Greetings, I'm Andy Johnson. This presentation
is called Letters, Science of Reading Research
Standards and Baloney. So let's get to it. By
the way, you can find handouts and other stuff
if you go to my sub stack. go to Substack and
press in the reading instruction show. You'll
find a bunch of stuff related there. This is
a free Substack. I don't charge for subscriptions.
Everything there is free. I have videos and writing
and whatnot. I also have a lot of people ask
me about writing, how to teach writing. Writing
is one of the most under -taught skills in reading.
So I have lots of stuff there taken from my book,
Being and Becoming, Teachers of Writers. And
like the rest of America, 98 % of you anyway,
I do have a podcast. So let's get down to it.
Context. The context in which things are found
matter. Whether you're looking at words, understanding
sentences, making sense of data, research, phenomena,
understanding your students or the five core
skills, making sense of Orton Gillingham and
the science of reading, and in this case, evaluating
letters professional development. But first of
all, let's start with the illusion of crisis
context helps us understand that as well. There
is not a reading achievement crisis in the United
States of America, no matter what the media tells
you. National Assessment of Educational Progress,
NAEP, part of the US Department of Education,
puts out test scores every two years on reading
math, science, and other things. According to
Rinke and Ruby and Risco, there is no irrefutable
evidence that we are experiencing a national
literacy crisis. And science of things usually
require evidence to come to conclusions about
things. A crisis would look like that, or perhaps
like that. It would not look like that. These
are average reading scores for fourth graders
starting in 71 to 20, or second graders and fourth
graders 71 to 20. We'll look at some updated
ones in a bit. there has been no statistically
significant difference from 2013 to 2020. Yes,
there was the COVID dip and we have natural fluctuations
of scores as we would expect, but we're at the
same place as we were in three and about the
same place we were in nine. Okay, same with eighth
grade. No statistically significant difference
from 2012 to 2020, 2008, 2004. Now, to understand
NAEP, they decided to come up with three levels
or categories. They said, well, scores aren't
bad enough. We need to find a way to make them
bad so we can create this crisis. So they came
up with the categories basic, proficient, and
advanced. What did Ruby, Rinkeen, and Risco say?
Rinkeen, Ruby, and Risco. Scores used to define
these categories were arbitrarily set by a small
group of handpicked political appointed experts
against the recommendations of psychometricians
who had been contracted to advise the department.
Categories, levels, and contents. These are arbitrarily
or were arbitrarily defined. Group of people
got together and said, hmm, I think we'll call
that. Now let's put this in a bit of context.
Again, here is the national average. This is
for fourth graders. And they give us these percentages,
these percentile rankings, by the way. 10th,
25th, 75th, 90th, as a way to disaggregate or
pull out little bits of score so you can make
a case for almost anything. You can say, the
scores of poor readers are going down. Or if
they went up, you can say, the number of poor
readers is going up. Whatever. Here's the thing.
92. This was the national average, so they defined
basic as just below average and proficient as
slightly above average. Why is that problematic?
Because, wait for it, by definition at least
40 % of the population would be reading below
the basic level. Half would be reading below
average and only about 60%. Only 60 % would be
below the proficient level and only 40 % would
be above, at or above the proficiency level.
You see how they set that up to create the illusion.
Same with eighth graders. These are aspirational,
not mathematical average. just below average,
just above average. Walton said proficiency levels
should be interpreted with extreme caution, and
the National Center, their own website, provided
three reasons. These are aspirational, not mathematical,
these levels, they're being used on a trial basis,
so said their website. And further evidence is
needed to determine if these levels are reasonable,
valid, and informative. Yet there we go. And
we must differentiate between norm -referenced
and criterion -referenced tests. State tests
tend to be criterion -referenced. Group of people
got together and said, I think second graders
should know that, third graders this, fourth
graders this. So they established a criterion.
