The Cynical Cycle: How the Science of Reading Approach Creates and Profits from Struggling Readers
Deconstructing a native ad from BigEd
On the back of the lengthy series examining California’s proposed AB 2222, I wanted to take a moment to see how much of the bandwagon effect for the so-called “science of reading” is created. Today, we’ll deconstruct a native ad from the BigEd marketing platform, K-12 Dive.
Introduction
Our native ad (umm, article), titled “How one school scaled up science of reading professional development,” appeared in my inbox via a “news aggregation” from one of the many professional organisations to which I belong. The article (native ad) showcases the experience of Mountain Mahogany Community School, a small K-8 public charter school in Albuquerque, New Mexico, serving approximately 230 students. Whilst the article presents the school’s implementation of the so-called “science of reading” (SOR) approach as a success story, it is important to note that charter schools often have the flexibility and resources to implement new programs more easily than traditional public schools, particularly those serving disadvantaged communities (e.g., Title 1).
According to the article, in 2018-19, Mountain Mahogany Community School reported that only 32% of its students in grades 3-8 demonstrated reading proficiency. To address this issue, the school’s director initiated a series of changes aligned with the SOR approach. These changes included hiring a trained reading interventionist, investing in professional development for teachers, and modifying curricula, schedules, and classroom routines to prioritise foundational literacy skills.
The article reports that these efforts led to an improvement in reading proficiency rates, with 52% of students in grades 3-8 testing as proficient in 2022. However, it is crucial to recognise that this “success” story may not be representative of the challenges faced by schools serving more disadvantaged populations, such as Title 1 schools.
Title 1 schools, which serve a high percentage of students from low-income families, often face numerous obstacles that can hinder the implementation of new educational approaches. These challenges may include limited financial resources, high teacher turnover rates, larger class sizes, and a greater proportion of students with diverse learning needs or language backgrounds. As a result, the “success” of the SOR approach in a small, well-resourced charter school may not necessarily translate to schools facing more systemic barriers to student achievement.
Moreover, the article’s focus on a single “best-case scenario” fails to consider the broader context of literacy education and the potential limitations of the SOR approach. By presenting Mountain Mahogany Community School’s experience as a triumph without critically examining the implications for the 48% of students who did not achieve proficiency or exploring alternative approaches that may better serve diverse learning needs, the article offers an incomplete picture of the challenges and opportunities in improving reading instruction.
As such, whilst the original article highlights the supposed benefits of the SOR approach in a specific context, it is essential to recognise that the experience of a small charter school is not be representative of the challenges faced by schools serving more disadvantaged populations (sample size anyone?). A more comprehensive and nuanced discussion of literacy education would consider the limitations of the SOR approach (as we’ve done here), the diverse needs of all learners, and the systemic barriers that many schools must overcome to ensure equitable access to high-quality reading instruction.
Thesis
Thesis: Despite significant investments in the “science of reading” approach, the Mountain Mahogany Community School’s experience reveals the inherent limitations of this method, which fails to adequately serve a substantial portion of students.
The featured school's implementation of the SOR approach, as described in the original article, involved substantial investments in terms of financial resources, time, and effort. The school allocated funds for professional development through the Institute for Multi-Sensory Education (IMSE), with costs ranging from $375 for an initial certificate to $4,750 for a district instructor certification. These expenses, coupled with the costs of hiring a reading interventionist, modifying curricula and schedules, and altering classroom routines, represent a significant financial burden for the school.
However, despite these considerable investments, the school’s reading proficiency rates only increased from 32% to 52% among students in grades 3-8. Whilst this improvement may seem noteworthy at first glance, it is crucial to recognise that nearly half of the students in these grades still failed to achieve proficiency, even after the school’s concerted efforts to implement the SOR approach.
This outcome suggests that the SOR method, with its narrow focus on foundational skills such as phonics and phonemic awareness, may not adequately address the diverse learning needs of a substantial portion of students. The approach’s emphasis on explicit, systematic instruction in these skills may not be sufficient for students who require alternative or complementary strategies to develop their reading abilities.
Furthermore, the SOR approach’s lack of consideration for factors such as language background, socioeconomic status, and individual language processing styles may limit its effectiveness in serving students from diverse backgrounds. By prioritising an expensive one-size-fits-all approach to reading instruction, the SOR method may fail to provide the necessary support and accommodations for students who face additional barriers to literacy development.
The school's experience also raises questions about the long-term sustainability and cost-effectiveness of the SOR approach. The ongoing expenses associated with professional development, such as the $2,350 for the second level of IMSE certification and the $4,750 for district instructor certification, may strain school budgets, particularly in schools serving disadvantaged communities with limited resources. Moreover, the opportunity costs associated with investing heavily in the SOR approach may divert resources away from other potential interventions or support services that could benefit struggling readers.
