and the Dyslexia Debate

EMPORIA STATE RESEARCH STUDIES

Vol. 53, no. 1, p. 33 – 43 (2022)

_____________________________________________________________________________________ (Re)defining the ABC’s of Misinformation - What Literacy Teacher Educators and K-12 Teachers Need to Know About Dyslexia and the Dyslexia Debate

KATHLEEN HOWEa AND TEDDY ROOPb

a Park University, b Emporia State University; Corresponding Author: Kathleen.howe@park.edu

Dyslexia legislation has spread across the United States in recent years. Literacy teacher educators and K-12 teachers were largely excluded in efforts to bring about these laws. Dyslexia advocates--parents, professional associations, and companies, crafted a narrative that is not in sync with the larger body of literacy research, aiming to influence the nature of teacher preparation and K-12 instruction. The authors present an overview of legislation and seek to clarify key terms across the dyslexia debate to inform K-12 teachers and teacher educators beyond what is shared by advocates, while ensuring all students, not just those identified as at-risk or as having dyslexia, learn to read. Keywords: dyslexia, literacy instruction, K-12 teachers, teacher educators, legislation

INTRODUCTION

It is important higher education literacy teacher educators and K-12 teachers understand key terms and concepts used within recent dyslexia legislation that has spread across the nation and not just the narrative presented by dyslexia advocates (Worthy et al., 2017). A complete understanding of the issue and key terminology will ensure literacy professionals are fully equipped to align their programs with the legislative mandates and can knowledgeably speak with lawmakers and state department of education regulators about dyslexia and reading instruction moving forward. This is especially important as Worthy and colleagues (2017) note, the “dyslexia discourse” is currently being “propagated” within “closed circles” of tightly connected organizations who intentionally exclude teacher educators, teachers, and use language that can intimate those on the outside (p. 66). Additionally, it is important for teacher educators and teachers to be in a position to support all students, including those at risk for or identified as having dyslexia, in light of what we know from actual “evidence” rather than “ideology” upon which reading laws and policies are too often crafted (Allington, 2005; Worthy et al., 2017).

Currently, over 40 states have enacted dyslexia legislation (Johnston & Scanlon, 2020). The laws are in response to lobbying efforts by dyslexia advocates primarily made up of parent groups, dyslexia professional associations, and private companies that provide tutoring services and instructional materials for use with students identified as dyslexic (Gabriel, 2020). Through well-coordinated efforts, these groups created a narrative to push forward their agenda related to dyslexia (Worthy et al., 2017). According to Gabriel (2020) and Johnston and Scanlon (2020), they successfully raised concerns with legislators across the country about reading challenges they claim are experienced by large numbers of K-12 students. They believe such reading challenges result from an under-identification of students with dyslexia and the failure to deliver a specific type of instruction to all students within the general education population (Gabriel, 2020). Central to their concerns is the way decoding is taught (Johnston & Scanlon, 2020). Advocates assert their claims are backed by “the science of reading” (SOR), which they narrowly recognize as almost exclusively made up of basic scientific studies (Gabriel, 2020; Johnston & Scanlon, 2020). They point to studies involving fMRI brain scans of word learning as evidence that the instructional approaches they favor are the “solution” for teaching decoding to students identified as “at risk” or diagnosed with dyslexia (Gabriel, 2020; Worthy et al., 2017). Their argument is problematic because evidence from medical studies conducted within a lab does not equal evidence for the science of reading instruction (Shanahan, 2020). In addition, their argument is built upon misinformation – inaccurate or misleading definitions

of key terms associated with reading instruction (MacPhee et al., 2021).

Creating even more challenges is that input into the legislation from literacy teacher educators and K-12 teachers is noticeably missing (Hoffman et al., 2020; Worthy et al., 2018b). Common across state dyslexia legislation is a mandate that state departments of education create a literacy council to inform and monitor the implementation of the legislation. Teacher educators and K-12 teachers are not well represented on such councils as available seats are reserved for individuals who subscribe to the legislation’s narrow point of view. Essentially, the councils create echo chambers. However, the current laws significantly impact the work of those excluded, shift the field’s understanding of literacy, in general, and the way in which teachers assess and instruct students to read (Worthy et al., 2017). The absence of key stakeholders who are literacy professionals is no accident. Throughout the dyslexia “discourse” teacher educators and K-12 teachers have been painted as the “problem” and the dyslexia laws as the “solution” that comes in the form of specific commercial trainings, certifications, and programs that occur outside of traditional degree programs (Gabriel, 2018). Dyslexia advocates go so far as to say that dyslexia is not the problem, rather “disteach-ia” is. They argue there is a mismatch between the outdated beliefs and practices of teacher educators, K-12 teachers, and what advocates suggest is “settled science” throughout their narrative about dyslexia (Johnston & Scanlon, 2020; Worthy et al., 2016; Worthy et al., 2018b). In actuality, the mismatch comes by way of misinformation – the way in which key terms are defined and discussed throughout advocate’s discourse.

SO WHAT DO TEACHER EDUCATORS AND K-12 TEACHERS NEED TO KNOW ABOUT CURRENT DYSLEXIA LEGISLATION?

