The science of reading is having a moment, writes Frederick Hess, executive editor of Education Next and the author of the blog “Old School with Rick Hess.”
The New York Times and Washington Post carry stories encouraging states to look south for educational innovation – the so-called “Southern Surge” and academic successes in Mississippi and Louisiana. Congress is holding hearings on what Washington should do to support the science of reading.
It was 26 years ago this spring that the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development issued its National Reading Panel report, which made the case for the science of reading and emphasized the need for explicit instruction in phonemic awareness and systematic phonics instruction.
The recommendations were the basis for the Bush administration’s Reading First initiative, which sought to ensure that K–3 reading materials and instruction were science-based. The $6 billion effort was undermined by operational headaches and flopped so badly that many who embraced today’s “science of reading” aren’t aware of the Bush-era failure.
Now much of the nation is ready to give the science of reading another try. How can states make improvements?
There are obvious lessons from Reading First — improving product evaluation and tightening guidelines for federal officials. But they don’t reveal why good ideas, even backed by high-caliber research, often fail in schooling.
The disappointment of Reading First reflected a more fundamental challenge.
Policy works best when compelling action is all that is needed, such as issuing Social Security checks or setting noise ordinances. Policy is challenged when more nuanced action is needed, such as changes in instruction, curriculum, or classroom culture. This has stunted reforms from teacher evaluation to school turnarounds.
In education, policy works best when dealing with “musts” and “must nots,” such as compulsory attendance, annual assessments, class size limits, and graduation requirements. These are clear-cut and quantifiable.
Policy is far less reliable when the goal focuses on how things are done rather than whether they are. Compulsory attendance doesn’t mean students will learn anything. Funding a choice program doesn’t mean it will be accessible or competently managed. High schools can “offer” apprenticeship programs without providing meaningful placements or supervision.
Policy can’t make people do things wisely or well. And, in education, it’s usually the quality of the thing that matters most — as with teacher evaluation, school improvement, or reading instruction. Equipped with only the blunt instrument of policy, public officials face enormous pressure to make the world a better place.
This is why education can seem like it’s drowning in rules. What does this mean for the current enthusiasm for emulating science of reading successes in Mississippi and Louisiana?
- First, building a process to select “high-quality” instructional materials doesn’t mean yougethigh-quality materials. Mississippi and Louisiana have processes for making good choices, competent people are directing those processes, and the results are impressive. The problem is either that staff don’t know how to identify good materials or schools largely ignore their determinations.
- Second, hiring instructional coaches and delivering mandated training doesn’t mean pedagogy will improve. Details matter: what coaches do, what training covers, teachers must take them seriously, and follow-through is essential.
- Third, policies such as ending social promotion, restricting discredited teaching methods like “three-cueing,” and revising required trainings are needed to change classroom culture and expectations
The push for sensible, evidence-based, back-to-basics reading instruction is one reform that’s full of real promise. The question is whether those who are eager to hop on the bandwagon are willing to do the work.
Education Next