an arbitrarily defined criterion at each grade
level. They got together. But who decided the
content? Who decided what's basic, proficient,
et cetera? All right, let's look at letters and
the Mississippi miracle. It's a miracle. Notice
when states pass their legislation. Here's the
miracle happening in 2013. And you see all this
legislation passed. So in the next couple years,
we should expect to see miracles happening all
over the country. Absolutely. Now, Senator Chamberlain,
the state senator here in Minnesota, he got a
bill passed. But you know, Senator Chamberlain
and then the Reid Act sponsored by Heather Ellison
have been drinking the letters too late. The
lobbyists got to know they don't give them money,
but they lobby and they lobby and they lobby.
This is what Chamberlain said. Mississippi, is
outperforming Minnesota in reading game scores
due to their use of letters. Oh, how humiliating.
Mississippi is beating Minnesota. And he made
the causal, the causal link. He said it's due
to letters. Well, that's not really scientific
thinking. Randomly assigning causality, I think
is due to that. Okay, so his bill appropriated
30 million. Edelson's bill would later appropriate
100 million. All right, to make sure all teachers
are trained with letters. Outperforming Minnesota
in reading gain scores. Why is that a silly,
silly idea? You can't compare gain scores. Here's
Louisiana, Mississippi, Hawaii. And I've had
people that say, look at this. Alabama has higher
gain scores than Delaware. Therefore, we have
to do what Alabama is doing. Here's the thing
about gain scores. If you start low and you gain
a little, you're going to have a pretty high
gain score than if you start high and fluctuate
a little. This does not mean that this is doing
something magical. I went on the John Stossel
show. He interviewed me. It wasn't an interview.
He just wanted little bits to create a collage.
And he's been drinking the Kool -Aid as well.
He tried this gotcha thing. He had this graph
out here comparing gain scores and said, look
at Minnesota. They're way here. And look at Mississippi.
Look at those gain scores, he said. And I tried
to explain to him and I did. My explanation was
left on the cutting floor of that interview,
sadly. But here's the thing, Mississippi has
never scored above Minnesota. Fourth grade, Mississippi,
Minnesota, all right. Our Minnesota Department
of Education are Kool -Aid drinkers as well.
Mmm, tasty. This is what they put in their latest
missive. In accordance with the Read Act, all
phase one educators are required. That means
they must, they must have approved professional
development training and they approved it. How
many research articles do you think these Kool
-Aid drinkers have read in their lives? If I
were not to retire, and I'm going to retire in
three months just from university life, just
like the guy in clockwork orange whose eyes were
held open so he had to watch horrible things,
I would have to do mandatory letters training.
Here I am. It would be a re -education camp for
me. This is required of people. Someone would
be telling me about reading instruction. And
the Minnesota Department of Education has become
an infomercial for Lexia Learning. Look at all
this stuff. This could have been written by Lexia
Learning. Letters, rigorous professional development,
explicit systematic sequential instruction, foundational
skills. Really interesting. And look at the numbers.
It's got numbers. Hello, everybody. Numbers.
It must be good. And look. at the fancy graphs.
This is the Minnesota Department of Education
website, taking stuff directly from Voyager Sopris,
which is part of Cambrian, which is part of LexiAlerti.
Okay. Graphs do not make a thing more real. The
three questions we should ask of every program
policy or approach? Is there research to show
that it improves students' reading achievement,
that it improves teachers' ability to teach reading,
or that it's more effective when compared to
similar things? That research has not been forthcoming
for letters or for Orton Dillingham. Why are
they given a free pass? How can you be a science
of anything? if you ignore basic science. Hmm.
Public education should not be an ATM machine
for the profiteers. To illustrate the Mississippi
miracle, I want to tell you about my secret powers.
I can make the children in Mississippi taller.
