[Reading-hall-of-fame] Re: Letter to PBS about dyslexia segment

Fri May 10 15:39:34 BST 2019

And me!!!
pdavid

On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 7:37 AM Kris Diane Gutierrez <
kris.gutierrez at colorado.edu> wrote:

> Me too
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On May 10, 2019, at 6:45 AM, Hoffman, James V <jhoffman at austin.utexas.edu>
> wrote:
>
> Fantastic . . add me PLEASE
>
> On May 10, 2019, at 8:37 AM, David Reinking <reinkin at clemson.edu> wrote:
>
> Dear Hall of Fame Colleagues,
>
> Responding to a suggestion on the HofF listserv, Jeanne Paratore, Vicki
> Risko and I have collaborated to write the letter below to Paula Kerger,
> PBS, President and CEO, and Sara Just, Executive Producer, PBS NewsHour.
> The letter expresses concerns about the NewsHour segment on dyslexia,
> drawing on concerns that have been expressed on the list in the past week.
> Jeanne’s contacts at PBS have encouraged sending such a letter.
>
> We are seeking your endorsement of the letter, giving us permission to add
> to the letter your name, title, affiliation, and notable leadership
> positions, and email address.  If you support the letter and consent to
> having your name added to it, send an email to David.Reinking at uga.edu or
> reinkin at clemson.edu with the information in the following format:
>
> David Reinking
> Distinguished Professor Emeritus
> Clemson University
> Former President of the Literacy Research Association
> Former editor of *Reading Research Quarterly* and the *Journal of
> Literacy Research*
> reinkin at clemson.edu
>
> *Please respond as soon as possible if you wish to have your name added.*
>
> We realize that not everyone will agree 100% with the letter’s content or
> form, and that some would like to see something added or excluded.  But,
> because a timely response does not permit extensive discussion and debate,
> we hope the letter reasonably captures the overall concerns and that there
> is nothing specifically that would prevent many of you from signing.
>
> Nonetheless, we respect the decision of anyone who chooses not to sign—no
> questions asked, although we think that a more extended discussion of any
> objections or concerns would be a healthy one for our group to engage in.
>
> Thanks for considering,
>
> David, Jeanne, and Vicki
>
> Here is the letter:
>
> Dear Ms. Kerger and Ms. Just,
>
> We, the undersigned, write to express concern about the PBS NewsHour
> segment on dyslexia, broadcast on April 30.  As experienced senior scholars
> and respected leaders in the field of reading and literacy education, we
> found this segment contrary to the NewsHour’s stated aim of honest,
> balanced, and trusted reporting.  Indeed, for many of us who are regular
> viewers, it has shaken our confidence in the NewsHour and PBS’s credibility
> as a solid source of accurate, unbiased news and information.
>
> Our professional work is devoted to studying literacy and how it can be
> developed in schools to enrich the lives of all students.  So, we well
> understand and share parents’ and others’ anguish and frustration when
> children are identified as experiencing reading difficulties.  Competent
> reading and writing are fundamentally important in and out of school, and
> difficulties can shape children’s concepts of themselves as learners, while
> affecting virtually every aspect of their everyday experience.
>
> Our concern is that the NewsHour segment on dyslexia, while containing
> grains of truth, mostly perpetuates inaccuracies, misconceptions, and
> distortions related to reading, how it is taught, and the complexity of
> reading difficulties.  It suggests erroneously that there is scientific
> certainty about dyslexia and how it should be addressed instructionally.
> In fact, the research evidence is equivocal and there is much room for
> debate about whether dyslexia is an identifiable condition, whether it can
> be reliably diagnosed, and whether there are instructional approaches that
> are uniquely effective in ameliorating it.
>
> That ambivalence is reflected in the American Psychiatric Association's
> decision to drop dyslexia as a diagnostic category in the current edition
> of its *Diagnostic Statistical Manual*, that field's most respected and
> widely used reference source.  Further, dyslexia is viewed, and often
> defined, differently in different countries, language groups, and cultures.
> Ambivalence is also evident in a research advisory about dyslexia posted
> by the Literacy Research Panel of the International Literacy Association, a
> respected professional organization that for many decades has served
> professionals who teach reading around the world. It cautions that many
> issues and assumptions about dyslexia remain unsettled and that research
> does not support a single certifiable approach to addressing reading
> difficulties, including some popular, widely used instructional approaches
> aimed at children identified as dyslexic.  See:
> http://literacyworldwide.org/docs/default-source/where-we-stand/ila-dyslexia-research-advisory.pdf
> An addendum that addresses objections to the advisory from the
> International Dyslexia Association provides a more detailed glimpse into
> the uncertainties and debates surrounding dyslexia.  See:
> http://literacyworldwide.org/docs/default-source/where-we-stand/ila-dyslexia-research-advisory-addendum.pdf
>   One of the most thorough and least biased contemporary analyses goes
> further.  Elliot and Grigorenko, in their book *The Dyslexia Debate*,
> concluded that the term dyslexia is so misunderstood and misinterpreted
> that its use may hinder rather than support successful teaching and
> learning. These are only recent examples of a long history of controversy
> and debate about dyslexia that have been on-going since its emergence as a