The authors present an overview of the ways in which key terms at the center of the dyslexia movement are promoted by advocates and contribute to the spread of misinformation across social media, popular media, and within the existing legislation. The authors believe literacy teacher educators and K-12 teachers will benefit from a factual discussion of the terminology used within this movement. An exploration of the key terms and concepts used will equip them to be able to respond to the narrative espoused by dyslexia advocates and better frame their work in light of the current legislation. Suggestions for further readings are included for several of the key terms discussed. The overview begins with the very concept at the center of the debate, dyslexia. It is important to begin with dyslexia as the entire movement and narrative around it hinges on acceptance of how this key term is defined.

HOW IS DYSLEXIA DEFINED?

Problems exist with how dyslexia is defined, primarily because existing definitions are vague and do not prove useful for distinguishing between someone with dyslexia and someone who experiences other difficulties learning to read (Stanovich, 1994; Worthy et al., 2018b). Lack of consensus across various fields, including education, medicine, psychology, communications, and more is well documented (Elliott & Grigorenko, 2014). Yet, existing state legislation includes a definition crafted by the International Dyslexia Association (IDA), implying consensus exists. The International Dyslexia Association’s (IDA) definition of dyslexia states:

Dyslexia is a specific learning disability that is neurobiological in origin. It is characterized by difficulties with accurate and/or fluent word recognition and by poor spelling and decoding abilities. These difficulties typically result from a deficit in the phonological component of language that is often unexpected in relation to other cognitive abilities and the provision of effective classroom instruction. Secondary consequences may include problems in reading comprehension and reduced reading experience that can impede growth of vocabulary and background knowledge. (IDA, 2021) This definition is not helpful as the information it provides does not narrow down specific characteristics that only apply to someone with dyslexia. In other words, it is impossible to know where a “garden variety” struggling reader ends and a student with dyslexia begins based on this definition. Stating a reader with dyslexia exhibits inaccurate and dysfluent word recognition, poor spelling, struggles with decoding, and issues related to phonological awareness is overly broad and could describe a wide range of readers who face challenges for a variety of other reasons (Johnston & Scanlon, 2020). Adding the caveat that such difficulties are not

related to intellect and are biological in nature is also not helpful and raises alarm bells for some that the definition and associated legislation favors white, middle and upper-class students (Worthy et al., 2018b). Specifically, the concern is that use of environmental and economic factors to diagnose dyslexia invite subjective perceptions and raise concerns related to equity (Elliot, 2020). Upon closer examination of IDA’s definition, one may reasonably conclude that advocates intentionally want to cast the net wide to fit claims that large numbers of people within the general population are impacted by dyslexia.

Gabriel (2018) deconstructs IDA’s definition of dyslexia and discusses how this and other branding tactics have allowed advocates to create a narrative to establish the need for the dyslexia legislation that has swept across the country. According to Gabriel (2018), it is key that dyslexia is positioned as neurobiological versus cognitive or behavioral in nature and continuum-based. First, by defining dyslexia as neurological it becomes “natural, verifiable, and therefore unassailable” (Gabriel, 2018, p. 263). Advocates can point to brain scans as proof it exists as a “scientific and biological reality,” not a vague construct that is not included within the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (American Psychiatric Association, 2013), or one for which various fields and disciplines such as education and medicine are unable to agree upon a common set of diagnostic criteria. (Gabriel, 2018; Johnston & Scanlon, 2020; Worthy et al., 2018b).

Second, Gabriel (2018) points out by referencing dyslexia as occurring along a continuum, advocates are able to make it familiar, special, and more common than otherwise believed to parents and policy makers alike. Gabriel (2018) suggests by linking dyslexia to other more familiar spectrums such as autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), advocates are able to shift the focus from deficit to something that is natural and experienced by many to varying degrees. In other words, framing dyslexia along a continuum suggests that everyone could be “a little bit dyslexic” and avoid the stigma associated with identification as a “struggling reader”. In addition, use of the metaphor of a continuum allows advocates to make dyslexia seem more prevalent than previously thought. When discussing the number of individuals with dyslexia, it is not unusual to read 1 in 5 or 20 percent of the

population mentioned by dyslexia advocates, organizations and associations. (Gabriel, 2018).

Third, Gabriel (2018) notes advocates frequently link dyslexia to a variety of positive associations. The “coupling of dyslexia with creativity” (Elliot & Grigorenko, 2014), and spotlighting creative, high performing individuals with above-average intelligence, not only normalizes dyslexia, but according to Gabriel (2018) suggests it may even be special, desirable or come with an “advantage”. Positioning dyslexia as special through these positive associations separates it from more negative associations that are thought of with “general reading difficulties” or being known as a “struggling reader”. Others have pushed back and challenged this approach as racist and an attempt to separate white, middle and upper-class students from minority students who come from disadvantaged backgrounds (Elliot, 2020; Worthy et al., 2018b). IDA’s definition notes identification is not based on “cognitive abilities and the provision of effective classroom instruction” (IDA, 2021), which alludes to existing identification pathways. This pre-dates current legislation via Response to Intervention (RTI) tiered interventions and assessments, specifically IQ tests for placement per IDEA into Special Education for specific reading difficulties. Johnston (2019) also references intelligence and not so subtly alludes to socio-cultural-related challenges often experienced by students from diverse and lower income backgrounds to distinguish ways “some students” differ from those with dyslexia. Johnston (2019) cites the work of Kang et al. (2016), Norton et al. (2015), and Ramus (2014) to back claims that struggling readers “may have grown up in environments that were not print-rich or where they were not exposed to reading materials, may have low IQs, or may have low motivation that causes dyslexia” (Johnston, 2019, p. 340).