Additionally, the school’s focus on the SOR approach may inadvertently contribute to the marginalisation of students who do not respond well to this method. By prioritising a narrow set of skills and instructional strategies, the school may unintentionally convey the message that students who struggle with the SOR approach are deficient or unsuccessful, rather than acknowledging the need for alternative approaches that build on their strengths and address their unique learning needs.
Thus, whilst the school's experience demonstrates the potential for the SOR approach to yield some improvements in reading proficiency rates, it also highlights the inherent limitations of this method in serving a substantial portion of students. The school’s significant investments in the SOR approach, including the high costs of IMSE certification, did not translate into adequate progress for nearly half of the students in grades 3-8, suggesting that a more comprehensive, flexible, and inclusive approach to literacy instruction may be necessary to ensure that all students have the opportunity to develop their reading skills and reach their full potential.
The High Cost of Implementing SOR
The article’s mention of the $1,500 cost per teacher for IMSE training is misleading, as it fails to provide a comprehensive picture of the actual expenses associated with this professional development program. According to the IMSE website, the initial certificate costs $375, while the second level of certification is priced at $2,350. To become an IMSE District Instructor, the level mentioned in the article, educators must invest a staggering $4,750. These costs can quickly accumulate, placing a significant financial burden on schools and districts.
Moreover, the article’s failure to transparently disclose the full range of costs associated with IMSE certification raises concerns about its potential status as a native ad. By presenting the training expenses in a manner that downplays their true magnitude, the article may be encouraging schools and districts to invest in the SOR approach without fully understanding the long-term financial implications.
Implementing the SOR approach often requires schools to overhaul their existing curricula and acquire new materials aligned with the method’s principles. The article mentions that featured school “switched its reading and writing curricula” but does not provide any details about the costs associated with this transition. Curriculum materials, such as textbooks, workbooks, and digital resources, can be expensive, and schools may need to purchase multiple sets to accommodate different grade levels and classrooms. These costs can strain school budgets and divert funds from other essential resources and programs.
The article highlights the school’s decision to hire a reading interventionist to work with the youngest students in grades K-2 using SOR methods. Whilst the article portrays this as a positive step, it does not address the ongoing costs associated with maintaining a specialised staff member dedicated to the SOR approach. Salaries, benefits, and professional development expenses for reading interventionists can add up quickly, placing an additional financial burden on schools and districts.
Furthermore, the article fails to acknowledge the potential for a “revolving door” effect, where teachers who receive expensive SOR training, such as IMSE certification, may leave their positions to become higher-paid specialists or consultants. This phenomenon can perpetuate a cycle of schools investing in costly professional development, only to lose trained staff members to more lucrative opportunities. As a result, schools may find themselves continuously allocating resources to train new teachers in the SOR approach, rather than being able to build a stable, experienced workforce.
By heavily investing in the SOR approach, schools and districts may be diverting resources away from other methods and interventions that could potentially benefit struggling readers. The article does not explore the opportunity costs associated with allocating substantial funds to IMSE certification, curriculum overhauls, and specialised staffing, all of which may limit a school’s ability to investigate and implement other evidence-based strategies for improving literacy outcomes.
Moreover, the article’s focus on the SOR approach as a singular solution to the school’s literacy challenges may discourage educators and administrators from considering a more comprehensive, holistic approach to language instruction. By presenting the SOR method as a panacea, the article risks perpetuating a narrow, one-size-fits-all mindset that fails to acknowledge the diverse learning needs of students and the potential benefits of incorporating multiple strategies and interventions.
The Marginal Gains and Persistent Gaps
The article’s celebration of the improvement in reading proficiency rates at the featured school, from 32% to 52% among students in grades 3-8, raises questions about the timeliness and completeness of the data presented. The article, published in late February 2024, relies on data from the 2021-2022 school year, which is notably outdated. This begs the question: why wasn’t more recent data included, and what might have happened in the intervening year?
The absence of data from the 2022-2023 school year is a glaring omission that undermines the article’s credibility and raises suspicions about its potential status as a native ad. If the SOR approach had continued to yield significant improvements in reading proficiency rates, one would expect the article to highlight the most recent data available. The fact that it does not suggests that the gains made in the 2021-2022 school year may have been an anomaly or that the SOR approach may have hit a plateau in its effectiveness.