> hypothesized condition in the late 19th century.
>
> We are particularly concerned about the dyslexia segment’s suggestion that
> a narrowly conceptualized instructional approach is unequivocally
> effective, not only for individuals categorized as dyslexic, but for all
> individuals learning to read.  Such a suggestion perpetuates a view that
> there is a silver bullet guaranteed to transcend the incredible diversity
> of factors and individual characteristics that might explain why learning
> to read is facile for many but incredibly difficult for some. It is widely
> accepted that learning to read English texts entails instructional
> attention to sound-symbol correspondence and other phonemic aspects of
> reading.  But, the amount and form of that attention, how it is balanced
> with other aspects of reading and learning to read such as motivation, and
> how it might deal with the orthographic irregularities of English spelling,
> cannot be reduced to a single, narrow, unquestioned approach.  Again, such
> issues, in one form or another, have periodically blossomed into public
> controversies across decades and are often nurtured among the general
> public by shallow or misleading media reports such as the NewsHour’s
> segment.
>
> We are also dismayed that the NewsHour segment implicitly besmirched the
> professionalism of teachers and schools in regard to teaching reading.  It
> was suggested that they were ignorant of or resistant to the scientific
> certainty of dyslexia and how reading can be effectively taught, not only
> to those children diagnosed with dyslexia, but to all children.  Beyond the
> absence of such certainty, as we have explained above, the segment unfairly
> provided no opportunity for a rebuttal from qualified representatives of
> those groups. That injurious lack of balance was exacerbated when the
> segment included emotional comments about how children’s needs were not
> being met.
>
> Finally, we believe that PBS and the NewsHour missed an opportunity to do
> more in-depth, balanced, accurate, and more needed reporting about
> dyslexia.  Beyond the perspectives we have outlined here, such reporting
> could examine the political and socio-cultural conditions that have allowed
> dyslexia to remain such an amorphous, shape-shifting, yet resilient,
> explanation for reading difficulties for more than a century.  Nuanced and
> balanced reporting is also needed to critique the increasing number of
> states passing arguably ill-advised legislation about dyslexia.
>
> We ask that you consider options to rectify what we believe has been a
> serious disservice to parents, to students, and to professionals dedicated
> to helping all individuals learn to read.  Doing so, we believe, would be
> an excellent opportunity for PBS and the NewsHour to demonstrate clearly
> the strength of its commitment to honest, balanced, and trusted reporting.
> We stand ready to assist in such an effort in any way that might be helpful.
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
> This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee
> and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
> message in error, please contact the sender and delete the email and
> attachment.
>
> Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not
> necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham. Email
> communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored
> where permitted by law.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Reading-hall-of-fame mailing list
> Reading-hall-of-fame at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
> http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/reading-hall-of-fame
>
>
> This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee
> and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
> message in error, please contact the sender and delete the email and
> attachment.
>
> Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not
> necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham. Email
> communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored
> where permitted by law.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Reading-hall-of-fame mailing list
> Reading-hall-of-fame at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
> http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/reading-hall-of-fame
>
> This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee
> and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
> message in error, please contact the sender and delete the email and
> attachment.
>
> Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not
> necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham. Email
> communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored
> where permitted by law.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Reading-hall-of-fame mailing list
> Reading-hall-of-fame at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
> http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/reading-hall-of-fame
>

-- 
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
P. David Pearson
Evelyn Lois Corey *Emeritus* Professor of Instructional Science
and Professor of the Graduate School
Graduate School of Education
4220 Berkeley Way West #1670
University of California, Berkeley
Berkeley CA 94720-1670
GSE Office: 510 543 6508
email:  ppearson at berkeley.edu
other e-mail:  pdavidpearsondean at gmail.com
website for presentations:  www.scienceandliteracy.org
website for publications:  www.pdavidpearson.org
*******************
Home:  851 Euclid Ave
Berkeley, CA  94708 -1305
iPhone:  510 543 6508
****************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/private/reading-hall-of-fame/attachments/20190510/f0996f81/attachment-0001.html>