Yes, I can. Here's how it happens. Step one,
flunk all the short kids, then Step two, when
tested in fourth grade, the average height of
fourth graders would be taller. The average height
of third graders would also be taller. And then
next year in the fourth grade, they'd be taller
because those short kids have grown a year. It's
a miracle. It's a Mississippi miracle. That's
what happened in Mississippi. The Mississippi
miracle. You had what was before 2013. all these
test takers, and then they would go to fourth
grade where the NAEP test was taken. And with
all the test takers, the results was 209 average.
But then the miracle came. The miracle. oh wonderful
upon wonderful the miracle and what they did
is they put a filter in there and they flunked
all the low testers in third grade so you only
had high and medium testers in fourth grade and
then the next year these low testers weren't
quite as low but again you are flunking low testers
so a whole lot of flunking going on and we can
see here's the start of the miracle and oh look
at this miracle a mirror and look at Mississippi
even snuck above the national average it's a
miracle it's a miracle look at the miracle yes
yes yes it's a Mississippi miracle okay little
context before you start celebrating too much
In four years, those same fourth graders then
went to eighth grade where they had to once again
take an NAEP test. And again, starting in 13,
they were still below the national average. And
we've got a little bump here, but in 24, they're
the same as they were in 13. Huh? Huh? The miracle
went away. It's not a miracle. Oh dear. Oh dear.
Let's look at letters and orthographic mapping.
And I've got seven new words I want to introduce
you to. So I'm going to expand your vocabulary.
Buzzwords. First, a buzzword is used to elicit
an emotional response versus accurately transmit
information. And academic buzzwords are used
in education to create the illusion of something
important. I know that probably destroys your
faith in scholars, but they sometimes do that.
Imagine that. Here are some lovely, lovely buzzwords.
Oh, pretty, pretty buzzwords. If you want to
have some fun, go to a reading league meeting
or conference. Give this list to people and say,
write down the definition of these. See how many
people can do it. See how many lists are the
same. See if there's any understanding, any similarity.
And here's the thing about these important sounding
buzzwords. They're used to describe what people
think is good. They're used to describe letters
in Orton Gillingham and this, that, and the other
thing. These letters can be used to identify
and describe balanced literacy and even, wait
for it, whole language. Yes, systematic, direct,
explicit instruction, whole language. but we're
looking at orthographic mapping. So let us turn
to Lexia to help us understand Lexia learning,
because as Lexia says, that's the connection.
And Lexia, by the way, if I haven't said it before,
they are the publishers of letters, professional
development. Orthographic mapping connections
leads to literacy success, okay? Well, this was
a term invented by Linnea Airy, 2014, and it
is a theory. A theory explains a set of facts.
You can't see orthographic mapping. Don't get
snuckered by big fancy brain words and images.
and things like orthographic mapping. It is a
theory. A theory explains a set of facts. Different
theories explain different facts differently.
Different theories are supported by research.
Now, orthographic has to do with symbols representing
sounds and arrangements of letters. We have an
orthographic language. Each sound, each phoneme
is represented by a letter, a graph name. as
opposed to a logo or logographic. Here, a symbol
represents something. These aren't letter sounds.
These are symbols. Mapping is how things are
organized and stored in long -term memory. It's
how the neurons are connected. If you could see
a brain image, neural pathways and neural networks,
and here's how things are connected in your brain.
as they become activated. Long -term memory is
kind of like a storage locker. Things are stored
there and they're organized with related things
connected to or stored by other related things
so that we can find them when we go back and
memory and look for something. Things are not
stored higgily -piggily like that. It would be
hard to remember anything if things were just
put in there haphazardly. Things are organized
in our brain according to meaning. Related things
are stored close. When something becomes activated,
you think about a swan, all those related things,
electrical signals, go to these related things
and get activated. That's how long -term memory
works. Orthographic facilitation. is seeing the
spelling of a word while learning its meaning
and sound. Now, this is kind of a, that's one
of those buzzwords, you know? You see the spelling
while you're learning the definition, what it
means and what it sounds like. What it sounds
like, okay, you see the word dinosaur and you
see sound symbols. So of course you're gonna
remember the sound better and the meaning better.
