K-12 teachers are on the receiving end of recent dyslexia legislation that has swept across the nation. Currently, over 40 states have some form of dyslexia laws (Johnston & Scanlon, 2020). Unfortunately, lobbying efforts to bring about the legislation largely did not include the voices of teachers and teacher educators (Worthy et al., 2018). These key stakeholders possess a wealth of knowledge about teaching students to read. Yet, their voices were intentionally silenced throughout the process. A key tenet of the recent dyslexia legislation misinformation campaign is the use of the term known as the science of reading (SOR). This term has been used interchangeably as a synonym for the only evidence-based body of research applicable to instruction for dyslexia and struggling readers, which could not be further from what it means. Misinformation about the science of reading and additional ways in which dyslexia is branded and the legislation is promoted, causes confusion, and some teachers to doubt their existing knowledge of reading instruction (Worthy et al., 2016). Efforts were led primarily by parent groups, dyslexia associations, and private companies that offer dyslexia training, instruction materials, and tutoring services (Gabriel, 2020a). The advocate groups employed a coordinated lobbying campaign that included intentional branding of key terms and concepts to push their legislative agenda forward (Gabriel, 2018b). The information was spread using popular media (i.e., blogs, social media, podcasts), including brain research with limited implications to classroom instruction (Worthy et al., 2019). It did not accurately represent what is known from a synthesis of a much broader research-base and is only a narrow slice of what is shared within peer-reviewed scholarly journals. K-12 teachers are the “end users” who will be required by the dyslexia legislation to implement the particular SOR “brand” of professional learning, assessment and instructional practices (i.e., a multisensory, whole group, explicit, systematic, and synthetic-approach to teaching phonics) (Gabriel, 2020b; Johnston & Scanlon, 2020; Silverman et al., 2020). It is important that they are able to decode key terms and concepts that contribute to the misinformation being spread across the science of reading and dyslexia movement. This is critical because the SOR is being used across social and popular media to exclude and confuse educators with unfounded claims about evidence-based reading instruction (Hoffman et al., 2020; Wetzel et al., 2020). Many instructional approaches need to exist within teachers’ toolkits that can be used flexibly across the diverse learner profiles of students who experience reading difficulties (Valencia & Riddle Buly, 2004). This is key so they can provide evidence-based practices to all students, including those identified as dyslexic and achieve what is at the heart of the laws – helping all students, including students at risk or diagnosed with dyslexia, to read.
What Science of Reading Is and Is Not
Advocates of recent dyslexia legislation use the term science of reading (SOR) to create an aura of indisputable science that is known, understood, and proven by scientists and “closed circles” of tightly connected dyslexia advocates and organizations who intentionally silence the voices of teachers (Johnston & Scanlon, 2020; Worthy et al., 2017). The SOR and other terms used to discuss dyslexia are intended to confuse, intimidate, or create doubt in what educators know about reading instruction (Worthy et al., 2017). Advocates narrowly define the science of reading as limited to basic research studies and present the term as a descriptor for new, break-through research involving brain scans and reading, despite being a term in use for over 200 years (Shanahan, 2020). The term also is used by advocates in support of their preferred assessment and instructional methods, which they present as “settled science.” This phrase is used across the SOR debate to create the illusion that indisputable scientific evidence and consensus across educators and researchers exists (Johnston & Scanlon, 2020). In other words, advocates put forth their position with absolute certainty that one right way exists that is based on proven “science;” therefore, alternative approaches suggesting otherwise and decades-long debates known as the “Reading Wars” are now “settled.” As Gabriel (2020b) suggests, the “sciences of reading” would be a more accurate term. Or, more
relevant to dyslexia and the current legislation would be an emphasis on the science of reading instruction. As noted by Shanahan (2020), the current body of reading research is lacking in the evidence base of instructional studies. This is important as highlighted by Shanahan (2020) and Gabriel (2020b), because evidence from medical studies conducted within a lab does not equal evidence for effective reading instruction that occurs within actual classrooms. Limiting our understanding of the science of reading to one type or design of research known as basic research studies conducted by a limited number of fields (i.e., cognitive sciences and neurosciences) does all readers and teachers a disservice. What is known about reading and reading instruction continues to evolve across 200 plus years as a result of different types of research studies and significant contributions made by many fields. The editors of the Reading Research Quarterly (RRQ) compiled articles within two special issues dedicated to understanding the science of reading through a broad and inclusive lens in hopes of informing next steps for the field (Goodwin & Jimenez, 2020; Goodwin & Jimenez, 2021). The authors of this article believe teachers have much to add to the conversation about SOR and dyslexia and stand to benefit from an accurate understanding of key terms and concepts used throughout the SOR and dyslexia movement.
Dyslexia and the Science of Reading
Throughout their narrative, advocates pair dyslexia with the science of reading (Gabriel,
2018b; Gabriel, 2020a; Johnston & Scanlon, 2020; Shanahan, 2020; Worthy et al., 2017). This is done to lend legitimacy to the specific brand of reading instruction they promote and use to convince legislators to enact it into law. It is important to understand how advocates define dyslexia and their related instructional beliefs as the narrative surrounding the dyslexia movement and current legislation depends on the acceptance of its definition. The legislation uses the definition put forth by the International Dyslexia Association (IDA) as follows:
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. (2021)
.
D
6
14