible.

The NRRF (National Right to Read Foundation) has collected many of the reading programs in the U.S. that we consider to be consistent with reading science today. We realize that some are more complete than others, but all of those we list are providing instruction in the sound/symbol approach to reading instruction.

Seems to me that with the wisdom that exists in the DDOLL network, IFERI and perhaps other such organizations, a letter could be drafted and circulated and collectively “word smithed” that could be of great value.

It seems to me that somehow we need to reach the “people” with this message. Governments can certainly play a part of this, but until there is an “uprising” among the people when they realize their children are NOT being well served with the decades old pedagogy of reading instruction that has been proven to be harmful, not much will change.

Respectfully submitted,

Bob Sweet
This is Bob's bio so you can see he is more than qualified to relate the political history of reading instruction in America:

http://www.iferi.org/members/robert-w-sweet-jr/#more-42
User avatar
Debbie_Hepplewhite
Posts: 2498
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 4:42 pm

Re: USA: Some historic background shared by IFERI committee member, Bob Sweet

Post by Debbie_Hepplewhite »

Bob mentions the work of Dr Reid Lyon is his message above:
Dr. Lyon and his colleagues were tireless in speaking to most of the large teachers organizations in the U.S., including the schools of education, and to the U.S. Congress from 2000 to 2006.
Here is an interview with Reid that is well worth reading:

https://childrenofthecode.org/interviews/lyon.htm

Reid comments in part of his interview:
The resistance in the educational community, particularly at the higher education level where teachers are trained, is enormous, almost unbelievable. When you show people objective information, non-philosophically driven research that for these kids, these interactions work very productively such that where a youngster was at the tenth percentile in reading before, and is now at the sixtieth percentile in reading, and you can show that time after time, but you still see substantial resistance from the educational community, it begins to tell us that many of these issues are way beyond the kid issues, these are adult issues. They are fascinating adult issues where human beings are latching on to their beliefs, their assumptions, their egos and their careers rather than looking very clearly at what works, what doesn’t, making sure people know what works, measuring it and getting the kids up to snuff.
Anyone who follows the reading debate will wonder 'What's changed?' as the battle, misinformation, misunderstanding and mis-training are commonplace to this day as evidenced via the IFERI forum and blog.

Dr Reid Lyon is a member of IFERI's Advisory Group.
User avatar
Debbie_Hepplewhite
Posts: 2498
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 4:42 pm

Re: USA: Some historic background shared by IFERI committee member, Bob Sweet

Post by Debbie_Hepplewhite »

Following Bob Sweet's historic background in the USA, Bob Marino offered this further information:
The Science of Reading Instruction and Trickledown Ignorance
By Bob Marino

Seriously, is it too much to ask that professionals stay abreast of the research? The authors of a recently published study, “The Dyslexia Dilemma” don’t think it is and the extended title of the study suggests the reasons why without mincing words: “A History of Ignorance, Complacency and Resistance in Colleges of Education” (1) where the Science of Reading instruction is neither studied nor taught.

For 20% of children, reading is the most complicated, difficult endeavor they will face probably until adulthood. Often these children who struggle to learn to read are labeled “dyslexic.” The term has been medicalized into a neurological syndrome—whereas the authors of this study, DP Hurford, JD Hurford, KL Head, MM Keiper, Sp Nither and LP Renner contend that neurological dysfunction is just not the case for most struggling children. They’re simply kids who have not been properly taught. The authors’ dissatisfaction with the failure of teacher preparation programs to teach the science of reading almost rises to the level of outrage—as well it should.

In spite of decades of research and legislation going back to the 1980’s A Nation at Risk, the 1990’s America’s Schools Act, the Goals 200: Educate America Act, the 2001 National Reading Panel Report, the 2002 No Child Left Behind Act, and the Common Core State Standards initiative, reading achievement in the United States remains stagnant. As measured by the National Assessment of Educational Progress, reading achievement remains at the 1992 levels. Well over 50% of our children in grades 4, 8, and 12 do not read at a proficient level. Even the attempted “end run” of a couple decades of teaching to the test has not caused the scores to budge.

Failure to learn to read has dire consequences reaching beyond the school years well into adulthood. The psychosocial issues related to dyslexia include low self-esteem, depression, post-traumatic stress, substance abuse, incarceration, poverty, social dysfunction, and more. Failure to learn to read proficiently also constitutes a national economic liability. Nonetheless, a survey of hundreds of teachers by Cunningham, Perry, Stanovich K, and Stanovich P revealed serious gaps in teachers’ knowledge of basic scientific findings (2)

These reading teachers’ self-professed unfamiliarity with the science of teaching reading is especially lacking when it comes to their own need to understand the structural phonology of language and its relationship to learning to read. Only 20% in a sample of over 700 teachers could segment words into speech sounds, for example. The subjects reported that they had never received formal instruction in phonological processing.

NCTQ has documented this lack of instruction in the reading courses taken by teachers. So too did Kelly Butler from the Barksdale Institute in Mississippi, Milt Joshi and others. Not surprisingly phonemic awareness is the single most absent topic in reading syllabi. So let’s be clear about reading failure and teacher accountability: teachers cannot teach what they themselves have not been taught.

If teachers cannot teach what they have not been taught, neither can college instructors. The difference is that college instructors have a responsibility to be on the cusp of research. Both the ignorance and culpability are systemic in colleges of education.
In addition to documenting the pervasive weaknesses in reading found in most Ed.D and Ph.D. programs, Hurford et. al. point to the persistence of myth in teacher preparation, the most insidious of all being the idea that learning to read is a natural, innate process—the myth that gave rise to the scientifically discredited and abject failure of the “Whole Language” approach to reading instruction.

Many children who come to school ready to read are labeled dyslexic. The etiology of their dyslexia notwithstanding, they can be taught to read. Hurford, et.al. close with: “Children with dyslexia and reading difficulties are waiting to be taught to read and the knowledge and skills necessary to do so exist. It is essential that the Science of Reading become part of the vocabulary, knowledge base and training within colleges of education.” Children who are neurologically dyslexic or just struggling to learn to read will continue to suffer until the benefits of scientific findings gleaned over decades of research with tens of thousands of children and adults make their way into college classrooms.

Robert Marino leads the NCTQ review of reading coursework as part of the Teacher Prep Review.

1. Hurford D, Hurford J, Head K, Keiper M, Nitcheer S, Renner L. (2016) “The dyslexia Dilemma: A Historyy of Ignorance, Complacency and Resistance in colleges of Education.” Journal of childhood & Developmental Disorders. ISSN 2472-1786 Vol. 2 Num. 3:26 http://www.carrdinc.org/TheDyslexiaDilemma.pdf

2. Cunningham, AE, Perry KE, Stanovich KE, Stanovich PJ (2004) “Disciplinary Knowledge of K-3 Teachers and Their Knowledge of Calibration in the Domain of Early Literacy.” Annals of Dyslexia 54: 139-169.
Post Reply