Q&A: Dyslexia expert discusses why WA is slow to adopt reading science

330

Originally posted at The Seattle Times The Seattle Times by Katherine Long / August 31, 2023

In recent years, there’s been a groundswell of interest in legislation that embraces the “science of reading,” a body of research that many educators now believe holds the key to early literacy.

But three recent studies from researchers at the Albert Shanker Institute, FutureEd and the National Council on Teacher Quality suggest that Washington isn’t doing enough to pass laws supporting better reading instruction, or train teachers in reading science.

Sara Buetow, the parent founder of Decoding Dyslexia Washington, believes 95% of kids could be reading at grade level if they were taught using a structured literacy approach. Instead, only about a third of Washington fourth and eighth graders were considered proficient in reading in 2022.

Structured literacy means explicitly and systematically teaching word identification and decoding strategies, Buetow said. Teachers begin with very basic concepts and methodically progress to more complex ones. Structured literacy isn’t the name of a specific program — hundreds of curricula incorporate these ideas.

In a recent interview, Buetow told Ed Lab what her organization thinks must happen to change reading instruction in Washington. (This interview has been edited for length and clarity.)

In recent reports, two nonprofits — the Shanker Institute and FutureEd — say Washington has passed very little legislation promoting the science of reading. Are we falling behind?

In a word — yes.

Thirty other states have passed legislation on evidence-based reading and writing instruction that aligns with the current reading science. Many of those states are already looking at some pretty impressive results. And there’s still more than 200 pending bills in about 45 states that have been written to address the overall literacy crisis.

Our crisis was evidenced by the data for decades before COVID. Our state testing data shows us that half of our students are at standard. National testing data through the NAEP [National Assessment of Educational Progress] show no appreciable improvement in reading scores for more than two decades.

And as shocking as that data is, it’s even more tragic for our historically underserved populations.

Realigning our core instruction with structured literacy is a very, very effective way to address achievement gaps.

In 2018, the Washington Legislature passed a bill (SB 6162) requiring districts to screen young students for dyslexia. What has that law accomplished, and what more needs to be done?

When 6162 was written, there was a groundswell of interest nationally in evidence-based instruction. The research was clear that it serves all students — although those with dyslexia might require a different dosage, a different intensity, frequency or duration just to get to standard. But if implemented correctly by trained educators, we can see almost 95% of our kids reading at standard.

SB 6162 requires early screening for foundational literacy skills for grades K-2. It’s not diagnostic for dyslexia, but rather students who are flagged by screening could have weaknesses that are consistent with dyslexia.

It mandates that those students who are identified receive evidence-based, multisensory structured literacy as a targeted intervention by a highly trained teacher.

Some of the next steps would include legislation to define effective reading practices, provide professional learning for teachers and administrators, and create a complement to 6162 that can address the needs of struggling readers in grades three and above. And it’s going to require a significant commitment to funding from our legislators.

Intervention at the secondary level [grades 7-12] is tricky. Those kids have fallen through the cracks, and there are very few teachers at the secondary level who are appropriately trained to intervene.

One of the most significant effects of 6162 is that teachers are now asking for additional learning opportunities, and even administrators are looking for implementation support. We hear from families all the time — they’re thrilled that their schools are learning to provide instruction and additional supports.

The National Council on Teacher Quality gave most Washington colleges and universities low marks when it comes to preparing new teachers for how to teach reading. What needs to change in Washington’s teacher prep programs? 

It’s important to note that there are concerns about the evaluation methods that the NCTQ used. But I think the data sends an important message.

Most of our teacher prep programs are not graduating pre-service teachers with the knowledge and skills to effectively teach literacy. Many of the skills are still devoted to a pedagogy that’s been proven to be ineffective.

There are actually several teacher prep programs in Washington working to realign their instruction with science. I think our shining example is City University of Seattle. They have completely realigned their instructional program with the knowledge and practice standards of the International Dyslexia Association and just became accredited. We’re hoping they can serve as a model for other institutions that are planning to realign. 

What’s the best way for veteran teachers to catch up to reading science?

I don’t think there’s a best way — each state has approached training differently with legislation. So ideally, we’d like to see all in-service teachers and administrators receive free, state-sponsored training on structured literacy. There are lots of committed literacy leaders at OSPI [Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction] and we’ve accomplished a lot with the Dyslexia Advisory Council and its experts.

We’d like OSPI to convene a literacy work group to include many of those experts to either develop or curate some training modules that could be hosted on their website. They could work to develop implementation guides and help with curriculum selection.

Could addressing reading problems lower the number of kids who need special education?

Structured literacy historically was used as an intervention for students who are struggling with reading, particularly students with dyslexia. What we found out is structured literacy benefits everyone. So if a student with dyslexia were to get structured literacy as their core instruction in the general education classroom, they may not require intensive intervention or even referrals to special education. 

What is the most common argument you hear from teachers about changing the way they teach reading?

That structured literacy is just phonics, that if you just sit tight, the pendulum will swing the other way. But structured literacy is really much more than phonics. It includes the five pillars of instruction: phonics, phonemic awareness, vocabulary, fluency, comprehension, and has recently been expanded to include oral language development, background knowledge and written expression.

Who’s doing a good job of changing the way they teach reading?

There’s a little school in Shoreline called Lake Forest Park Elementary. They brought in Kareem Weaver, the education chair of the NAACP in Oakland, Calif., to specifically discuss educational inequity.

The equity director for Shoreline School District, Dr. Tanisha Brandon-Felder, has also been really passionately involved in literacy. 

Kareem and his team developed the “Right to Read” film, a documentary that highlights his journey as a second grade teacher in an underperforming school. Lake Forest Park worked with Read Washington, a nonprofit dedicated to professional learning for teachers. They did it on a shoestring budget, and they’ve seen tremendous growth in their students.

And so I think the message with this is that we don’t have to invest immense amounts of money to see even large gains.

Katherine Long: 206-464-2219 or klong@seattletimes.com; on Twitter: @katherinelong.