Another day, another “science of reading” (SOR) native advertisement (link). This one is from a “journalist” who gleefully repeats the tired talking points of the SOR bandwagon. This time, the focus is on English Language Learners (ELL). I couldn’t help but think, not by what the article said but what it didn’t say, that the tone and tenor of the article was rather colonial. This got me thinking … given capitalism’s necessarily colonial nature, is it time to decolonize language instruction?
Whilst proponents portray the SOR as beneficial for ELLs, in practice it often embodies a colonialist, English-only approach to literacy instruction. This ideology views non-English languages as impediments rather than assets, prioritising rapid acquisition of English skills above all else. However, research on translanguaging since the 1980’s provides a more affirming framework for developing biliteracy. After all, we shouldn’t be trying to extinguish students’ native languages … should we?
Translanguaging (a feature of my upcoming book, Holistic Language Instruction) validates the home cultures, languages, and knowledge students bring by leveraging them as scaffolds for learning new concepts. Students fluidly utilise their full linguistic repertoire to make meaning, rather than compartmentalising languages. This fosters identity affirmation and metalinguistic awareness whilst building dual literacy.
In contrast, the SOR frequently takes a reductive view of ELLs as lacking essential literacy skills in English. Instruction focuses narrowly on filling deficits through decoding and repetition. Students’ multilingual strengths go unacknowledged, whilst their cultural capital is disregarded. Prioritising English often leads to language loss rather than biliteracy.
Deconstructing the article
There is a notable absence of any discussion in the article about the SOR honoring or building upon ELLs’ native language abilities. The content focuses solely on strengthening English literacy skills through approaches like phonics and decoding. However, it does not touch on validating students’ home languages as assets, using multilingual instruction, seeing native fluency as an asset to nurture, or scaffolding English development through first language skills.
This English-centric framing, without mention of multilingual models, reinforces a monolingual approach to instruction for ELs that underpins the rather unscientific SOR. The article emphasizes English skill building in isolation rather than aiming to cultivate broader proficiency inclusive of students’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Ultimately, the lack of stated goals around sustaining ELLs’ native languages seems a missed opportunity. Truly supportive reading instruction would honor the many languages students bring while adding English to their multilingual repertoire.
Further to the point, the article exhibits some logical flaws that should raise eyebrows upon closer inspection. Firstly, it commits appeal to authority fallacies by presenting endorsements from the Reading League and National Committee for Effective Literacy as self-evident justifications, without explaining why these organizations should be considered authoritative experts as opposed to industry lobbying groups. Additionally, the views of quoted advocates are framed as established fact rather than subjective opinions open to critique.
Secondly, the article generalizes benefits of the SOR to all students based on selective evidence. Stating this approach is “decades in the making” misleadingly implies scientific consensus where there remains considerable debate. Similarly, the claim that “any teacher” can implement these practices is an overreach not supported by the evidence.
Finally, the emphasis on phonics and decoding reveals a false equivalence between the SOR and specific instructional practices and commercial programs. Essentially, the "science of reading" functions rhetorically as a slogan to validate particular instructional ideologies and products. Its reference to "science" grants an air of authority even when the claims made are reductive or biased. This allows advocates to dismiss alternative practices and opinions as lacking research support, even when decades of substantial evidence exist. In this way, the phrase is often mobilized to elevate some approaches and delegitimize others. Rather than illuminating, the slogan can actually obscure nuanced understanding of literacy research.
Therefore, whilst a body of reading science does exist, we must be wary of the rhetorical deployment of this phrase as a facade that lends credibility to particular agendas. True scientific discourse acknowledges the complex, multidisciplinary nature of the evidence rather than reducing it to a monolithic brand. As educators, we should see through these slogans masquerading as science.
Thus, analyzing the discourse reveals appeals to biased authorities, over-generalizations, and false equivalences. As critical consumers of research, we must scrutinize claims closely rather than accept them at face value when biases or fallacies are present. A stronger argument would acknowledge debates, incorporate diverse expert views, and avoid flawed generalizations.
The National Committee for Effective Literacy
Appeals to authority often rely upon the reader uncritically considering the name dropping and just moving on. Consider the name drop of the National Committee for Effective Literacy (NCEL). I wonder if the author visited their web site. I note this due to the following paragraph:
Likewise, in a recently issued a joint statement, The Reading League and the National Committee for Effective Literacy said educators should focus on the benefits of phonics and the science of reading for English learners.
I went to the NCEL’s page and found the joint statement. The joint statement takes a more nuanced perspective and appears to contradict several of the article’s main assertions. It acknowledges misconceptions exist about the SOR and argues against oversimplifying it to just phonics, contrasting the article’s focus on phonics as a key benefit. The statement emphasizes bilingualism research, nurturing home languages, and gaps in effective instruction for English learners - none of which featured in the article’s generalisations. Whilst the article touts phonics and decoding, the statement asserts comprehensive literacy instruction is essential, beyond just foundational skills. It also cautions commercial programs often misapply reading research, unlike the article's uncritical lens. Thus, the statement provides important critiques and contradictions to the article's sweeping claims of universal benefits from the science of reading for English learners.