You see the morphological units, but remembering
it and knowing the sound of it is different from
understanding the meaning of the word. Children
learn three to 5 ,000 words a year. Very few
of them do they see the spelling of. It's a goofy
idea. It's a theoretical idea, okay? Just like
orthographic mapping, the process of storing
a word permanently in memory for instant retrieval.
Well, like many things, this is kind of true.
There's some things that are true about it, all
right? See a printed word, brain uses letter
-sound relationship, okay? According to Erie,
It occurs when in the course of reading specific
words, readers form connections between written
unit, either single graphemes or larger spelling
patterns, and spoken units, either phonemes,
syllamines, or morphemes. Okay, I don't know
what the hell she's talking about there. I don't
know what she's talking about. A lot of words
here, a lot of buzzwords. Connections between
written and spoken units. Connections retained
in memory. Spelling of words enter memory. Spelling
of words influence vocabulary. What does any
of this mean? And I'm a poor speller, but I can
actually have a pretty big vocabulary and could
read a whole bunch of words. I don't see that
connection here, but that's just me. But according
to Erie, there's this special word memory in
long -term memory. where you map and connect
letters to sounds, letters to sounds to meanings
to spelling, and these all impact word recognition,
ability to spell, and vocabulary. It's very confusing,
and simply having graphics and charts and organizers
like this doesn't make a silly thing less silly.
It just means you have a graphic. Orthographic
mapping. It explains how children learn to read
words not reading by sight to spell words from
memory and to acquire vocabulary from print well
no it doesn't really explain that at all doesn't
explain that at all and i've got a whole bunch
of research citations you can find it on my sub
stack i devoted a whole chapter to this in my
book uh that's coming out this summer a theory
it's a theory a theory that is based on a misinterpretation
and over interpretation of research data. If
knowledge was stored in long -term memory in
the form of words, orthographic mapping might
make sense, but knowledge is stored in the form
of associative networks, not words. Let me explain
that a bit. Orthographic mapping says words are
memorized and stored in long -term based on letter
patterns. While semantic mapping, which we call
memory, says concepts are encoded and organized
in long -term memory based on meaning. Things
that are related are stored closer together.
Things are stored and connected with related
things. I'll be explaining. Semantic mapping
is based on association. We call it memory. Orthographic
may be a thing. There may be some of that letter
connection. But semantic mapping is a much more
powerful thing. I'll demonstrate that. If we
just encountered words floating in space without
context, orthographic mapping would make sense.
But words are always encountered in the context
of a sentence, a sign, or a symbol, or a product,
not a symbol. So we don't and it doesn't. For
example, when you see or hear the word cat, what
comes to mind? Think about it, okay? What doesn't
come to mind is related letters. You don't say,
oh, all the words that start with a C or have
an at phonogram or, you know, it's not letter
patterns that come to mind. Orthographic mapping
based on letter patterns. No. When you see and
hear the word cat, do you associate it with other
short A words? No. You see the word cat and you
associate it with cat things. Mapping or memory
is based on meanings and associations, not letter
patterns. Semantic mapping may indeed be a thing,
it's a very weak thing, orthographic mapping,
but semantic mapping is a much more powerful
thing. Words stored in long -term memory. Networks
are connected to other words with semantic relationships.
