Although the “science of reading” (SOR) has roots reaching back, at least, to the work of Jeanne Chall [1]—and states had begun adopting key aspects of SOR as early as 2012 [2]—the branding of SOR has an origin story mostly written by journalist Emily Hanford, including “Hard Words,” christening Mississippi a “miracle” in the NYT, and selling a popular podcast.
I immediately contested the “miracle” metaphor and dubbed SOR as well as MS-style reform a “mirage.”
SOR has proven to be less about “science” and more about marketing and ideology. As I have documented, the movement is mostly anecdotes and metaphors.
In fact, what SOR seems to elicit most is the urge to ascribe a metaphor.
Eventually, the SOR movement fractured with the phonics-centered advocates aligning with Hanford and Natalie Wexler driving a knowledge wing focusing on the tired Core Knowledge marketing scheme.
Then, things began to shift, and I find this an apt metaphor:
Lots of hard-core SOR advocates are jumping ship, notably Mark Seidenberg, featured prominent by Hanford in “Hard Words,” among one of the first.
Also prominently, Rachel Canter in The Atlantic took issue with the “miracle” metaphor and offered “marathon” instead.
And it is now cool to (gently) reject the claims by Hanford across many of the most ardent SOR advocates on social media.
I carefully and with evidence discredited Hanford’s claims in “Hard Words” and then recycled in Sold a Story a couple years ago [3], prompting anger and personal attacks.
You see, challenging SOR is challenging perpetual education reform, which is challenging the marketing and profits from that reform.
And thus, SOR gradually became a thought-terminating cliche, used to protect the reform machine and those profiting from it.
So folk are starting to jump ship as the numbers (on cue) aren’t matching the outsized claims.
Therefore, I now have settled, then, on the most apt metaphor for the SOR movement:
The SOR movement began with false claims [4] and misguided blame, and thus, the solutions never matched the real, and complex, problems that reading proficiency represents.
Yet again, education reform has proven to be rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
Once sunk, another will be launched and reformers will set out once again rearranging those chairs with gusto and the missionary zeal that keeps them (temporarily) afloat.
Notes
[1] Semingson, P. & Kerns, W. (2021). Where is the evidence? Looking back to Jeanne Chall and enduring debates about the science of reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 56(S1), S157-S169. Retrieved July 26, 2022, from https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.405
[2] Thomas, P.L. (2022). The Science of Reading movement: The never-ending debate and the need for a different approach to reading instruction. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/science-of-reading
[3] Thomas, P.L. (2024, November). We teach English in times of perpetual crisis: For all ELA teachers, “the time is always now.” English Journal, 114(2), 21-26. https://publicationsncte.org/content/journals/10.58680/ej2024114221
Thomas, P.L. (2024, September). We teach English in times of perpetual crisis: The media continue to misread teaching reading and literacy. English Journal, 114(1), 14-19. https://publicationsncte.org/content/journals/10.58680/ej2024114114
Thomas, P.L. (2024, May). Teaching English in the “science of reading” era: We teach English in times of perpetual crisis: Selling a story of reading. English Journal, 113(5), 16-22. https://publicationsncte.org/content/journals/10.58680/ej2024113516
Thomas, P.L. (2024, March). We teach English in times of perpetual crisis: The long (and tedious) history of reading crisis. English Journal, 113(4), 21-26. https://publicationsncte.org/content/journals/10.58680/ej2024113421
[4] How it started in “Hard Words” and how it is now going as reported in Ed Week:
Recommended
I Was In Charge of the Deck Chairs On the Titanic, and They Absolutely Did Need Rearranging
Research Contradicts “Science of Reading” Media Story Being Sold
If you want to help with the costs of keeping my public work open access and free, please DONATE.