Moreover, the lack of current data obscures the persistent gaps in student achievement that the SOR approach fails to address. As noted in my previous articles, gestalt processors, who comprise an estimated 40% of the human population, often struggle with the decontextualised, skills-based approach championed by the SOR method. By focusing narrowly on foundational skills such as phonics and phonemic awareness, the SOR approach fails to address the unique learning needs of gestalt processors, leaving them at a disadvantage and limiting their potential for reading success.
The article’s failure to acknowledge the unaddressed needs of the remaining 48% of students who did not achieve proficiency in the 2021-2022 school year is another red flag. These students, many of whom may be gestalt processors or have other learning differences, are left without the necessary support and accommodations to develop their reading skills effectively. The absence of more recent data leaves us wondering whether this pattern of marginalisation and exclusion has persisted or worsened in the subsequent year.
Furthermore, the potential widening of achievement gaps for marginalized students is a critical concern that the article fails to address. By prioritizing a one-size-fits-all approach to reading instruction, the SOR method may disproportionately disadvantage students from diverse backgrounds, including those with language differences, learning disabilities, or socioeconomic challenges. The lack of current data makes it impossible to assess whether the implementation of the SOR approach has exacerbated existing inequities in literacy education or if the school has taken steps to address these disparities.
The article’s reliance on outdated data and its failure to provide a more comprehensive and up-to-date picture of the school’s literacy outcomes raise serious questions about its objectivity and intent. If the SOR approach had truly been a resounding success, one would expect the article to showcase the most recent evidence available. The fact that it does not suggests that the article may be more concerned with promoting the SOR method than providing an accurate and transparent assessment of its impact on student learning.
Thus, the original article’s use of outdated data and its failure to address the persistent gaps in student achievement and the critical limitations of the SOR approach undermine its credibility and raise concerns about its potential status as a native ad. To truly understand the impact of the SOR method on literacy education at the focus school and beyond, we need access to current, comprehensive data that accounts for the diverse learning needs of all students, including gestalt processors and other neurodiverse learners. Only then can we engage in an honest and informed dialogue about the most effective strategies for promoting equitable and inclusive literacy instruction.
The Narrow Focus on Foundational Skills
The article’s narrow focus on foundational skills, such as phonics and phonemic awareness, exemplifies the SOR approach’s overemphasis on decontextualised skills at the expense of a more comprehensive and holistic view of literacy development. By prioritising these discrete skills, the SOR method neglects essential aspects of reading, such as comprehension, critical thinking, and language development, which are crucial for fostering engaged, motivated, and proficient readers.
The SOR approach’s overemphasis on phonics and phonemic awareness is rooted in a reductionist view of reading that breaks the complex process of literacy development into isolated, measurable components. Whilst these foundational skills are indeed important, they are not sufficient for creating skilled, independent readers. By focusing so heavily on these decontextualised skills, the SOR method fails to provide students with the necessary tools and strategies for making meaning from texts, engaging in higher-order thinking, and developing a rich, varied vocabulary.
Moreover, the SOR approach’s lack of consideration for diverse learning styles and cognitive processes, such as those of gestalt processors, is a critical shortcoming that limits its effectiveness for a significant portion of students. As discussed previously, gestalt processors tend to learn language holistically, relying on context, meaning, and pattern recognition rather than explicit phonics instruction. By failing to acknowledge and accommodate these differences in cognitive processing, the SOR method marginalises and disadvantages learners who do not fit the narrow mold of the “typical” reader.
The reductionist view of reading promoted by the SOR approach also has significant implications for student engagement and motivation. When reading instruction is reduced to a series of decontextualised skills and drills, students may struggle to see the relevance and purpose of reading in their lives. This narrow focus can lead to disengagement, frustration, and a lack of intrinsic motivation to read, as students are not provided with opportunities to explore their interests, make meaningful connections, and develop a love for reading.
It is important to recognise that the article’s promotion of the SOR approach, to the exclusion of other proven methods, is a hallmark of native advertising. By ignoring alternative approaches that take a more holistic view of literacy development, the article reinforces the bandwagon effect that the SOR relies upon, creating the illusion that there is only one “scientifically proven” method for teaching reading.
In reality, there is a growing body of research and practice that supports a more comprehensive, balanced approach to literacy instruction. For example, holistic language instruction, my upcoming book (with it’s over 30 pages of references), emphasises the integration of reading, writing, speaking, and listening skills within meaningful, authentic contexts. This approach recognises the diverse needs of learners and seeks to build upon their strengths, interests, and experiences to foster engaged, motivated, and proficient readers.