In short, dyslexia has been rebranded from something that is vague, confusing, mysterious, and a deficit that is undesirable, rare or found in only a few who experience reading difficulties to a commonly occurring scientifically verifiable neurological condition that may even have advantages (Gabriel, 2018).

THE ABC’S OF MISINFORMATION WITHIN THE DYSLEXIA MOVEMENT

Educators are often criticized for use of contentspecific terms that are confusing or hard to understand for those outside the field, particularly parents and the general public. It is also not uncommon for educators to debate amongst themselves about the superiority of one theoretical model, instructional approach, and more over others. Yet, in the case of the recent dyslexia movement, it is individuals outside the field of education who are using words and terms that are confusing or not easily understood by literacy practitioners and researchers alike. In addition, the way in which the science of reading is being narrowly defined within the current dyslexia movement and within media is problematic and contributes to a climate of incomplete or inaccurate information (Hoffman et al., 2020; MacPhee et al., 2021; Wetzel et al., 2020).

In their, book The Misinformation Age, O’Connor and Weatherall (2019) explore how false beliefs form, persist and spread. Dyslexia advocates follow what appears to be a blueprint straight out of O’Connor and Weatherall’s book. Tactics include the spread of misinformation using distribution of selective research studies to cast doubts on existing evidence and create confusion (O’Connor & Weatherall, 2019). Other tactics include the use of influencers who insert themselves within networks of social connections to help shape other’s beliefs through the promotion of false narratives (O’Connor & Weatherall, 2019). According to O’Connor and Weatherall (2019), the influencers first become “trusted advisors” by frequently sharing information on a desired topic, and then use their status to shape other’s beliefs through the promotion of false narratives. MacPhee et al. (2021) conducted a critical metaphor analysis of media stories showing ways in which journalists have framed the science of reading and support for the current dyslexia movement by “weaponize[ing] science to tell an incomplete story about reading education” (p. 7). In addition, Hoffman et al. (2020) note that most of the critiques of reading education related to the science of reading are coming from the media and not from what is included in the professional literature. The science of reading is being used across media to silence teacher educators through the use of unfounded claims about evidence-based reading instruction (Hoffman et al., 2020; Wetzel et al., 2020).

The next section considers some key terms and concepts commonly heard within the dyslexia movement. More specifically, it presents the following for each: 1) What misinformation dyslexia advocates share, 2) What the research actually says that teacher educators and K-12 teachers need to know, and 3) Suggested readings for those interested in learning more. We begin the ABC’s of misinformation with A for authentic text, followed by B for balanced literacy, and end with C for the ThreeCueing System.

AUTHENTIC TEXT

Issues surrounding phonics instruction is at the heart of dyslexia advocates’ concerns (Johnston & Scanlon, 2020; Silverman et al., 2020). Advocates have specific thoughts regarding how phonics should be taught, including what types of text and other materials should be used to teach students to decode (i.e., sand, clay, and other manipulatives) (Worthy et al., 2018a). Advocates promote a sequential, synthetic, multi-sensory approach to phonics instruction (Gabriel, 2020). Additionally, they believe phonics instruction should be delivered to students in a whole group setting and follow what is known as “structured literacy” lessons (Gabriel, 2018). As part of the narrative to advance this specific approach to phonics instruction, advocates pit the use of different types of text against each other, leading educators to believe it is an either-or situation. In addition, information is framed in ways that suggest use of certain types of text, such as authentic, predictable or leveled is incorrect, not evidence-based, and that decodable text should be used exclusively to teach beginning reading. References to use of “leveled texts” is part of the negative narrative used by dyslexia proponents when speaking about text selection for phonics instruction. Its use is associated with an instructional approach that occurs in small groups known as guided reading and which advocates claim ignores explicit phonics instruction. Advocates pit guided reading groups against their preferred way to teach phonics (sequential, synthetic, & multisensory) during whole group “structured literacy” instruction. They falsely insinuate that guided reading groups cannot or do not involve explicit systematic phonics instruction because it includes the use of leveled text. In addition, they create the inaccurate allusion that

structured literacy, not guided reading, and use of decodable text, not leveled, is the only way to teach phonics systematically and explicitly and that phonics instruction is the sum total of beginning reading. There is a role for and reason for using authentic, decodable, predictable, and leveled text as part of beginning reading instruction (Hiebert & Martin, 2001). It is not one type at the expense of the others.

