Come-back with reason: Six ways to defend the Science of Reading
Welcome to the first post of Term 2 !
To launch this second term, I have put together a discussion piece detailing some of the biggest arguments used to attack the Science of Reading. A bit heavier than usual, but after participating in a lively debate as part of The Age Schools Conference, I was able to capture these ideas as well as some key ways you can defend the Science of Reading in the future. I hope it will be useful!
Where possible I’ve included further reading and research in the links throughout, but know this is not a definitive list of Science of Reading literature. Check out these reviews here: Ending the Reading Wars and What does the Science of Reading actually look like in the classroom?
There are many vested interests in the current ways of teaching literacy.
You can expect massive push-back wherever you bring in ideas from the Science of Reading.
1. Defending the need for change.
ARGUMENT to rebut: The system is already working well; We don’t need to change the teaching of literacy.
A big argument you may come up against is that we don’t need to make changes for the sake of it, as was put forward by long time balanced literacy consultant Diane Snowball when asked if Victoria should follow NSW’s lead and pursue a more structured approach to teaching reading.
Here are some of the counter arguments I made:
Is the system performing equitably? Data suggest not. The gap between high and low income students is massive, and many children with learning difficulties are left languishing at their local school.
PISA benchmarks and NAPLAN cut-offs are lenient, so Victoria might be doing “ok” comparatively overall, but the standard for “ok” is actually rather low.
Wealthier families can address the difficulties of their children (via additional tutoring or intervention), but this is not often the case in families experiencing disadvantage.
There is a contingent of parents who advocate for their children who are not benefiting from the current conditions. They are beating this drum for change LOUDLY.
For kids who would learn to read either way - Under a Science of Reading informed approach, they would be much better spellers and users of their language. In other words, Science of Reading approaches benefit all, and harm none.
There is a myriad of evidence to support the need for change in schools. Fundamentally, the current status quo in schools does not reflect the reading science, and changing this would improve the educational experiences of tens of thousands of teachers and students. Read further about these counter-arguments here, and about school journeys to change these approaches here.
2. Defending why improved phonics teaching is crucial.
Argument to rebut: All schools already teach phonics. If anything, there’s Too much emphasis on phonics, because the purpose of reading is meaning.
The other opposing panellist, veteran principal Loretta Piazza argued that schools “already do all of that phonics and phonemic awareness.” She emphasised that concepts of print (e.g. holding book correctly, turning pages) is much more important.
No one argues phonics is the be all and end all. From my perspective, the main issue is that systematic teaching of phonics is a rarity, and not the norm, in Australian classrooms. In the debate, I put to the other panelists that phonics “…is the crucial part that you need to do well, and not incidentally.”
Piazza de-emphasised phonics, saying: “Kids need to comprehend, they have got to be fluent, they’ve got to be able to use vocabulary the right way.” Snowball informed the audience that you don’t just use “phonetic” [sic] skills to read.
I am the first to admit that all the elements of literacy teaching are important: read about that here. And as I mentioned in the debate: “We end up talking about phonics because there is so much contention about it, but it is literally just part of the process of helping kids access print and meaning from print… But they can’t [get to the meaning] by reading text that is inaccessible.”
One of the sure-fire ways of giving all children access to text is to teach them the code well (using systematic synthetic phonics), and to support their oral language and text knowledge through language and literacy experiences (see here). This is not happening in schools every day. If you’ve started a science of reading journey, you’ll appreciate how much your practices have changed; and if you haven’t looked into this, read about it here.
Make sure all students can access meaning in texts.
Do this by teaching them the code well (using systematic synthetic phonics), and supporting their oral language and text knowledge through language and literacy experiences
3. Defending decodable books.
Argument to rebut: We Won’t subject kids to “those books”. if anything puts them off reading it’d be “those books”. We don’t treat kids like that.
This was a big sticking point in the debate, as it might be at some balanced literacy schools and education faculties. Some proponents of the status quo have a big problem with decodable books and see them as antithetical to a child-centred, meaning-filled view of literacy teaching:
Piazza implored teachers to: Expose them to the most rich literature. Bring that joy. They should get to choose the books. About dinosaurs, trucks, or princesses etc. “Kids love reading because they get to choose their own books”
Here are some of the counter arguments I made with back-up from Greg Clement:
Decodables are a tool to allow kids to gain fluency and accuracy.