The strongest level of word representation in
long -term memory is not letter patterns, phonological
or lexical, but meaning, conceptual. And again,
orthographic mapping may be a thing. but semantic
mapping or memory is much more of a thing. Our
neural networks, our brain, it's like three -dimensional
interconnected harp strings. They vibrate and
activate related things. Again, If I pluck a
string there, it's gonna vibrate and make something
that it's connected to vibrate just like a harp
string. So I'm plucking the word cat and my brain
is already activating cat -like things. That
explains why there's 10 times more information
flowing down during the act of reading than flowing
up from the thalamus. All these things have already
been activated and we're thinking about cat things
even before we see the next cat words. Vibrating
heart, connected neurons are activated. That
enables us to make these micro predictions, the
guessing game that Goodman called. And I would
encourage you to, if you say whole language has
been rejected, for gosh darn sakes, read his
article before you reject him. You know, then
tell me exactly what you disagree with. What
it says, It describes that activation. You're
reading a book about cats, and as soon as you
see the word cat, your brain becomes activated.
These connected neurons are activated, related
things. So you need to use less letter clues.
Orthographic mapping. What is it? Well, I call
a pile of baloney. What about the gold standard
research? Okay, very good. Well, U .S. Department
of Education, they defined research as using
experimental or quasi -experimental design with
appropriate controls, random assignment, all
right, and have to be, if it's the gold standard
and that's what needs to be used, science of
reading and all, has to be done in an actual
classroom. It can't be basic. It must be applied
research. OK. Basic science of reading definition
using strategies and practice shown to be effective
using controlled experimental or quasi -experimental
research and conducted in an actual setting.
So decisions about programs, policies, and such
are all based on these strategies and practices.
Okay. And I would be okay with that. I think
that's a limited view, but if it were consistently
applied, but it's not, it's not consistently
applied. If science of reading advocates would
hold themselves to the same standards, I could
live with it. Mandated programs, curriculum,
and policies, but things like letters and Orton
Gillingham, there's no No applied research showing
that it enhances reading or is more effective
than something else. Research is not simply collecting
data and saying stuff. Some of Louisa Moat, she
just collects data. She gives a survey. You can't
find a research question. And then she says stuff.
That's not research. Research is not research
unless and until it has been subjected to blind
peer review. But even with the gold standard,
there is trouble with some of this stuff. So
let's take a look at the evidence for letters.
Is letters professional development evidence
-based? Is it research -based? These are the
wrong questions to ask. Instead, Is there strong
research to support to address these questions?
Does it improve reading achievement? Has it been
shown to improve teachers' ability to teach?
Has it been shown to be more effective than other
forms of professional development? And if there's
these research studies out there, they're sure
kept hidden. In examining letters, I was looking
for controlled experimental quasi -experimental
research. that's the gold standards, and a causal
link between letters and teachers' ability to
teach reading and teach it effectively and that
comparison. That is the gold standard. I don't
need thousands, I just need one or two. Now here's
the thing. Dr. Moats and her minions would have
us believe that if teachers had just the right
kind of knowledge, her kind of knowledge, then
they could teach reading effectively, and all
those pesky reading problems would go away. That's
not really very scientific thinking. Well, research
has been put forth to support those propositions
that she has the right kind of knowledge. This
is based on, I think, results. What kind of knowledge
is important? Dr. Moats claims that her kind
of knowledge is the right kind of knowledge,
and you must have her knowledge. This is the
irrefutable logic of Dr. Moats. A, letters professional
development, equals B, more effective teaching.
Okay, follow the logic. B, more effective teaching,
equals C, higher levels of reading achievement.
Okay, therefore, A equals C. Letters equals higher
levels of reading achievement. Okay. Also, A,
letters equals D, solution to all problems. Okay.
Also, A is greater than E, all other forms of
professional development for reading. And F,
all teacher preparation programs is less than
A, letters professional development. Hmm. It's
logical, irrefutable, but there's no research
evidence. I'm going to throw a monkey wrench
in the fly ointment. No causal link from A to
B, C, D, or E. No comparative research showing
A is greater than E or F is less than A. And
we are operating in a scientific environment,
are we? Is the knowledge of Louisa Moats better
than the knowledge of others? Say Richard Ellington,
Mari Clay, Denny Taylor, the owner's manual for
an Evan Rood outboard engine. Is it better than
that? Please show me some research. And again,
has research shown that her special knowledge
improves reading achievement, teaching ability,
and is better than some other special knowledge?