Additionally, there are a variety of approaches to teaching phonics, including analytic, analogy, embedded, synthetic, integrated, and through spelling (Stahl et al., 2006). Cunningham (2003) outlines six key research findings that are helpful for guiding phonics instruction. Included amongst the findings is that there is no “best way” to teach phonics (Cunningham, 2003, pp. 66-71). Cunningham (2003) references the findings of The National Reading Panel (2000) and its review of experimental studies related to phonics instruction. The Panel (NRP, 2000) essentially notes that any phonics instruction is better than no phonics instruction. Or, as highlighted by Cunningham (2003) from the Panel’s report, “explicit and systematic phonics is superior to nonsystematic or no phonics, but that there is no significant difference in effectiveness among the kinds of systematic phonics instruction” or in the “effectiveness among tutoring, small-group, or whole-class phonics instruction.” (NRP, 2000, p. 71). Literacy professionals do not dispute that the best method for teaching all students to read, including those with dyslexia, includes explicit, systematic phonics instruction as noted within the NRP Report (2000). However, literacy professionals support use of a more broad instructional approach for teaching all students to read that goes beyond an overemphasis on decoding (ILA, 2016; NRP, 2000).

Dyslexia advocates believe higher education and K12 teachers ignore or do not believe in what advocates claim to be “settled science” within the science of reading (SOR) for their preferred instructional approach and over-emphasis on teaching phonics (Gabriel, 2020; Johnston & Scanlon, 2020). However, what is “settled” amongst literacy professionals is that achieving automaticity in word recognition is essential to reading and that students must be taught to decode if they do not know how or struggle to do so (Stahl, 1992). In addition, they believe that individual student needs should dictate the type of approach and sequence of instruction needed. Automatic word recognition, text fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension strategies are as important as the need to teach students to decode (ILA, 2016). In addition, phonological awareness and phonemic awareness (PA) are positioned within the larger context of what literacy professionals recognize as key literacy content within balanced literacy, are essential to reading instruction, and to automaticity of word recognition (ILA, 2016).

Suggested reading for teacher educators and K-12 teachers interested in learning more about PA, phonics, and use of text to teach reading:

● Anderson & Scanlon (2020) - The Development of Sight Vocabulary.

● Goodwin (2015) - Word detectives:

Morphological instruction that supports academic language.

● Mesmer et al. (2012) – Toward a Theoretical

Model of Text Complexity for the Early

Grades: Learning From the Past,

Anticipating the Future.

● Miles et al. (2018) - Rethinking Sight

Words.

● Yopp & Yopp (2000) - Supporting

Phonemic Awareness Development in the

Classroom

BALANCED LITERACY

Dyslexia advocates have created more confusion within their narrative by making “balanced literacy” a euphemism for “whole language”. They reduce balanced literacy to the equivalent of small group instruction in which teachers use “leveled books” to teach students how to decode following the “threecueing system” (Hanford, 2018). Like use of different types of text previously discussed, there is also a role for and reason for whole group, small group, and one-on-one instruction. Ongoing use of formative and summative assessment allows a skilled reading teacher to track individual student progress and design and deliver instruction that meets an individual’s needs (Barone et al., 2020). Reducing “balanced literacy” to a type of instructional grouping is as inaccurate as advocates’ explanation of what or how the “three-cueing system” is understood and used by most teacher educators and teachers. References to the “three cueing system” or the belief that reading is “a natural process that does not need to be taught” are simply used to promote

advocates’ beliefs and practices and cast doubt on other practices than what advocates prefer.

A chapter by Pearson and Raphael (2003), “Toward a more complex view of balance in the literacy curriculum,” provides a cogent summary of what the larger community of literacy researchers have come to accept as the meaning of balanced literacy. As noted by the authors, balanced literacy involves “balance” in instructional approaches, materials, and assessments (Pearson & Raphael, 2003). What is often referred to as the “Big Five” represents the “content” of reading such as phonological awareness/phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension (NRP, 2000). The report written by the RAND Reading Study Group, & Snow (2002) captures consensus among literacy scholars related to the importance of comprehension in learning to read. Meaning making (comprehension) is the “point” of learning to read, which literacy educators worry current legislation and advocates’ over-emphasis on phonics ignores. Additionally, researchers and teacher educators recognize that other key literacy domains play important roles in effective reading instruction such as writing, spelling (orthography), word study (morphology) and affective factors such as student’s attitudes, interests and motivation.

Some advocates reference specific writing and language terminology such as syntax and semantics. Literacy educators agree each of these are key components within literacy instruction. Where the two sides differ is with the approach. Like phonics instruction, advocates believe there is one “right” way for explicit, systematic instruction and it is best delivered sequentially to all students using a whole group approach, or “structured” and “multisensory” approach, despite research support over all other approaches. Teacher educators are committed to preparing literacy teachers to know, select, and apply a wide range of literacy and language theories, instructional practices, materials, and assessments in order to successfully teach all learners to read (ILA, 2017). Because they do not subscribe to the narrative that one “right” approach exists for “all” learners does not mean they do not know or believe in the “science of reading” (Johnston & Scanlon, 2020). In fact, teacher educators and K12 teachers do and they recognize this body of research to include a much broader collection of study types, topics and research methods than advocates. Additionally, what is lacking and needed to better inform the field, is noted by Shanahan (2020) in his call for more “data that evaluate the effectiveness of teaching” or, in other words, the science of reading instruction (p. 2).