The value of multilingualism
In our increasingly interconnected, globalised world, multilingualism should be recognised as a core asset allowing people to bridge linguistic and cultural divides. Monolingualism severely limits participation in the global community, economy, media and politics. Yet the English-only reading instruction attitudes that infuse the K-12 Dive article reflect a lingering colonial mentality that devalues non-English languages.
Rather than honouring multilingualism, most commercial literacy programs in the US take an impositionist stance toward English. Students from diverse backgrounds are pushed to quickly conform to mainstream academic English at the expense of their home languages and cultural identities. This treats their native languages as problems to overcome, not valuable resources.
Multilingual students often feel their identities marginalised when forced into English-only reading models. This erasement of home cultures and suppression of diverse perspectives runs counter to ideals of an inclusive, democratic society. It also hinders development of a globally aware citizenry equipped to interact respectfully across languages.
Truly decolonising reading instruction would value linguistic diversity as a social and cognitive asset. It would recognise biliteracy as essential preparation for participating in global networks of knowledge and exchange. Students should be encouraged to leverage their multilingual repertoire to gain deeper meaning from texts. But commercially-driven reading programs often fail to meet multilingual learners’ needs, instead prioritising monolingualism aligned with profit motives. Rethinking this colonial paradigm is essential for ethical, empowering reading education.
Final thoughts
When I completed my 150-hour Teaching English as a Foreign Language certificate at the University of Toronto, my emphasis was on speakers of Mandarin. As I read these SOR marketing pieces, and even in reading the Joint Statement, I see a distinct lack of awareness of cultures who’s language is logographic - like Mandarin.
The SOR and associated commercial products often fail to accommodate students from non-alphabetic language backgrounds such as Chinese, Japanese, and Korean which use logographic writing systems. The extensive focus on phonics is ineffective since these languages do not contain letter-sound correspondences. Their writing relies heavily on visual character complexity, stroke order, and radical recognition - not phonological cues like English. Additionally, they lack the morphological patterns that English uses to convey meaning. Their print flows vertically in columns rather than horizontal rows, creating different eye tracking needs. Even basic directionality is opposite to English. The linguistic distance between alphabetic and logographic languages is vast, severely limiting transfer of decoding skills. But most SOR approaches ignore these cross-linguistic differences and disadvantage students from character-based writing systems. For reading instruction to be equitable, it must take the language structure into account rather than presuming a one-size-fits-all model based on English. For this reason, and many more, I prefer the translanguaging approach to language instruction.
The AutSide is a reader-supported publication. To support my work, consider becoming a paid subscriber.
Decolonizing language instruction
Decolonizing language instruction
Decolonizing language instruction
Another day, another “science of reading” (SOR) native advertisement (link). This one is from a “journalist” who gleefully repeats the tired talking points of the SOR bandwagon. This time, the focus is on English Language Learners (ELL). I couldn’t help but think, not by what the article said but what it didn’t say, that the tone and tenor of the article was rather colonial. This got me thinking … given capitalism’s necessarily colonial nature, is it time to decolonize language instruction?
Whilst proponents portray the SOR as beneficial for ELLs, in practice it often embodies a colonialist, English-only approach to literacy instruction. This ideology views non-English languages as impediments rather than assets, prioritising rapid acquisition of English skills above all else. However, research on translanguaging since the 1980’s provides a more affirming framework for developing biliteracy. After all, we shouldn’t be trying to extinguish students’ native languages … should we?
Translanguaging (a feature of my upcoming book, Holistic Language Instruction) validates the home cultures, languages, and knowledge students bring by leveraging them as scaffolds for learning new concepts. Students fluidly utilise their full linguistic repertoire to make meaning, rather than compartmentalising languages. This fosters identity affirmation and metalinguistic awareness whilst building dual literacy.
In contrast, the SOR frequently takes a reductive view of ELLs as lacking essential literacy skills in English. Instruction focuses narrowly on filling deficits through decoding and repetition. Students’ multilingual strengths go unacknowledged, whilst their cultural capital is disregarded. Prioritising English often leads to language loss rather than biliteracy.
Deconstructing the article
There is a notable absence of any discussion in the article about the SOR honoring or building upon ELLs’ native language abilities. The content focuses solely on strengthening English literacy skills through approaches like phonics and decoding. However, it does not touch on validating students’ home languages as assets, using multilingual instruction, seeing native fluency as an asset to nurture, or scaffolding English development through first language skills.
This English-centric framing, without mention of multilingual models, reinforces a monolingual approach to instruction for ELs that underpins the rather unscientific SOR. The article emphasizes English skill building in isolation rather than aiming to cultivate broader proficiency inclusive of students’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Ultimately, the lack of stated goals around sustaining ELLs’ native languages seems a missed opportunity. Truly supportive reading instruction would honor the many languages students bring while adding English to their multilingual repertoire.
Further to the point, the article exhibits some logical flaws that should raise eyebrows upon closer inspection. Firstly, it commits appeal to authority fallacies by presenting endorsements from the Reading League and National Committee for Effective Literacy as self-evident justifications, without explaining why these organizations should be considered authoritative experts as opposed to industry lobbying groups. Additionally, the views of quoted advocates are framed as established fact rather than subjective opinions open to critique.
