RE: English learners and the science of reading
Dear Mr. Russo,
We are writing you in response to the interview with Professor Claude Goldenberg titled “English learners and the Science of Reading.”
We respond to Dr. Goldenberg’s comments in our role as university teacher education professors and researchers with expertise in educating EL, Emergent Bilingual Learner and Multilingual Learners, each with a curriculum vita of scholarly research and publications on this topic. In addition, Dr. Flores has been Past President of CABE (2020-2024) and is currently the Financial Director for CABE. We can provide our CVs and samples of our scholarly research on the topic, not to tout our expertise, but in response to Dr. Goldenberg’s allegations that “… the qualifications of those who raise them warrant serious examination by journalists.”
Dr. Goldenberg suggests that journalists have not inquired into the academic credentials of the opponents of the Science of Reading legislation, AB 2222 (Rubio) with these words: “Individuals who have literally done and published ZERO research and seem not even to have read all the relevant research are ascribed as much credibility as individuals who have track records of research promoting increased understanding of how to promote literacy development in any language.” We can honestly state, without a scintilla of braggadocio that we are recognized and respected scholars for our research, teaching and advocacy for English learners.
The origins of much of the controversy surrounding the so-called Science of Reading can be traced back to yellow journalism from Emily Hanford of American Public Media.
The first point we wish to make is that there is nothing “scandalous” about disagreements between scholars about the “utility” of research to inform teachers about effective instruction. This is how academic scholarship works. Oftentimes, we researchers discuss our disagreement and different interpretations of each other’s research over a glass of wine at a conference. We do this respectfully because this is how we construct knowledge. Therefore, we find Dr. Goldenberg’s concerns about a scandal that journalists need to investigate to be hyperbole.
In fact, the origins of much of the controversy surrounding the so-called Science of Reading can be traced back to yellow journalism from Emily Hanford of American Public Media. Ms. Hanford published several podcast series that her media network advertised as an “exposé” on highly respected literacy researchers such as Marie Clay for allegedly negatively influencing reading instruction. Emily Hanford brags about how her podcast prompted legislators to pass bans against certain instructional strategies in several states. We will gladly point you to scholarly critiques of Emily Hanford’s claims about “debunked theories” and “harmful strategies.” Please see Tom Newkirk’s The Broken Logic of “Sold a Story:” A Personal Response to “The Science of Reading.”
In fact, you yourself say in an article titled “After “Sold a Story” What Comes Next” published November 30, 2022. “Inadequate reading instruction is arguably the biggest K-12 education story of 2022-23, affecting millions of kids each year.”
The fact is that there is no scientific, empirical research evidence to support the claim that “inadequate reading instruction” is the cause of a “literacy crisis” that can be remedied by an “adherence” to a particular body of scholarly research.
There is no scientific, empirical research evidence to support the claim that “inadequate reading instruction” is the cause of a “literacy crisis” that can be remedied by an “adherence” to a particular body of scholarly research.
This is CABE’s position on Science of Reading legislation:
CABE Supports the “Sciences of Reading” embedded in the robust and comprehensive, research-based California ELA/ELD Framework. California learned its lessons from “Reading First.” We are advocates for English Learners who want to see the ELA/ELD Framework to continue to be implemented and we want to see our legislators fund the full implementation of this Framework which supports literacy/biliteracy and notably when implemented, we began to see incremental growth in academic outcomes for our English Learners. Over 30 researchers, educators, and literacy experts came together to put the ELA/ELD Framework together. We need funding and a California focus on full implementation.
Please let us be clear about this very important point: We researchers who publish studies and books about literacy and biliteracy education for multilingual learners do not oppose the Science of Reading research. We are, in fact, experts in this body of research literature, which is only one of many research literatures, contrary to Dr. Goldenberg’s claim that “… These EL advocates/SoR critics fail to understand the voluminous research we have. I wonder if they’ve even read, much less fully comprehended it .
We “EL advocates/SoR critics” have articulated very clearly and openly the rationale for our opposition to Science of Reading legislation, which is not a critique of the research itself. Please keep in mind that what is called the “Science of Reading” is comprised of thousands of research studies, some of which may have contradictory findings. Among the very important criteria for research to be considered “scientific” is that any study’s research questions are based on a review of the literature of relevant studies such that the questions are connected to an existing theoretical framework. The findings and conclusions of a study must also meet the criterion for population validity. This criterion asked this question: Do the findings of this study sufficiently identify the characteristics of the population of students studied so as to support generalizations to subgroups of students with different characteristics, such as bilingual learners. Not all research studies that fall into the category of Science of Reading have population validity. We will gladly provide you with treatises on the issue of population validity for multilingual learners, which abound in the research literature.
We “EL advocates/SoR critics” have articulated very clearly and openly the rationale for our opposition to Science of Reading legislation, which is not a critique of the research itself.
Furthermore, the SoR movement promotes bans on instructional approaches and strategies that are supported by research from research directly on multilingual learners such as second language acquisition, second language reading, and metalinguistic transfer facilitation. Is it mere coincidence that the strategies that the SoR advocates seek to ban are essential to the language and literacy learning and academic achievement of multilingual/biliteracy learners? Please see Dr. Mora’s article “To Cue or Not to Cue: Is That the Question in Language Magazine (June 2023) for an analysis of the pedagogical censorship promoted by the SoR movement. This article addresses the reality that, as you say, “literacy reform based on the best research we have” will not be possible unless all of the best research we have from multiple bodies of research literature with population validity beyond just the research categorized as Science of Reading is taken into account, as has been done already with the Common Core State Standards and the ELA/ELD Framework (2014).