Suggested reading for teacher educators and K-12 teachers interested in learning more about balanced literacy:

• Burkins & Yates (2021) - Shifting the

Balance: 6 Ways to Bring the Science of Reading into the Balanced Literacy

Classroom

• Cowen (2003) – A Balanced Approach to Beginning Reading Instruction

• Fisher et al. (2020) – Defining Balance,

Finding Balance

• Fitzgerald (1999) – What is This Thing

Called “balance?”

(THREE) CUEING SYSTEM

References to the three-cueing system as an ineffective approach to teaching reading is also an attempt to spread misinformation and an illustration of advocates’ lack of knowledge and complete understanding of what they are criticizing. Journalist Emily Hanford (2019) who routinely uses her blog and social media account to advocate for the current dyslexia legislation, criticizes teachers’ use of the “three cueing system” alleging they do so because they do not know how else to teach reading. The three-cueing system is grounded in an assessment practice, not an instructional approach. It is connected to a useful and informal way to assess and analyze student errors made when reading by using “running records” and conducting “miscue analysis” (Clay, 1993; Goodman et al., 1987). Teachers pay close attention to what students actually said when they read words as part of connected text, and they may also provide prompts, when students practice reading, get stuck, or make a mistake in order to redirect the reader’s attention to whether or not their pronunciation or attempt to decode a word: a) looks right, b) sounds right, and c) makes sense. Each of these cues correlate with an important aspect of word recognition – orthography, phonology, and semantics. Notably, the first two “cues” call a reader’s attention to the symbol-sound relationship of a letter, syllable or word. Despite a fourth cue, pragmatics, later added to the model, advocates only

reference the original 1960’s three-cueing system in their criticism.

Advocates are critical of “three-cueing” and mistakenly equate it to an instructional approach, because it is closely associated with Reading Recovery and Whole language. Both draw upon Goodman’s (1976) miscue analysis work and adhere to an embedded approach to phonics instruction (Stahl, 2006). As discussed in a prior section, literacy professionals agree that phonics must be taught if students do not know how or struggle to decode (NRP, 2000; Stahl, 1992). Furthermore, literacy professionals agree that reading instruction needs to be grounded in meaning-making. Afterall, meaningmaking, is the point of reading as highlighted within the report produced by the RAND Reading Study Group & Snow (2002) on comprehension. Twisting and misrepresenting the origins of the cueing systems by equating its use to an instructional approach for how to teach reading lends support to advocates’ call for a sequential, synthetic, multisensory approach to phonics instruction at the exclusion of all other approaches.

Also, included in advocates’ narrative is that dyslexia (a construct advocates are unable to clearly explain and identify with unique characteristics different from other reading challenges) is far more common and impacts large numbers of the general population. Hence, this becomes the basis for the need for legislation that requires screening assessments of all students. The assessments required are not new or different from what any reading professional knows and uses to diagnose students’ strengths and growth areas. Tools such as informal phonemic awareness assessments, phonics assessments, sight word lists, spelling inventories, and more can be used flexibly to help target a student’s instructional needs and ensure they are progressing along developmental continuums that detail specific characteristics at emergent, beginning, basic, intermediate, and advanced levels.

Furthermore, enacting laws that add more requirements for testing is unnecessary. RTI and MTSS systems are already required and are intended to do what this new legislation proposes. It's redundant and will no doubt lead to confusion in schools that are already strapped for time, money, and resources. Not to mention, it could end up failing the neediest student populations. If RTI or MTSS are not working as planned or not yet fully implemented, why not invest in appropriate resources and more professional learning opportunities for teachers and school districts so they receive the support needed to realize full implementation? We know high quality teachers matter most for ensuring student success (Allington, 2002). Why not invest in teachers to make instructional decisions based on individual student needs within fully functioning (and fully supported) RTI or MTSS systems, not in mandating new and redundant testing or by legislating singular instructional approaches and practices that are not actually proven as the “only” way to help students who experience challenges learning to read. Requiring more assessments fits an agenda aimed at identifying and labeling large numbers of students as “at risk” for dyslexia. Once identified, the laws mandate the specific type of instruction students receive, and some draft legislation specifies who delivers the intervention services. The laws prompt a shift from services provided by reading specialists to dyslexia specialists. It redefines “expertise” in reading as one who is certified by advocates within a “closed circle” such as the Center for Effective Reading Instruction (CERI) or by the Academic Language Therapy Association (ALTA), instead of one who has earned an advanced degree from an accredited teacher education program (Worthy et al., 2017). Certification includes training in one instructional approach (i.e., CERI and structured literacy training) or one instructional program (i.e., ALTA’s Orton Gillingham training for Certified Academic Language Therapist), rather than knowledge and training in a wide range of theories and approaches.

