So About that ALA Presentation…(part 1)

This is part one of a three-part series. Read part two here and part three here.

If you’ve spent any time on Science of Reading Twitter or Facebook this week, you’ve probably noticed posts about the now-infamous ALA presentation on Science of Reading and libraries. I obtained the recording and slides from the presentation, and unfortunately, it is much worse than the online summary suggests. The presenters don’t just mischaracterize the science of reading as “a phonics-only curriculum”—the science of reading is neither a curriculum nor does it exclusively or especially focus on phonics. They also conspiratorially imply that a well-funded cadre of parents of dyslexic students, the International Dyslexia Association, Emily Hanford, the Reading League, and various SoR-related companies are pushing the science of reading for profit. Along the way, they misrepresent various reading models, suggest that dyslexia may not be real, and question why we’re changing core instruction just because of a small number of struggling readers. 

In this series of posts, I will share direct quotations from the presentation to give you a sense of the content, structure, and tone. Then, I will provide a brief commentary of my own, but I mostly want to let Drs. Benke and Erekson speak for themselves. This post covers the first 20 minutes of their talk.

__________

Quotation 1: Defining the Science of Reading

“Science of Reading is an approach to teaching reading that is based on the expectation that many children will have difficulty learning to read. It is in effect a deficit model of reading instruction. Proponents of the science of reading want us to teach all students in the same way and that way is a high expectation that they may fail.” 

Dr. Benke kicks off the presentation by sharing the Reading League’s definition of the science of reading. She disparages this definition as a “deficit model” without explaining why that’s a problem or what that means. Finally and crucially, she introduces the idea that the science of reading means teaching all students in the same way and that the approach is overly concerned with struggling readers. For what it’s worth, the Reading League definition neither mentions nor implies any such thing. 

Quotation 2: Introducing the IDA

“Usually, the science of reading is discussed in relation to dyslexia, and the major force behind Science of Reading is the International Dyslexia Association (IDA). It’s big. It sounds impressive. It has a myriad of associated splinter groups. And it’s technically a nonprofit organization that happens to publish most of the research behind the science of reading.” 

Here, Dr. Benke introduces her audience to the IDA. She conspiratorially implies that it’s a highly influential organization that should not be a non-profit because of its political agenda. She also attributes “most of the research behind the science of reading” to the IDA, neglecting to name any prominent researchers in the literacy field, none of whom work for the IDA, all of whom are contributing to “the science of reading” research body. I’ll name ten of my favorites off the top of my head right now:  Julie Washington, Mark Seidenberg, Nell Duke, Tiffany Peltier, Hugh Catts, Nadine Gaab, Sonia Cabell, Tim Shanahan, Esther Lindström, Jimmy Kim, and Tiffany Hogan. 

Quotation 3: Dyslexia *may* not exist. 

“Many parents and some teachers are passionate about their support of the IDA, yet there are many scientists and literacy researchers who have questions specifically about dyslexia, and whether it is a legitimately separate reading disability from other reading disabilities.” 

Here, Dr. Benke raises the possibility that dyslexia might not even exist without providing any evidence or naming any specific scientists or literacy researchers. Again, note the conspiratorial tone: is dyslexia real? Is it not? Dr. Benke doesn’t answer the question, but she plants seeds of doubt.  

Quotation 4: Struggling readers are forcing us to turn our classrooms upside down! 

“But [very real pain and anguish of struggling readers] doesn’t change the fact that [the IDA] is running a very high-powered political campaign to force all children to learn to read in the same way, regardless of whether or not they struggle to learn how to read. “

Dr. Benke concludes the first portion of the presentation by suggesting that the IDA wants all children to suffer through painful literacy instruction that only benefits struggling or weaker readers. This idea echoes Fountas and Pinnell literacy consultant Terri Beeler’s comment from November 2021: “it’s very sad that we’ve turned the entire education system upside down for 20% of the kids.” Fountas and Pinnell and their published Heinemann apologized for this comment, clarifying that every child is valuable and deserves access to high-quality literacy instruction that works for them.

In the next portion of the presentation, Dr. Benke introduces several SoR concepts that librarians should become familiar with, including the 2000 National Reading Panel report, brain imaging, a model of structured literacy, Scarborough’s Reading Rope, and the simple view of reading. In the interest of space, I’ll share only two quotations here, but it’s worth watching the entire presentation if you have the time. 

Quotation 5: Scarborough’s Reading Rope

“There are a couple of theoretical models that first originated in research discussing dyslexia and were used to give support to how the science of reading has a particular emphasis on phonics.” 

This is all Dr. Benke has to say about Scarborough’s Reading Rope—that it is used to promote phonics. She ignores the upper half of the rope that details the importance of language comprehension and its various components in skilled reading.

Quotation 6: Simple View of Reading  

“This model explains that if someone was having difficulty with reading, it was probably coming from decoding, the very first element in this model.”

Here, Dr. Benke misunderstands or misrepresents the simple view of reading. The model shows that reading comprehension is the product of decoding ability and language comprehension. This means that if one’s decoding or language comprehension ability is zero, then one won’t be able to read.  It does not state or imply that decoding is more important than language comprehension, as Dr. Benke claims. 

__________

This concludes the first 20 minutes of the presentation. In the next section, I’ll walk you through the second section, during which Dr. Erekson attempts to debunk common claims made by the SoR proponents.