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

[Gerald Duffy]

I agree with Dick's concern that the letter is not perfect but we could
argue forever about what would be "perfect."  A timely response is much
more crucial.  Add me to the list.

Gerald G. Duffy
Professor Emeritus, Michigan State University

On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 8:43 AM Richard Anderson <csrrca at illinois.edu>
wrote:

> Dear RHOFers,
>
> I am sorry I cannot sign the PBS letter. We should have a letter objecting
> to the narrow view of dyslexia in the PBS NewsHour report but I can't stand
> the aggrieved tone of this draft. Those who sign the letter should consider
> whether they want to attack the honesty of PBS or whether it would be more
> precise to focus the attack on unbalanced and inaccurate reporting, whether
> they want to say that PBS has "besmirched the professionalism of teachers,"
> and whether they want to congratulate themselves as "respected leaders in
> the field." Furthermore, I can't stand the vagueness about what we want PBS
> to do.  Please spend some time thinking about what PBS could do in a
> forthcoming program that would serve a useful purpose.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Dick
>
> Richard C Anderson
> University Scholar and Professor Emeritus, University of Illinois
> Member, National Academy of Education
>
>
> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 8:45 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/private/reading-hall-of-fame/attachments/20190510/7c2fd9c6/attachment-0001.html>