Suggested reading for teacher educators and K-12 teachers interested in learning more about literacy assessment, RTI, and reading specialists:

• Bean & Kern (2018) - Multiple Roles of Specialized Literacy Professionals

 Johnston (2011) article - Response to

Intervention in Literacy: Problems and

Possibilities

 Valencia & Riddle Buly (2004) article -

What Struggling Readers Really Need

 Risko & Walker-Dalhouse (2020) - Making the Most of Assessments to Inform

Instruction

WHAT TEACHER EDUCATORS AND K-12 TEACHERS CAN AND SHOULD DO TO STAY INFORMED AND HELP SHARE ACCURATE INFORMATION ABOUT DYSLEXIA AND LITERACY EDUCATION?

In addition to taking time to read, attend professional learning sessions, and taking other steps to stay informed and knowledgeable of current literacy research and related issues, use what you know and learn to examine your existing literacy programs to evaluate alignment with dyslexia legislation. Review existing standards such as the Standards for the Preparation of Literacy Professionals (ILA, 2017) and the Knowledge and Practice Standards for Teachers of Reading (IDA, 2018) for overlapping components presented in the legislation. Compliance with existing legislation does not need to be an “either-or” proposition. Instead, consider how to make it an “and” situation that ensures teachers are fully prepared to help all students learn to read. Furthermore, literacy teacher educators and teachers can focus on the following action steps to make sure ideology and misinformation does not silence research and best practices moving forward.

1. Establish and maintain relationships with lawmakers and policy administrators such as state department of education personnel. Schedule routine visits with your representative. Send emails and letters on issues related to education. Be helpful. Share your background knowledge and resources so you are perceived as helpful and a “go to” resource for matters within your area of expertise, not just the current dyslexia legislation.

2. Direct your service and volunteer efforts towards participation in state-level committees. Intentionally seek out opportunities to serve on work groups and advisory councils related to student learning standards, assessments, program certification requirements and more. Make yourself available to help state department staff with their work given they often have full plates, are short staffed, and welcome assistance.

3. Join and engage in professional organizations. Make use of their existing advocacy and legislation committee work and resources. Consider adding membership to a literacy professional group that has a different orientation than those with which you currently hold memberships. Even consider joining a professional organization outside of literacy but within a related field that shares common goals such as associations for school administrators, special educators, or speech-language pathologists.

4. Follow a diverse group of thought leaders on social media and on the internet, including

Facebook, Twitter, podcasts, and blogs.

Make sure you follow, like, reshare, and comment on posts that represent a wide range of literacy viewpoints. Educate yourself about what is important to them, who is influencing them, and what they are doing about it.

5. Actively develop literacy outreach programs with parents and community members in mind. Provide them with useful information so over time you become a trusted advisor or

“go to” person for matters related to literacy education. Partner with both groups on likeminded initiatives. Allow them to see you as a resource and help to educate them about the work you do. Invite them to observe a class or campus literacy clinic. Develop events that target their interests and invite them to attend or assist you with hosting an event such as a book study.

6. Expand outlets where you submit literacy articles beyond scholarly journals or ones that literacy scholars primarily tend to read. Tailor your communication style and format. Reach a wider, more diverse readership by disseminating literacy information in popular media outlets that publish at a much more frequent and faster pace than what it takes for peer-reviewed academic journals.

7. Create or examine existing advisory councils for your education programs.

Ensure that you are including and hearing from voices across a broad group of stakeholders. It is easier to address problems, misinformation and differences

up front rather than after the fact, especially if relationships are already established.

8. Approach alignment to legislation with an open mind. See where and how you can enhance what you already do well and strengthen areas in need of updates or changes. Complete a crosswalk of dyslexia standards to other existing professional standards. Based on what you learn, review and make updates to your existing course names, titles, catalog descriptions, course content, and standards alignment. Keep the process about informing teacher preparation and student learning outcomes versus compliance.

CONCLUSION

The importance of literacy instruction and achievement is collectively embraced across the public by a myriad of stakeholders, not limited to parents, policymakers, and educators. Often these groups’ beliefs clash regarding how best to achieve literacy success for all students. Academic freedom is a pillar of higher education. In addition, program accreditation and other modes of accountability are not unfamiliar to Schools of Education. However, the strong voices behind dyslexia-based organizations, advocates, and their recent rebranding of the science of reading are influencing radical changes through prescriptive legislation that threaten the integrity of literacy teacher educators’ academic freedom (Hoffman et al, 2020; Worthy et al., 2018b). Dyslexia advocates crafted a narrative built upon misinformation that is not in sync with the larger body of literacy research. The laws aim to influence the nature of K-12 instruction and teacher preparation consistent with their agenda. It is important for teacher educators and K-12 teachers to have a full understanding of the current dyslexia debate, especially key terms and concepts, so they know the implications, can add their voices to the public conversation, and appropriately respond to the requirements related to these laws for the benefit of all students (Worthy et al., 2017).