Well, let's take a look at some of the primary
research conducted by Dr. Modes, who is the author
of letters. And again, we're looking for a causal
variable linking letters and teachers' ability
to teach, students' ability to read, and as comparing
it to something else. Basic research standards.
All right, 1994, this research study. This is
interesting. Now, yeah, you're saying 1994. Well,
this is cited in her white paper and her white
paper is cited all over the place. It's found
on the Lexia Letters website. And this was used
to support two propositions. First, that teachers
aren't being adequately trained to teach reading.
We don't train, by the way, we educate. that
they need more training in phoneme awareness
and phonics, and they do not have fully developed
phonemic awareness or an understanding of the
way words are spelled. Okay, let's see if her
research meets the science of reading goal standards
that must be used. She was teaching graduate
courses, and she had a self -selected population.
Not a random, but self -selected. of 89 students
who are taking an elective course called reading,
spelling, and phonology. So these students were
taking a course. There was an equal distribution,
meaning that some were speech language pathologists,
some teaching assistants, some graduate assistants,
and so, you know, we don't know how many of each,
how many were actual classroom teachers. We don't.
But she gave a survey, a test on what she thought
was important for teaching reading. Students
signed up for her class to learn the very things
that she thought was important, the very things
that were on the survey. And of course they didn't
know it, but she's saying these things, content
of the survey, are important for being able to
teach reading. Interesting. This is based on
an I think -ism. There's nothing to support that
her knowledge is necessary or sufficient for
teaching, reading. There's no research question.
She just gave a survey on a bunch of stuff she
thought was important. And then she said a bunch
of stuff about her survey afterwards. If you
look at the actual article and look for the research
question, you'll see there isn't one. She just
gave a survey and said a bunch of stuff. Yet
this study is often used to generalize about
teacher's knowledge and teacher education programs.
This was published in the Annals of Dyslexia,
which makes you question that. but the Annals
of Dyslexia and the International Dyslexia Association,
they came originally from the Orton -Gillingham
International Dyslexia Association, and the Bulletin
of the Orton Society is what it was called. So
I wonder, hmm, you think they're gonna look favorably
on Orton -Gillingham stuff? Probably so. A second
study, Motz and Forman. Okay, measuring teachers'
content knowledge of language and reading. A
three -year study, 50 kindergarten first graders
given a survey, 41 second and third survey, 103
third and fourth survey, and not surprisingly,
she found surprising gaps in teachers' insights
about learning to read, meaning they did not
know the things that she wanted them to know
or she thought she should know. She's built her
career on I thinkisms. I think teachers should
know this. And some of my colleagues have taken
letters training and said there's interesting
stuff there, but there's interesting stuff on
the history channel that does not mean that it
should be required for reading teachers. Her
conclusions were teachers who attended professional
development courses regularly scored higher on
the knowledge survey than those with low or no
attendance. That was the data. And she's misinterpreting
her own data to say that there are surprising
gaps and teachers don't know these things. And
it does not meet the science of reading research
standards. Here's her white paper, 2021. I examine
and evaluated every single stinking research
study used by her in her 10 points. And there's
a reason why this is a white paper and not an
article, because it would never pass muster.
In every instance, the research she cited did
not support the proposition for which it was
cited. None of the 10 statements are supported
by the research studies cited. And after reading
this white paper, people ask me that you have
a very negative view of letters. Have you ever
taken letters training? After reading that white
paper, why would anyone spend 10 minutes or 10
cents on anything related to letters? That's
what I ask, all right? Let's just take a look.
Prior coursework has been insufficient to prepare
teachers for effective literacy instruction.