If you let kids choose their own books (even if they are a levelled text), it does mean they will have to guess at words.
Of course, read the literature to them, from day one. But teach them to read!
Snowball and Piazza both took issue with the idea that predictable or non-decodable books encouraged kids to guess from the picture or context: “If they use pictures to predict what the words might be, this is not a guess.”
Call it what you like, but when beginning readers come to an unknown word in a non-decodable book, then it encourages them to guess at the word. The problem with this is that directs students’ attention away from the word and onto pictures, or other parts of the sentence. This is the direct opposite of what we want. To orthographically map the word, early readers need to make the connections between sounds and letter patterns, and therefore pay attention to those letters. Proficient readers read every word, using every single letter; How els can we spott speling mstakes?
In the debate, I used the example of a student choosing a dinosaur book, then arriving at the sentence: “I like the Tyrannosaurus Rex”. And I asked the panel: How else can the student figure out that word Tyrannosaurus other than having a look at the picture of the Tyrannosaurus (hoping they know what it is!) and then guessing what the word might be?
Snowball retorted: “Why is that a guess? That is using quite explicit information. It’s not going to be any wild word. You know this is a book about dinosaurs, you already have an interest in dinosaurs.”
I replied “what if you don’t know what a tyrannosaurus rex is ?”
Snowball replied, “Then you wouldn’t choose that book to read probably. A teacher also guides them about choosing books they can read.”
So kids should have choice, but not complete choice? I was lost at this point. My brain kept going back to: let them have their choice of a decodable book!
In the balanced literacy view, it seems you can’t choose your book, and read it too.
4. Defending whole class instruction.
Argument to rebut: Kids do not benefit from a one-size fits all approach. The so-called Science of reading treats all kids the same, and instead we should teach them to read at their “point-of-need”.
This was one of the funnier parts of the debate, when Snowball interrupted Piazza’s initial response and prompted her to critique a one size fits all approach instead. “You and I were talking about that before—a one-size fits all approach… That’s why I think you misinterpreted the question,” Snowball intervened.
Quickly reversing herself, Piazza noted: “Why would you put a whole class of kids through that … when you’ve got 25% who are just not ready for that and the other 25% want to go home as they’re bored out their brains.”
Both argued that Individualised instruction is the absolute key for teaching reading.
An individualised approach is all well and good if teachers have buckets of spare time to work with each child individually. But we know this is a fantasy. Even if you carved out 1:1 time with each child, what would the other students be doing during this time? Time with the teacher is what matters most, not whether it is one-to-one or small group.
Many schools have had huge success with whole class, fast-paced, and fun instruction in phonemic awareness and word reading. The research also supports this. It is effective, not individualised instruction, that gives you the biggest impact. After this, further support and intervention can then be provided as per the Response to intervention model.
Argument to rebut: You don’t need decodable readers as you can make authentic texts that struggling readers can read and write with you.
Snowball later conceded decodable text is needed for some, but not all kids, with the caveat that this should only be after authentic literature has failed, and only if it’s an original text created individually with each student in question.
“I don’t need to buy them as I can make my own. We don’t need to waste money on [decodable books]. It’s much better if it comes from the kids, and things they want to talk about. They get a lot more out of them than someone else has just made up…”
Who has the time, or inclination, to write their own decodable texts with each student??
Ironically, when we got to the bottom of it, the opposing panellists did not dispute the need for decodable text, at least for some students, but, as I quipped, we would “preferably not be using ones that teachers have to create themselves with each student till time immemorial.”
Quality decodable books are out there in the bucket-loads; there is no need for teachers to create these themselves!!
Use high quality assessments to pick up the students who need the help.
If we don’t know whether our teaching or intervention is working or not, we are flying the plane blind!
5. DefendING effective assessments.
Argument to rebut: Good teachers can just observe students reading and gain in-depth knowledge of where they are at. We don’t need screening tools for dyslexia or what have you.
On the question of identifying dyslexia, Piazza deferred to the other professionals like psychologists and speech pathologists to worry about additional needs, arguing that schools have support people to understand those difficulties. She effectively stated that classroom teachers don’t need to know what’s under the hood of learning challenges.