Secondly, the article generalizes benefits of the SOR to all students based on selective evidence. Stating this approach is “decades in the making” misleadingly implies scientific consensus where there remains considerable debate. Similarly, the claim that “any teacher” can implement these practices is an overreach not supported by the evidence.
Finally, the emphasis on phonics and decoding reveals a false equivalence between the SOR and specific instructional practices and commercial programs. Essentially, the "science of reading" functions rhetorically as a slogan to validate particular instructional ideologies and products. Its reference to "science" grants an air of authority even when the claims made are reductive or biased. This allows advocates to dismiss alternative practices and opinions as lacking research support, even when decades of substantial evidence exist. In this way, the phrase is often mobilized to elevate some approaches and delegitimize others. Rather than illuminating, the slogan can actually obscure nuanced understanding of literacy research.
Therefore, whilst a body of reading science does exist, we must be wary of the rhetorical deployment of this phrase as a facade that lends credibility to particular agendas. True scientific discourse acknowledges the complex, multidisciplinary nature of the evidence rather than reducing it to a monolithic brand. As educators, we should see through these slogans masquerading as science.
Thus, analyzing the discourse reveals appeals to biased authorities, over-generalizations, and false equivalences. As critical consumers of research, we must scrutinize claims closely rather than accept them at face value when biases or fallacies are present. A stronger argument would acknowledge debates, incorporate diverse expert views, and avoid flawed generalizations.
The National Committee for Effective Literacy
Appeals to authority often rely upon the reader uncritically considering the name dropping and just moving on. Consider the name drop of the National Committee for Effective Literacy (NCEL). I wonder if the author visited their web site. I note this due to the following paragraph:
I went to the NCEL’s page and found the joint statement. The joint statement takes a more nuanced perspective and appears to contradict several of the article’s main assertions. It acknowledges misconceptions exist about the SOR and argues against oversimplifying it to just phonics, contrasting the article’s focus on phonics as a key benefit. The statement emphasizes bilingualism research, nurturing home languages, and gaps in effective instruction for English learners - none of which featured in the article’s generalisations. Whilst the article touts phonics and decoding, the statement asserts comprehensive literacy instruction is essential, beyond just foundational skills. It also cautions commercial programs often misapply reading research, unlike the article's uncritical lens. Thus, the statement provides important critiques and contradictions to the article's sweeping claims of universal benefits from the science of reading for English learners.
The value of multilingualism
In our increasingly interconnected, globalised world, multilingualism should be recognised as a core asset allowing people to bridge linguistic and cultural divides. Monolingualism severely limits participation in the global community, economy, media and politics. Yet the English-only reading instruction attitudes that infuse the K-12 Dive article reflect a lingering colonial mentality that devalues non-English languages.
Rather than honouring multilingualism, most commercial literacy programs in the US take an impositionist stance toward English. Students from diverse backgrounds are pushed to quickly conform to mainstream academic English at the expense of their home languages and cultural identities. This treats their native languages as problems to overcome, not valuable resources.
Multilingual students often feel their identities marginalised when forced into English-only reading models. This erasement of home cultures and suppression of diverse perspectives runs counter to ideals of an inclusive, democratic society. It also hinders development of a globally aware citizenry equipped to interact respectfully across languages.
Truly decolonising reading instruction would value linguistic diversity as a social and cognitive asset. It would recognise biliteracy as essential preparation for participating in global networks of knowledge and exchange. Students should be encouraged to leverage their multilingual repertoire to gain deeper meaning from texts. But commercially-driven reading programs often fail to meet multilingual learners’ needs, instead prioritising monolingualism aligned with profit motives. Rethinking this colonial paradigm is essential for ethical, empowering reading education.
Final thoughts
When I completed my 150-hour Teaching English as a Foreign Language certificate at the University of Toronto, my emphasis was on speakers of Mandarin. As I read these SOR marketing pieces, and even in reading the Joint Statement, I see a distinct lack of awareness of cultures who’s language is logographic - like Mandarin.
The SOR and associated commercial products often fail to accommodate students from non-alphabetic language backgrounds such as Chinese, Japanese, and Korean which use logographic writing systems. The extensive focus on phonics is ineffective since these languages do not contain letter-sound correspondences. Their writing relies heavily on visual character complexity, stroke order, and radical recognition - not phonological cues like English. Additionally, they lack the morphological patterns that English uses to convey meaning. Their print flows vertically in columns rather than horizontal rows, creating different eye tracking needs. Even basic directionality is opposite to English. The linguistic distance between alphabetic and logographic languages is vast, severely limiting transfer of decoding skills. But most SOR approaches ignore these cross-linguistic differences and disadvantage students from character-based writing systems. For reading instruction to be equitable, it must take the language structure into account rather than presuming a one-size-fits-all model based on English. For this reason, and many more, I prefer the translanguaging approach to language instruction.
The AutSide is a reader-supported publication. To support my work, consider becoming a paid subscriber.