Member-only story
War Over Words
Asking the wrong question about reading instruction
America’s children are being short-changed when it comes to their reading instruction because a cabal of balanced literacy advocates is pushing an agenda that marginalizes instruction in phonics. Or so you may have you heard. In a recent article on page A1 of the New York Times, correspondent Dana Goldstein[1] laid out her case. Many such commentaries rely on what the authors call the “science of reading” going so far as to give it importance as a proper noun complete with capital letters: “The Science of Reading”[2]. In Goldstein’s view of the world of reading instruction, the education establishment, like climate change deniers, simply will not abandon their beliefs about teaching reading now that the science of reading has come to the rescue.
The point, however, is that no such thing is happening. “Science of Reading” advocates like to say that reading is not natural[3], that it must be taught. Okay, but it seems fair to claim that:
1. Human brains are wired to learn, by nature.
2. Any human endeavor can be enhanced by teaching.
By making the argument that reading is not natural, the science of reading people simultaneously assert that:
1. Teachers do not know what they are doing
