Loading...
Title : If You’re Going to Write About Science of Reading, Get Your Reading Right – radical eyes for equity
link : If You’re Going to Write About Science of Reading, Get Your Reading Right – radical eyes for equity
If You’re Going to Write About Science of Reading, Get Your Reading Right – radical eyes for equity
If You’re Going to Write About Science of Reading, Get Your Reading Right – radical eyes for equityIf You’re Going to Write About Science of Reading, Get Your Reading Right
The release of the joint statement (National Education Policy Center and Education Deans for Justice and Equity) on the “science of reading” version of the current Reading War held, I hoped, great promise for at least slowing a very harmful process. I also briefly crossed my fingers that the statement could ease some of the discord and help key figures in the debate find that there is more common ground than disagreement.
However, social media has provided evidence that neither of these outcomes is likely. The advocates of the “science of reading” doubled down on their condescension and general nastiness (a feature of Twitter), and there is this blog post from Daniel Willingham: If You’re Going to Write About Science of Reading, Get Your Science Right.
I commented several times on the post and even offered a discussion by email. Willingham did respond to my comments and the exchange was civil, but alas, fruitless.
The crux of Willingham’s concerns about the statement seems to be:
I think the statement is pretty confused, as it conflates issues that ought to be considered separately. This statement is meant to be about the science of reading, so much of the confusion arises from a failure to understand or appreciate the nature of science, how basic science applies to applied science, and the scientific literature on reading.
This is a misreading of the policy; I think that misreading is in part prompted by Diane Ravitch’s framing of the statement with “There is no Science of Reading,” which Willingham references in his first paragraph.
To clarify, Ravitch’s framing is misleading, and Willingham has failed to grasp the purpose of the statement, directly identified by NEPC:
All students deserve equitable access to high-quality literacy and reading instruction and opportunities in their schools. This will only be accomplished when policymakers pay heed to an overall body of high-quality research evidence and then make available the resources necessary for schools to provide our children with the needed supports and opportunities to learn. This joint statement from NEPC and the Education Deans for Justice and Equity provides guiding principles for what any federal or state legislation directly or indirectly impacting reading should and should not do.
This statement is a policy statement that raises a long-overdue red flag about CONTINUE READING: If You’re Going to Write About Science of Reading, Get Your Reading Right – radical eyes for equity
thus Article If You’re Going to Write About Science of Reading, Get Your Reading Right – radical eyes for equity
that is all articles If You’re Going to Write About Science of Reading, Get Your Reading Right – radical eyes for equity This time, hopefully can provide benefits to all of you. Okay, see you in another article posting.
You now read the article If You’re Going to Write About Science of Reading, Get Your Reading Right – radical eyes for equity with the link address https://onechildsmart.blogspot.com/2020/03/if-youre-going-to-write-about-science.html
0 Response to "If You’re Going to Write About Science of Reading, Get Your Reading Right – radical eyes for equity"
Post a Comment