The Science of Reading is a topic capturing the attention of educators, politicians, parents, and the press alike. It’s a conversation happening everywhere.
Educators, politicians, parents, and the press discuss the Science of Reading, but there is a missing ingredient, perhaps the most important of all: RETRAINING TEACHERS. School leaders and teachers need to learn how to teach students who have yet to learn to read.
How do I know?
I was one of those teachers.
Armed in 1992 with a Master’s Degree in Reading, certified in K-12, from a Jesuit University, I thought I knew it all until I met Michael in 2009. I was teaching second grade in an inner ring suburb of Cleveland, Ohio, and Michael wasn’t learning to read. I exhausted my knowledge and best practices and was not successful with Michael. My bag of knowledge was empty, and I needed to learn how to educate him. Fortunately, Michael’s parents clued me in because they knew the training educators needed. I learned about Wilson Reading Intensive from Michael’s parents, not from my district or the press.
Although I was at the top of the pay scale with a master’s degree and additional hours, I would not benefit from returning for additional certification. However, I signed up for the almost two-year commitment with Wilson Language Training in 2010 because I believed I was leaving struggling readers behind.
I will call this educational malpractice due to my insufficient background.
Given the current implementation of dyslexia screening laws in many states, the need to address the literacy risk among students is more pressing than ever.
However, simply training teachers on the facts of dyslexia does not fully address the need for effective reading instruction. It’s crucial to understand that 40% of students struggle to read.
Do the leaders of districts and classroom educators know HOW TO TEACH READING?
My work takes me into schools and classrooms. I train teachers about dyslexia facts. This type of training is what most states, school districts, and schools are doing now- educating about dyslexia. Not- how to teach students who fail to read despite the best efforts of their schools and curriculum.
Most worrisome is that many special education teachers and intervention specialists need training in a specific program like Lindamood-Bell, Barton, or Wilson Reading Intensive.
Who knows the jig is up?
Parents who have money and hire teachers like me to tutor their children. Schools need to get the job done. Parents find it too costly to fight districts, so the path of least resistance is hiring a specifically trained teacher.
Teachers using Wilson or another program charge a high hourly rate because the training is long, tedious, and complex. A person in this training learns the linguistics of the English Language down to the smallest units of language.
Parents need to be informed and have no idea this type of credentialing exists.
- “A national survey of over 800 U.S. parents[1] commissioned by Lexia, a part of Cambium Learning Group, and conducted online by The Harris Poll, found that just over half (51%) of parents strongly agree that their children’s teachers are properly trained in the science of reading. However, Lexia’s nationwide survey of educators[2] found that only 27% of educators felt the same.”
“Other survey findings include:
- Less than half (48%) of parents in the Harris Poll/Lexia survey are very satisfied with the literacy program at their child’s school.
- The same proportion (48%) of parents say they are either very or somewhat familiar with the science of reading and the principles of structured literacy.
- More than a third (43%) of educators said better teacher training (e.g., training in the science of reading, technology-driven education, etc.) would help their students be at or above grade level during the 2023-24 school year.
- Over two-thirds (69%) of educators felt it was important for products supporting literacy instruction to be based on the science of reading.”
- “Only 25% of teacher preparation programs cover all the core elements of scientifically based reading instruction, and another quarter don’t cover any adequately, according to a report released Tuesday by the National Council on Teacher Quality.
Instead, school districts purchase computer-based programs and expect the computer to replace a highly educated teacher.
“Based on the National Center for Education Statistics 2022, the Nation’s report card reports that reading scores have not changed in 30 years!” (https://nces.ed.gov/search/?q=literacy+scores#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=literacy%20scores&gsc.page=1)
Sure, the Great Pandemic of 2020 exacerbated the learning loss, but the elephant in the room is that the problem was terrible before the Great Pandemic.
“To address the reading crisis, according to NCTQ, educators must be trained to teach the five components of scientifically based reading instruction: phonemic awareness (spoken words), phonics (matching sounds with letters), fluency (reading without much effort), vocabulary, and comprehension.
The approach is based on a vast body of research, most recently confirmed in a 2019 federal report.”
(https://www.the74million.org/article/new-report-flunks-teacher-training-on-the-science-of-reading/)
My work is also that of a special education advocate. Most alarming are students in special education who have school leaders and teachers with scant knowledge in teaching reading.
- Districts may think they can send an educator or educational leader to a day-long training, which is sufficient. It is not.
- Also ineffective is buying a computer program and expecting the technology to teach the struggling reader and writer. While tech is helpful, it does not replace a highly and specifically trained teacher.
My work is to amplify what is happening around this issue – especially for schools, teachers, and parents.
The message is this:
Reading scores will only improve after the teachers get training in the linguistics of the English code- so they may teach reading effectively.
- Is the training fast, easy, or simple? No.
- Does the training change the EDUCATIONAL INEQUALITY in our schools? YES.
- YES YES.