Scientifically Based Reading Instruction

The National Reading Panel accomplished some goals toward improved reading instruction especially in identifying 5 basic components of reading (phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension).  However, it oversimplified these components making it seem that if those were addressed the various programs were in fact scientifically based and sufficient. However, that is simply not the case.
One critical component the National Reading Panel failed to address is the importance of oral language development and listening skills.  Developing oral language and listening skills are important precursors to learning to read.  They are also skills that need to be continuously developed throughout school.  An Individual’s oral language skills not only begin the foundation of vocabulary development but it is also the basis for phonological processing especially phonological awareness.  Phonological awareness is the foundation for reading and it is more than phonemic awareness. 
With so much attention on developing better readers why do we continue to have more than 68% of children in Arkansas reading below grade level and just so you know I do not accept poverty and socioeconomic status as an excuse.  There are children who come from poverty or environments that are not print rich and they do not struggle to learn to read.
Some children are inherently wired to learn to read in spite of the failures of instruction.  However that is a very small portion of the population.  Other children are highly dependent on the quality of the instruction.  Better yet, some children require instruction that is based in the science of reading and not someone’s opinion.  So if a program addresses all components addressed by the National Reading Panel is it scientifically based? 
NO!!!!!!
Proponents of Balanced or Comprehensive Literacy claim that type of reading instruction not only meets all components of the National Reading Panel but also that all instruction is founded in scientific research.  This is not accurate.  These programs are Whole Language renamed.  The emphasis is on reading in connected text, which only encourages poor reading strategies of guessing the word based on context clues, first sound, or pictures.  This strategy has been found unsuccessful and not consistent with what good readers do repeatedly through scientific research.  These types of strategies are found to work less than 10% of the times and even less once pictures are removed from text.
 
These programs claim they do “word work” but this is not the same as the systematic and explicit instruction in phonics, which is critical for establishing the alphabetic principle, which leads to automatic word recognition.  “Three decades of empirical studies have shown that words are NOT read as single units (Massaro & Jesse, 2005).  Eye-movement studies using computes have shown that readers do process almost every letter in a written word unless the word is a highly familiar one or an article or a conjunction.  If attention were not paid to the individual letters in words, readers would confuse word pairs such as hit/hut, chair/choir. Grow/grew, and health/hearth, which differ from each other by only one letter.” (Aron, Joshi, & Quatroche 2008)  Specific letters in words are critical for identifying the words however through word work the alphabetic principle is not explicitly taught thus forcing the child to generalize patterns or memorize words.  This is faulty not only because it is not what good readers do but also because we have a limited capacity to our memory.  Balanced-literacy approaches avoid direct and systematic teaching of the alphabetic code. Children are taught to rely on contextual guessing, picture clues, and patterned or repetitious language to recognize words. If children miss words, the teacher is to say, “Does that make sense?” Contextual guessing strategies are supported by the “cueing systems” model of word recognition—which has no basis in reading science. (Moats)
 
Jean Chall’s research, which in fact predicted the debacle of whole language, which is still very prominent today just, renamed as balanced or comprehensive literacy.  Her research outlined specific stages of development with the beginning stages focusing on a strong foundation in phonological and orthographic processing which aids in automatic and accurate word recognition.  Once these occur then approaches like guided reading would be appropriate because the child will have the skills needed to decode unfamiliar words.  How our guided reading instruction is set up now forces the child to rely on context cues and pictures which are not only ineffective but encourage the use of useless reading habits of poor readers.
If current instructional approaches were in fact effective our country would not have the literacy crisis we are now forced to address.  In Arkansas alone we have almost 68% of children NOT reading on grade level.  It is imperative that we do something different but first we must set aside our pride and admit that we have failed to use scientifically based reading approaches. 
Educators have to understand the developmental stages of reading and how these stages are successive and dependent on the level of proficiency of the previous level. 
Educators have to understand the neurological aspects of learning to read and how there are specific areas of the brain that must activate in order for the individual to read. 
Educators must understand that if all three areas of the brain do not activate, like they don’t for individuals with Dyslexia, that through the appropriate scientifically based multisensory instruction these areas not only begin to activate but will continue to activate a year after completion of the programs. 
Guided reading is the go to instructional focus in Arkansas, however it is NOT aligned with research nor does it teach critical skills needed for reading.  “Leveled books cannot be the basis for a systematic, explicit approach to beginning reading instruction. With each advancing level, students encounter many untaught phonic patterns and words. Lacking the tools to decode the books, students become ever more reliant on memorization and guesswork, unless they are lucky enough to intuit the print code from exposure or incidental teaching. Leveled books are fine for students who can read them but are not helpful as the central tool of instruction for children at risk”. (Moats)
If learning to read were as simple as exposing children to books, doing guided reading lessons, and expressing the importance of reading, then we, Arkansas and the United States, would not be in the LITERACY CRISIS we are in today.  In Arkansas, we have 68% of children not reading on grade level.  Statistically speaking only 20% of those children should have a neurological learning disability like Dyslexia.  That means we are simply failing to educate 48% of our youth.  We owe it to the 48% of children we are continuing to fail to not only STOP using ineffective instructional methods like balanced and comprehensive literacy but also to design classroom curriculum and intervention programs that are scientifically sound and proven to be successful for not only children with Dyslexia but also children with other language-based learning challenges. 
Make a choice to teach ALL children to learn to read!  Give our children an opportunity to the future they want and dream about.
​