Spend any length of time in education and you can’t help notice pendulum swings as ideas about what constitutes effective practice fall in and out of fashion. There’s no reason to expect the “science of reading” movement to be an exception. The welcome and overdue shift to teach phonics explicitly and to align instruction more broadly with research from cognitive psychology and neuroscience has seen only green lights ahead and tailwinds in the last few years, but an important caution is being offered by one key figure in the movement. Margaret Goldberg, a teacher and co-founder of the Right to Read Project, has expressed concerns that weaknesses in implementation threaten the momentum behind “SoR.” Worse still, those threats are going mostly undiscussed for fear that speaking up will damage, slow, or setback the science of reading.
In a blog post on the Right to Read Project’s website, which hasn’t gotten the attention it deserves, Goldberg paints an all-too-plausible future scenario in which we look back at the science of reading as “a brief movement in education.” Teachers aspired to align their instruction with scientific evidence, “but due to lack of support and misinformation, they failed to implement effective practices. Student achievement remained stagnant and teachers came to believe that factors outside the classroom have a greater influence on student learning than classroom instruction,” she writes.
If Goldberg’s name sounds familiar, it’s because she’s been a key figure in Emily Hanford’s reports and podcasts, which have played a major role in creating momentum for the science of reading movement. Goldberg raises several concerns that could derail the science of reading movement, which she frames as a series of “What ifs.”
What if we’re expecting too much from teachers while underestimating the level of support schools need? What if schools overcorrect and provide explicit instruction at the expense of students reading and enjoying books? What if curriculum developers might continue offering content-focused units instead of the targeted lessons needed to help students comprehend complex texts? What if researchers continue to conduct studies and produce data, but never learn how to actually help teachers improve their practice?
“Anyone knowledgeable about reading research and what’s happening in classrooms has worries like these,” she writes. “But most of us have remained quiet, afraid of seeming unsupportive or of slowing the momentum that’s been building. I worry, though, what will happen if we don’t speak up?”
I share Goldberg’s concern, and painted a similar scenario in an article last year for Commentary. It’s a heavy lift to get teachers to change practices they are committed to and believe to be effective, regardless of what the research says. Moreover, and perhaps most critically, it’s unrealistic to expect every teacher to become an expert in the science of reading; it has to be operationalized in the form of high-quality curriculum, diagnostic tools, and effective training. The burden simply cannot rest solely on the shoulders of individual educators.
After reading Goldberg’s important storm warning, I reached out to ask what she’s hoping the takeaway will be from her savvy caution. “District and school leaders are largely unaware of the implementation science that could help guide their work. So they act fast and without plans,” she said. People don’t know their roles, “so teachers are trying to develop the interventions.” Similarly, school leaders are unsure of how to create the conditions for successful adoption and implementation “so they focus on glossy publications and making fiery speeches,” she observes, instead of actual planning: creating time in the school calendar for collaborative planning and putting coaching in to support implementation, for example. “We need to provide training for principals to be able to know what they’re looking for and how to give good feedback, but people don’t know what their job should be in creating the conditions where implementation can be successful,” she said. Finally, curriculum developers, Goldberg pointed out, “are trying to produce what they think teachers will like, rather than aligning their materials with research and then using them to train teachers on more effective practices.”
The “reading wars” have been waged in our schools longer than current combatants have been alive. That simple historical fact should be enough to convince advocates for research-based reading instruction that the ground they’ve seemingly gained in schools, districts, and statehouses needs to be aggressively defended. Not with cheerleading and “fiery speeches” but with curriculum and instruction, effectively delivered, that moves the needle for kids. Failing that, Goldberg’s warning will become a prophecy, and sooner than we think.
Editor’s note: This was first published by the American Enterprise Institute.