REFERENCES

Allington, R. (2002). What I’ve learned about effective reading instruction: From a decade of studying exemplary elementary classroom teachers. The Phi Delta Kappan, (83), 740-747. Allington, R. (2005). Ideology is still trumping evidence. The Phi Delta Kappan, (86), 462-468. American Psychiatric Association. (2013).

Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). American Psychiatric

Publishing. Anderson, K., & Scanlon, D. (2020). The development of sight vocabulary. The Reading

Teacher, 74(3), 346-352. Barone, J., Khairallah, P., & Gabriel, R. (2020).

Running records revisited: A tool for efficiency and focus. The Reading Teacher, 73(4), 525530. Bean, R. M., & Kern, D. (2018). Multiple roles of specialized literacy professionals: The ILA 2017 standards. The Reading Teacher, 71(5), 615-621. Burkins, J. & Yates, K. (2021). Shifting the balance: 6 ways to bring the science of reading into the balanced literacy classroom. Stenhouse. Clay, M. M. (1993). An observation survey of early literacy achievement. Heinemann. Cowen, J. E. (2003). Toward a definition of a balanced approach to reading instruction. In J.

E. Cowen (Ed.), A balanced approach to beginning reading instruction (pp. 1-10).

International Reading Association. Cunningham, P. (2003). What research says about teaching phonics. In L. M. Morrow, L.B.

Gambrell & M. Pressley (Eds.), Best practices in literacy instruction (2nd ed.), (pp. 65-85). The

Guilford Press. Elliot, J. G. (2020). It’s time to be scientific about dyslexia. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1),

S61-S75. https://doi:10.1002/rrq.333 Elliott, J. G. & Grigorenko, E. L. (2014). The dyslexia debate. Cambridge University Press. Fisher, D., Frye, N., & Akhavan, N. (2020). Defining balance, finding balance. In D. Fisher, N. Frye, & N. Akhavan (Eds.), This is balanced literacy (pp. 2-12). Corwin. Fitzgerald, J. (1999). What is this thing called

“balance?” The Reading Teacher, 53(2), 100107.

Gabriel, R. (2018). Preparing literacy professionals:

The case of dyslexia. Journal of Literacy

Research, 50(2), 262-270. Gabriel, R. (2020). Converting to privatization: A discourse analysis of dyslexia policy narratives.

American Educational Research Journal, 57(1), 305-338. https://doi:10.3102/0002831219861945 Goodman, K. S. (1976). Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game. In H. Singer & R.B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (2nd ed., pp. 497-508). International

Reading Association. Goodman, Y. M., Watson, D. J., & Burke, C. L. (1987). Reading miscue inventory: Alternative procedures. Richard C. Owen Publishing. Goodwin, A. (2015). Word detectives:

Morphological instruction that supports academic language. The Reading Teacher, 68(7), 510-519. Hanford, E. (2018, September 10). Hard words: Why aren’t kids being taught to red? APM Reports. https://www.apmreports.org/episode/2018/09/1 0/hard-words-why-american kids-arent-beingtaught-to-read Hanford, E. (2019, August 22). At a loss for words:

How a flawed idea is teaching millions of kids to be poor readers. APM Reports. https://www.apmreports.org/episode/2019/08/2 2/whats-wrong-how-schools-teach-reading Hiebert, E. H., & Martin, L. A. (2001). The texts of beginning reading instruction. In S. B. Neuman & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 361-376) The Guilford

Press. Hoffman, J. V., Hikida, M., & Sailors, M. (2020).

Contesting science that silences: Amplifying equity, agency, and design research in literacy teacher preparation. Reading Research

Quarterly, 55(S1), S255-S266. https://doi: 10.1002/rrq.353 International Dyslexia Association. (2018)

Knowledge and practice standards for teachers of reading. https://dyslexiaida.org/knowledgeand-practices/ International Dyslexia Association. (2021).

Definition consensus project. https://dyslexiaida.org/definition-consensusproject/ International Literacy Association. (2016). Dyslexia:

A response to the International Dyslexia

Association [Research Advisory Addendum].

International Literacy Association. International Literacy Association. (2017). Standards for the preparation of literacy professionals 2017. International Literacy Association. Johnston, P. H. (2011). Response to intervention in literacy: Problems and possibilities. The

Elementary School Journal, 111(4), 511-534. Johnston, P., & Scanlon, D. (2020). An examination of dyslexia research and instruction. Literacy

Research Association. https://www.literacyresearchassociation.org/lraliteracy-research-reports Johnston, V. (2019). Dyslexia: What reading teachers need to know. The Reading Teacher, 73(3), 339-346. https://doi:10.1002/trtr.1830 Kang, J. G., Lee, S. H, Park. E. J., & Leem, H. S. (2016). Event-related potential patterns reflect reversed hemispheric activity during visual attention processing in children with dyslexia: A preliminary study. Clinical

Psychopharmacology and Neuroscience, 14(10), 33-42. https://doi.org/10.9758 /cpn.2016.14.1.33 MacPhee, D., Handsfield, L. J., & Paugh, P. (2021).

