In part one and part two of this blog series, I documented and explored choice quotations from Drs. Erekson and Benke’s presentation about the science of reading. I found most of their work misguided at best and dishonest and conspiratorial at worst. In my final post on this topic, I will move away from the content of their presentation and share the top lessons I’ve learned from Drs. Erekson’s and Benke’s work.

Lesson One: Keep an eye on the education schools.

Dr. Erekson is a tenured professor of literacy at University of Northern Colorado (UNCO). Dr. Benke is a literacy consultant, who received her Ph.D in educational psychology from UNCO in 2019. Dr. Erekson was Dr. Benke’s thesis advisor. UNCO is Colorado's largest teacher prep program. In 2019 and again in 2020, the state of Colorado did not fully reauthorize UNCO's elementary education and early childhood programs over concerns about their approaches to reading instruction. In 2021, after two failed attempts, UNCO was granted full reauthorization for its elementary education and early childhood programs. This is all to say that if Dr. Erekson’s classes are anything like his ALA presentation, his students will not be well-prepared to teach their students how to read. I also have some questions about the validity of UNCO’s reauthorization. The lesson here is that SoR advocates need to look more closely at what is happening in education schools, nationwide. 

Lesson Two: SoR has a communication problem.   

Throughout the presentation, Drs. Erekson and Benke repeatedly characterize the science of reading as a “one-size-fits-all” instructional approach that is only focused on phonics and decodable texts. This is a serious mischaracterization, but it’s also a common one. SoR advocates need to do a better job describing what they mean by terms like “science of reading” and “structured literacy.” They need to elevate excellent and exciting examples of teaching and learning to show that our work is about knowledge building, authentic texts, and deep engagement, not “just phonics.” While they’re at it, they might even consider coining a more descriptive and jazzier term than “structured literacy.” Karen Vaites has suggested “comprehensive literacy,” which, as she points out, contrasts nicely with “balanced literacy.” The lesson here is that SoR advocates need to do a better job documenting, describing, and defining what we want our classroom to look like. We cannot let educational leaders like Drs. Erekson and Benke define our theory and practice as antiquated, soul-crushing, and one-size-fits-all!  

Lesson Three: The contempt for the struggling reader runs deep. 

One of the most upsetting parts of this presentation was when Dr. Benke claimed that the IDA and its allies are advocating for a few struggling readers at the clear expense of the vast majority of students. This claim pits “the struggling readers” and “the normal readers” against each other. It also blames struggling readers for making reading instruction “worse” for everyone else. This is a contemptuous, ableist, and untrue claim, but it’s persuasive when left unchallenged. One lesson here is that SoR advocates need to support and protect struggling readers by proactively emphasizing that science of reading-informed practice benefits all students. Ultimately, though, my larger lesson is that the best way to support and protect our struggling readers is by growing the SoR movement intentionally and thoughtfully. This means including and amplifying parents and teachers who are not just wealthy and white. This means framing reading instruction as social justice and civil rights issues. This means seeking out, listening to, and elevating the stories of children, teachers, and parents that are not already well known.

I’ve spent the last three blog posts documenting many of my concerns with Drs. Erekson’s and Benke’s work. In the interest of time and space and attention span (yours, mine), I wasn’t even able to write about all of them. Concerns aside, though, at the end of the day, this presentation is not persuasive because it does not actually offer a positive vision of effective, inclusive, exciting, rich, and beautiful reading instruction. They don’t actually propose a comprehensive alternative. Yes, both speak favorably about balanced literacy at times, but they don’t go into what that practice entails or what it means for students in the classroom. The final lesson I hope to leave you here with is don’t just use your voice to criticize what isn’t working and complain about your school’s failure to teach reading effectively. Use your voice to describe and promote a positive, clear, engaging vision of what excellent reading instruction looks like. That is what needs to do as a movement. That is what I will try to do with my voice.