Snowball also warned against using labels like “dyslexia”, as this really just means “can’t read”.
Snowball: “I have to observe the child as a writer and as a reader, and know every single thing that there is to know about what a good reader does and what a writer does, and then I can identify exactly what you’re good at… and to work out exactly what you need next.”
So we know many teachers and education consultants don’t like standardised assessments and tools. Informal and observation methods are preferred.
Piazza admitted that in her 22 years as a Principal she cannot recall a single student with dyslexia.
Statistically, we know that even with conservative estimates of 1-5% of students having dyslexia, there are hundreds of kids with specific learning disabilities this educator has likely missed.
Standardised assessments are designed to provide a more objective snapshot. It does not need to be onerous; it can be a quick check to see who is on track, who is well ahead, and who might be flying under your radar and is really needing more support. If you’ve used a high quality screening tool like the TOWRE, DIBELS, Acadience, or even a standardised spelling assessment like the SAST or CoST, you’ll be aware that we cannot know exactly what students can really do until they are under testing conditions, and you control for variables like the kind of book, or the complexity of the words.
And If we don’t know whether our teaching or intervention is working or not, we are flying the plane blind!
6. Defending scientific knowledge, as opposed to anecdote.
Argument to rebut: All experience is important, and A Good teacher just knows his or her students.
Piazza: “And this research based [stuff]? … I’ve been with the department for 45 years, and I’ve been a principal for 22 years. And everything now is ‘research-based’. Why, was I really a crappy teacher when I first started teaching? Well I probably was, but I have learnt so much… I’ve learnt by watching my colleagues, I’ve learnt by working with my kids… that’s my research [that] has come from what I have observed.”
My retort: That’s why we have scientific research so it’s not just coming from someone’s experience.
Piazza: Is it really science, or is it just knowledge we’ve gained from working with these kids… and working with consultants?
Take the example of baking a cake. If you were a novice baker, would you want to experiment with everything that goes into producing a cake from scratch? Probably not. There is actually a lot of science to it.
If you’re choosing a cake, do you want your cake cooked by the baker who is been experimenting with different ingredients for 55 years only to realise recently that she’s made some major mistake? Or do you choose the pastry chef who’s been trained by the master, or up-skilled themselves using the best available knowledge?
Argument to rebut: Good teaching is a craft, and the science of reading is a ‘furphy’.
Snowball argued that the Science of Reading makes it sounds like: “this must be really good stuff.” But she quickly redirected the audience, saying: “In fact, anything that we learn—all of it is important information for us as teachers, and there is not just one thing to do.” This implied that teachers should NOT be looking for “best practice” or “scientific solutions”, as they should instead plod along trying to figure things out, and eventually get better at teaching with experience.
Snowball: “I know that over my 55 years of teaching I’ve become better and better every year, because I’m learning more. You learn so much after working with child after child after child.”
However, if you’re dedicated to supporting your students, it would be irresponsible as teachers to take such a lax approach to learning how best to teach. It’s about ensuring that students get the best teaching as early as possible.
If someone could tell you or show you a better way of doing things, surely you’d want to know? Especially, if those practices are supported by science!
Students shouldn’t have to wait 55 years for you, their teacher, to finally come into your own. We can use the up-to-date knowledge about learning and teaching to get better right away!
And this is why teaching is in fact a profession, and not a craft. Of course, there are many elements that should be individualised or stylised to fit the personality and strengths of the teacher—We are not robots. But to deny that teachers should acquire and use a body of professional knowledge, which should include the best available literacy teaching practices, is tantamount to de-professionalising this industry.
Teaching is in fact a profession, and not a craft.
To deny that teachers should acquire and use a body of professional knowledge is tantamount to de-professionalising this industry.
CLOSING thoughts
I hope you have found these arguments and counter-arguments useful.
Just remember - You can’t change every mind. However, the collective mind on the views of best practice is indeed shifting, Bit by bit!!
Thanks for visiting, and see you next week!
ABOUT me
Dr Nathaniel Swain
I am a Teacher, Instructional Coach, Researcher and Writer. I am passionate about language, literacy and learning, and effective and engaging teaching for all students.
I teach a class of first year foundation students, in a space affectionately known as Dr Swain’s Cognitorium. I also work as Science of Learning Specialist in my school.