So About That Seidenberg Talk…
If you’re part of the Science of Reading Movement, you probably know that earlier this month Dr. Mark Seidenberg gave a virtual talk about early reading instruction. If you’re aware of this, you also probably know that this talk did not go well.
Listeners found Seidenberg’s critiques of LETRS, specifically, and the science of reading movement, in general, to be infuriating. Eventually, the original talk was taken offline, and Seidenberg re-recorded a new presentation and updated his slides.
I want to argue that Seidenberg was RIGHT on the issues. But because of the way he delivered his message, it was impossible for many to hear it. As we try to build an open and inclusive science of reading movement, it’s important to understand why his talk went poorly. That’s what I’m going to write about here.
Let’s look at what Seidenberg was actually saying.
Disconnection from the Research: Seidenberg contends that the Science of Reading Movement overrelies on a few simple studies and models to support its work and advocacy. This reliance is a problem, he argues, because these studies are not translational (i.e. they don’t discuss how to translate research findings into classroom practice) and are overly simple. In addition, the Science of Reading Movement sometimes does not incorporate the most recent science into its corpus. This leads us to adopt curricula that aren’t necessarily aligned with the latest science of reading.
This is a good point. I’m glad Seidenberg is pushing us to keep learning, researching, and studying. We should be doing these things.
But here’s the problem. Seidenberg appears to blame the Science of Reading Movement for not doing the research. He makes members feel like they’re at fault for not keeping up with the science and he makes them feel stupid by calling the movement “shallow” and “simple.” I don’t think this was Seidenberg’s intention—I think he’s trying to criticize the thought-leaders (Kilpatrick, Heggerty) here. But that’s not how his viewers understood his remarks.
How could this have been avoided? Seidenberg could have talked about best practices for translational science. He could have described and highlighted productive teacher-researcher partnerships. He could have cited the newer and deeper studies that we’re all missing out on. I want that reading list! And I bet you do too!
Efficacy, Efficiency, and Equity: Seidenberg also highlights the importance of examining science of reading practice through the lens of efficacy, efficiency, and equity. He points out that we do not yet understand the efficacy of newer curricula and haven’t considered the time and opportunity costs of these practices. He also argues that most of these new programs and approaches are not culturally responsive and that with limited exceptions, there’s no evidence that they work for children from marginalized backgrounds.
This is another good point. We should be discussing how much direct instruction is too much. We should always be asking what we’re losing when we make an instructional or curricular change. We absolutely must never assume that what works for most students will work for all students. Teachers should be having and leading these conversations.
But here’s the problem. Seidenberg doesn’t address what current teachers should do as we sort out the efficacy, efficiency, and equity of our current programs. No really, what should they do in class tomorrow? Should they dust off their Fountas & Pinnell? Keep doing what they’re doing? If you’re a second grade teacher who is trying to learn about the science of reading and you heard this talk, you’d be understandably confused, likely worried that you were failing your students, definitely questioning your ability and instincts. This confusion and worry don’t help anyone, definitely not the second grade students who are trying to learn how to read.
How could this have been avoided? Seidenberg could have started his talk by establishing a common ground before diving into a critique of the science of reading movement. He could have clarified that popular balanced literacy programs that we’re fighting to replace are neither efficacious, efficient, nor equitable. That would have cleared up some of the confusion. He could have talked more specifically about what a teacher could do, instead of undermining what they are doing. He could have stepped into that second grade teacher’s shoes for just a moment.
The failure of Seidenberg’s talk, despite the good ideas, should serve as a cautionary tale for all of us. It is not enough to have good ideas; delivery matters. And it especially matters in a growing movement such as the Science of Reading that is trying to persuade more people. It especially matters when you’re addressing overworked teachers who are trying to do their best, despite inadequate support and training. It especially matters when you’re tackling a problem like literacy, which is too big of a problem to get wrong…again.