You can also read highly respected literacy research scholars, Robert Tierney and P. David Pearson, who have made a comprehensive critique of ten claims from the Science of Reading advocates: Tierney, R. J., & Pearson, P. D. (2024). Fact-checking the Science of Reading: Opening up the conversation at Literacy Research Commons website. We also recommend that you view this CABE webinar with these researchers to understand the concerns of the greater literacy research community about the impact of the legislative and political agenda of the SoR movement at this link. You may also wish to visit Dr. Mora’s website for a critique of the SoR movement from the point of view of a multilingual educator and her perspective on Professors Tierney and Pearson’s 10 Claims that articulates the transdisciplinary research that forms the pedagogical knowledge base for effective instruction of multilingual learners.
You can see from these resources that there is no consensus within the academic literacy research community about the interpretation and applicability of the SoR research to the education of multilingual learners. Despite this lack of consensus, the AB 2222 bill used the terms “adherence to” and “alignment with” the Science of Reading over 30 times. What does it mean for teachers to adhere to or align with a body of research where there is, in actuality, no consensus on how that research is translated into effective approaches and strategies in a teacher’s classroom with his or her students who have diverse learning characteristics and needs?
It is reasonable to expect teachers to adhere to and align with curriculum standards that are clearly articulated in terms of students’ expected learning outcomes and behaviors, but it is not reasonable, as a matter of law, to require teachers to adhere to a singular body of research. We attach an article about the multilingual learner education pedagogical knowledge base that extends far beyond the Science of Reading research. This is so that you can appreciate the concerns of CABE, Californians Together, the California Teachers Association (CTA), and the CABE affiliate California Association of Bilingual Teacher Educators (CABTE) who opposed the AB 2222 Science of Reading mandate. We believe that the California Assembly recognized that the organizations that represent the very educators who would be expected to implement the Science of Reading mandate were the constituents who were most strongly opposed to AB 2222.
There is no consensus within the academic literacy research community about the interpretation and applicability of the SoR research to the education of multilingual learners
Certainly, if Science of Reading advocates provide a list of references to research published in the past decade since the ELA/ELD Framework was adopted, the California Department of Education would welcome this research update. However, the SoR advocates have not made the case that the current California public school language and literacy curriculum does not have a solid research base. Therefore, literacy education in California does not need to be “revamped” to improve students’ achievement in English language development and English language arts. What is needed is full implementation of the current standards and curriculum frameworks.
Please consider the fact that CABE’s Webinar series gives teachers, administrators, teacher education faculty and interested stakeholders in education policy the opportunity to hear directly from researchers themselves. The Webinar presenters describe and explain their own research methods and findings. Participants in the live webinar sessions can submit a form with questions for the presenter(s), which are addressed in a follow-up session. The presenters’ academic credentials and lists of publications are made available to the public, as well as some research articles that further elaborate on their presentations. Consequently, educators can judge for themselves the credibility and relevance of the presenters’ research.
It is reasonable for CABE’s webinar series presenters to expect that if there is disagreement with something a presenter or monitor says that his/her exact words be quoted in the protest. This verbatim quotation of a statement or remark is required to avoid the possibility that other researchers or webinar participants are criticizing an interpretation of what the presenter said rather than what s/he actually said. Direct quotations and citations are common courtesy among academic scholars. Unfortunately, in The Reading League’s published critique of Dr. Steven Strauss by Dr. Stanislas Dehaene that you linked in your article Dr. Strauss’s actual words and the claim he was making were not provided.
CABE trusts educators to make their own judgements and arrive at their own conclusions about the relevance and applicability of research findings, rather than rely on “He said she said they said” interpretation of the research. In a dispute between two highly respected neuroscientists, Dr. Strauss and Dr. Dehaene, do journalists believe that they/you are qualified to determine which neuroscientist is wrong, and which one is right about how language(s) are processed in the brain? Or can you accept the fact that there is more than one credible perspective on a theory or method for empirical investigation into highly technical and complex areas of scientific research?
Professor Goldenberg insists that the media should investigate the “research credibility” of organizations that opposed Assembly Bill 2222. We suggest that the educators who are directly responsible for achieving specified learning outcomes in their school and classroom, including teacher education faculty, be trusted to determine which sources of knowledge they need to improve their professional knowledge and skills, not state legislators and organizations with no regulatory responsibility or authority. A body of research literature cannot be used as a regulatory schema to mandate “adherence” or “alignment” and to sanction teachers for non-alignment, not to the research itself, but to someone’s interpretation of research.
Research cannot become a sort of “pedagogy police” to satisfy the assumptions, values and agendas of a particular interpretive community seeking to impose mandates under the banner of “science.” It is not the proper role of state legislatures to mandate official knowledge for a multidisciplinary community of academic researchers with diverse areas of expertise. Legislative mandates do not and cannot advance the education of California’s culturally and linguistically diverse student population.
We would welcome an opportunity for you to interview us individually or together to further elaborate on our rationale for opposing SoR legislation in California, and to specifically address our concerns about the potential impact of this legislation on English learners. Dr. Mora will take the lead on any further communications in this regard. Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
Jill Kerper Mora, Ed.D. Associate Professor Emerita, San Diego State University
Barbara Flores, Ph.D. Professor Emerita, CSU San Bernardino
Esteban Díaz, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus, CSU San Bernardino
Previously from The Grade
English learners and the science of reading (Goldenberg interview)
What’s next for literacy coverage in 2024?
Keeping the spotlight on English learners
How to write smarter stories about English language learners
Globe reporters describe how they cover immigrant English learners