She did not support this, what she cited did
not. And here's the thing, two of her sources
are invalid. National Council for Teachers of
Quality, that's not peer review, that is not
an academic journal. This is an interesting one,
Josie Bengtson Graham. Again, this is used to
support the assertion that pre -service teachers
aren't being adequately taught, aren't being
adequately prepared. They examine textbooks,
what was in a textbook, and did it have what
they thought was important? Did they have enough
of the five core? All right? What's in a textbook
does not relate to what's in a course. It's just
goofy. It is absolutely goofy. Teachers matter
more than programs. Well, yes, I think we all
agree with that. Okay. Teachers need compatible
coaching and peer support. Well, okay. Teaching
is rocket science. Again, not valid sources,
but it didn't support those. Language is the
missing foundation. Again, these are not valid
sources and these did not at all support the
propositions for which they were cited. Phonemic
awareness and phonics are major components for
which teachers need more training. Again, not
a valid source. Again, none of these supported
the propositions. None of them. Look it up yourself.
Teachers' estimates of their own knowledge often
diverge from objective evidence. Okay. Acquiring
deep knowledge of reading instruction takes time.
Okay, yeah, we agree with that. Okay, but not
valid sources. When teachers know more, students
learn more. Well, we all agree with that, but
it's not... what you think they should know.
Teacher knowledge has always been essential.
That's never been in question. That's why we
need legitimate professional development, not
for profit, stuff like letters. That's not legitimate
professional development. Effective teachers
are more content and will love their jobs. Well,
that's not a valid source, but I agree with that.
I mean, duh, okay. So my question after reading
her white paper, does Dr. Motz not know better
or does she know better and does this anyway?
Both are not very, both are scary propositions
to consider. Letters has efficacy research. Again,
efficacy research. You say, oh, there must be
research there. This is on the Lexia letters.
Okay. Let's see if we can find, let's take a
look. I examined each of the 18 research studies
that Lexia said constitutes the evidence base
for letters. Letters grouped them into three
categories. Peer -reviewed publications, there
was only two of those. Third -party evaluations,
there were four of those, and that's not research.
Unpublished masters or doctoral dissertation,
that's not research. There's a reason why they're
unpublished. Only two of the 18 were published
in peer review. And we'll look at just both of
them. These are the two. The first one, you know,
here's the thing. You can see a difference in
how letters described it in their efficacy report
and the actual abstract. Letters use the term,
Lexia used the term letters five times in their
description. Well, the authors used it zero times.
The study wasn't about letters at all. The research
had nothing to do with letters. But you can see
Lexia using letters, letters, letters all the
time. And the actual abstract had nothing to
do with letters. They're comparing professional
development coaches to no professional development
coaches. The same with this study. the Lexia
description mentioned letters, the actual abstract
does not. It's because the study looked at reading
programs with explicit instruction and compared
children with learning disabilities and speech
disabilities to those without. Okay, letters,
Lexia description, letters training, okay. But
at the end, this analysis does not compare the
reading first program to comparison condition,
so causal conclusions about the intervention.
Okay, what the hell? What the hell? Abstract?
I see nothing related to letters there. None
of these would pass the science of reading research
standards muster. Third -party evaluations. These
are not research. There's no blind peer review.
None of them. None of them make a causal link
between letters and teacher's ability to teach
reading. None of them compare letters to other
forms of professional development. And then unpublished
theses and dissertations from small universities.
These are unpublished for a reason. Often committee
members had no literacy background in departments
outside of education. EDD is not a research degree.
There's no blind peer review. And again, Lexia's
description of these theses and dissertations
differ from the abstract with many methodological
concerns. Conclusions. There's no causal research
that has been shown linking letters with teacher
effectiveness or student reading achievement,
comparing letters professional development with
other forms of professional development, comparing
letters knowledge with any other types of knowledge.
Dr. Moats either doesn't know better or she knows
better and does it anyway. Always question the
premise of science of reading claims and letters.
Always look to see what's measured and how. All
right. Hope you have had a wonderful learning
experience. I will stop right here.