Conflict or conversation? Media portrayals of the science of reading. Reading Research

Quarterly, 56 (S1), S145-S155. https://doi: 10.1002/rrq.384 Mesmer, H. A., Cunningham, J. W., & Hiebert, E. H. (2012). Toward a theoretical model of text complexity for the early grades: Learning from the past, anticipating the future. The Reading Research Quarterly, 47(3), 235-258. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43497518 Miles, K. P., Rubin, G., & Gonzalez-Frey, S. (2018).

Rethinking sight words. The Reading Teacher, 71(6), 715-726. National Reading Panel (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (National

Institute of Health Publication No. 00-4769).

National Institute of Child Health and Human

Development.https://www.nichd.nih.gov/sites/d efault/files/publications/pubs/nrp/Documents/re port.pdf

Norton, E. S., Beach, S. D., & Gabrieli, J. D. E. (2015). Neurobiology of dyslexia. Current

Opinion in Neurobiology, 30, 73-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2014.09.007 O’Connor, C. & Weatherall, J. O. (2019). The misinformation age how false beliefs spread.

Yale University Press. Pearson, P. D. & Raphael, T. (2003). Toward a more complex view of balance in the literacy curriculum. In L. M. Morrow, L. B. Gambrell &

M. Pressley (Eds.), Best practices in literacy instruction (2nd ed., pp. 23-39). The Guilford

Press. RAND Reading Study Group, & Snow, C. (2002).

Reading for Understanding: Toward an R&D

Program in Reading Comprehension. RAND

Corporation. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7249/mr1465oeri Ramus, F. (2014). Neuroimaging sheds new light on the phonological deficit in dyslexia. Trends in

Cognitive Sciences, 18(6), 274-275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2014.01.009 Risko, V. J., & Walker-Dalhouse, D. (2020). Making the most of assessments to inform instruction.

The Reading Teacher, 63(5), 420-422. Shanahan, T. (2020). What constitutes a science of reading instruction? Reading Research

Quarterly, 55(S1), S235-S247. http://doi:10.1002/rrq.349 Silverman, R. D., Johnson, E., Keane, K., & Khanna,

S. (2020). Beyond decoding: A meta-analysis of the effects of language comprehension interventions on K-5 students’ language and literacy outcomes. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1), S207-S233. http://doi:10.1002/rrq.346 Stahl, S. (2006). Understanding shifts in reading and its instruction. In K. Dougherty Stahl & M.

McKenna (Eds.), Reading research at work foundations of effective practice. (pp. 45-75).

The Guilford Press. Stahl, S., Duffy-Hester, A., & Dougherty Stahl, K. (2006). Everything you wanted to know about phonics (but were afraid to ask). In K.

Dougherty Stahl & M. McKenna (Eds.),

Reading research at work foundations of effective practice. (pp. 126-154). The Guilford

Press. Stanovich, K. (1994). Does dyslexia exist? Journal of

Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 35, 579-595. Valencia, S. W., & Riddle Buly, M. (2004). What struggling readers really need. The Reading

Teacher, (57)6, 520-531. Wetzel, M. M., Skerret, A., Maloch, B., Flores, T. T.,

Infante-Sheridan, M., Murdter-Atkinson, J.,

Godfrey, V. C., & Duffy, A. (2020). Resisting positionings of struggle in “science of teaching reading” discourse: Counterstories of teachers and teacher educators in Texas. Reading

Research Quarterly, 55(S1), S319-S330. http://doi:10.1002/rrq.358 Winorgrad, P., Flores-Duenas, & Arrington, H. (2003). Best practices in literacy assessment. In

L. M. Morrow, L. B. Gambrell & M. Pressley (Eds.), Best practices in literacy instruction (2nd ed., pp. 201-238). The Guilford Press. Worthy, J., DeJulio, S., Svrcek, N., Villarreal, D. A.,

Derbyshire, C., LeeKeenan, K., Wiebe, M. T.,

Lammert, C., Rubin, J. C., & Salmeron, C. (2016). Teachers’ understandings, perspectives, and experiences of dyslexia. Literacy Research:

Theory, Method, and Practice, 65, 436-453. http://doi: 10.1177/2381336916661529 Worthy, J., Long, S. L., Salmeron, C., Lammert, C.,

Godfrey, V. (2018a). “What if we were committed to giving every individual the services and opportunities they need?” Teacher educators’ understandings, perspectives, and practices surrounding dyslexia. Research in the

Teaching of English, 53 (2), 125-148. Worthy, J., Salmeron, C., Long, S., Lammert, C., &

Godfrey, V. (2018b). “Wrestling with the politics and ideology”: Teacher educators’ response to dyslexia discourse and legislation.

Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and

Practice, 67, 377-393. Worthy, J., Villarreal, D. A., Godfrey, V., DeJulio,

S., Stefanski, A., Leitze, A., & Cooper, J. (2017). A critical analysis of dyslexia legislation in three states. Literacy Research:

Theory, Method, and Practice, 66, 406-421. http: doi: 10.1177/2381336917718501 Yopp, H., & Yopp, R. (2000). Supporting phonemic awareness development in the classroom. The

Reading Teacher, 54(2), 130-143. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20204888