Other approaches, such as the whole language method and balanced literacy, also prioritise a more holistic view of reading development. These methods recognise the importance of foundational skills but situate them within a broader context of meaning-making, critical thinking, and language development. By providing students with a range of strategies and experiences, these approaches aim to create lifelong readers who can engage with texts on multiple levels.
The article’s failure to acknowledge these alternative approaches and its exclusive focus on the SOR method is a disservice to educators and students alike. By perpetuating the myth that there is only one “scientific” way to teach reading, the article contributes to the marginalisation of diverse learners and the narrowing of literacy instruction.
You see, the SOR approach’s narrow focus on foundational skills and its neglect of comprehension, critical thinking, and language development limit its effectiveness in creating engaged, motivated, and proficient readers. By failing to consider diverse learning styles and cognitive processes, the SOR method marginalises and disadvantages a significant portion of students. As educators and policymakers, we must resist the bandwagon effect created by native advertising and instead advocate for a more holistic, inclusive, and research-based approach to literacy instruction that recognises the complexity and diversity of reading development.
The Entrenchment of a Flawed Paradigm
The entrenchment of the SOR approach as the dominant paradigm in literacy education is perpetuated by a self-perpetuating cycle of investment in SOR-aligned resources and training. As school districts and policymakers allocate significant funds to implement the SOR method, they become increasingly committed to the approach, even in the face of evidence that suggests its limitations. This sunk cost fallacy leads to a doubling down on the SOR approach, as educators and administrators feel pressured to justify their investments and demonstrate results, even if those results are marginal or fail to address the needs of a significant portion of students.
Moreover, the heavy investment in SOR-aligned resources and training creates a powerful incentive for educational publishers and professional development providers to continue promoting the approach. As more schools and districts adopt the SOR method, these companies stand to benefit financially from the sale of SOR-aligned textbooks, instructional materials, and training programs. This financial incentive can lead to the marginalisation of alternative approaches and perspectives, as companies prioritise the promotion of SOR-aligned products over other methods.
The marginalisation of alternative approaches and perspectives is further exacerbated by the role of native advertising in promoting the SOR method and suppressing critical discourse. As demonstrated by the article, native advertising can be used to create the illusion of objective, research-based support for the SOR approach, whilst downplaying or ignoring evidence that challenges its effectiveness. By presenting the SOR method as the only “scientific” approach to literacy instruction, native advertising contributes to the bandwagon effect, making it difficult for educators and policymakers to consider alternative perspectives.
This marginalisation of alternative approaches is particularly concerning given the fact that many of the corporations behind the push for the SOR approach also sell interventions designed to “fix” the very problems that the SOR method may create or exacerbate. For example, companies that promote SOR-aligned textbooks and training programs may also offer expensive tutoring services, learning software, or special education materials designed to address the needs of struggling readers. This creates a deeply cynical and troubling cycle, in which the very companies that benefit from the adoption of the SOR approach also stand to profit from the challenges and limitations of the method.
The entrenchment of the SOR approach and the marginalisation of alternative perspectives underscore the urgent need for a more inclusive, holistic, and equitable vision of literacy education. Rather than relying on a narrow, one-size-fits-all approach, we must advocate for a model of literacy instruction that recognises the diverse needs and strengths of all learners, including those who may not respond well to the SOR method.
This inclusive vision of literacy education should prioritize the development of a wide range of skills and strategies, including comprehension, critical thinking, and language development, alongside foundational skills such as phonics and phonemic awareness. It should also recognize and celebrate the diversity of cognitive processes and learning styles, providing students with multiple pathways to success and engagement with texts.
Furthermore, this holistic approach to literacy education must be grounded in a commitment to equity and social justice. By acknowledging the ways in which the SOR approach may disproportionately disadvantage marginalised students, including those from low-income backgrounds, English language learners, and students with disabilities, we can work to develop a model of literacy instruction that promotes inclusivity and addresses systemic barriers to success.
Achieving this vision of inclusive, holistic, and equitable literacy education will require a sustained effort to challenge the dominant paradigm of the SOR approach and the vested interests that support it. This will involve advocating for greater transparency in educational research and marketing, exposing the role of native advertising in shaping public discourse, and demanding that policymakers and educators prioritise the needs of students over the profits of corporations.
Ultimately, the entrenchment of the SOR approach and the marginalisation of alternative perspectives serve as a stark reminder of the high stakes involved in literacy education. As educators and advocates, we have a moral obligation to resist the narrow, cynical vision of literacy promoted by the SOR method and to fight for an approach that truly serves the needs of all students. Only by embracing a more inclusive, holistic, and equitable model of literacy education can we hope to create a future in which every child has the opportunity to become a skilled, engaged, and empowered reader.