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

Fri May 10 23:00:53 BST 2019

Thanks, David, and everyone!  Good suggestions and of course, we want to represent the different perspectives... so that the letter is representative of our collective view!  And be timely with our response! As Gerry said earlier, we may not end with a "perfect" letter... but we will try to move this forward in a way that is timely and that captures different perspectives!  WHEW! Quite a task!

Vicki

Professor Emerita, Language, Literacy, Culture
Vanderbilt University
2011-2012 President, International Literacy Association
http://www.readinghalloffame.org/victoria-risko-inducted-2011
Co-author, Professional Learning in Action: An inquiry approach for teachers of literacy. (Risko & Vogt), 2016.  NY:Teachers College Press.

________________________________
From: reading-hall-of-fame-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk [reading-hall-of-fame-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk] on behalf of P Pearson [ppearson at berkeley.edu]
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2019 3:09 PM
To: Leu, Donald
Cc: reading hall of fame
Subject: [Reading-hall-of-fame] Re: Letter to PBS about dyslexia segment

I want to amend my earlier response to Dick's suggestion by acknowledging publicly how important it was for David R., Jeanne, and Vicki to undertake this effort on our collective behalf.  Any suggestions for modification are made respectfully and collegially in the spirit of making the good even better--and perhaps more effective politically in what we know are hotly contested spaces.

pdp

On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 12:47 PM Leu, Donald <donald.leu at uconn.edu<mailto:donald.leu at uconn.edu>> wrote:
Agreed with all of these points by three distinguished scholars: Dick, Judith, David.  Thanks, especially, Dick, for such great suggestions!

Cheers,

Don

—

Donald J. Leu, Ph.D.
Emeritus Neag Endowed Chair in Literacy and Technology
University of Connecticut
Former Director, The New Literacies Research Lab: http://www.newliteracies.uconn.edu<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newliteracies.uconn.edu&data=02%7C01%7Cvictoria.j.risko%40vanderbilt.edu%7Ca60c72906af04799b84e08d6d5836638%7Cba5a7f39e3be4ab3b45067fa80faecad%7C0%7C0%7C636931157775539246&sdata=2aaH3iJEY57kkJ8eK4zBNJxUA2Ttz7RglRFhCvLaj7M%3D&reserved=0>

Every  one of us is given the gift of life, and what a strange gift it is.  If it is preserved jealously and selfishly, it impoverishes and saddens. But if it is spent for others, it enriches and beautifies.”
  -- Geraldine  Ferraro.
     Acceptance speech at the 1984 Democratic Party National  Convention.

On May 10, 2019, at 11:38 AM, P Pearson <ppearson at berkeley.edu<mailto:ppearson at berkeley.edu>> wrote:

I want to sign the letter, and I have already said I will.  I find myself in the same boat as Gerry--wanting to sign but recognizing the value of the points that Dick Anderson is making about the potential unintended consequences of the tone of the letter and the ambiguity about who or what we are critiquing.  Make this more a critique of the position of the PBS segment and less a critique of the News Hour, implying that the News Hour team can respond by providing some sort of future, more balanced treatment.  I also like the suggestion about recommending some forward looking next steps to promote a more balanced and fulsome examination of the issues. Sorry I did not think of these points myself.  Above all, we should leave the impression that we remain open to a thorough exchange of ideas.  We don't want to appear to counter their dismissal of the full body of research on reading acquisition and their slap at the teaching profession (and by implication teacher education profession) with a similar dismissive attitude.  We should be the ones who offered a more measured account and a more hopeful outcome for next steps.

Any chance of trying to respond to Dick's healthy critique before we pull the trigger?

I'll sign the current document because not responding implies tacit agreement. But I think we are better off to consider Dick's points carefully and revise accordingly.

David

On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 9:43 AM Henrietta Dombey <H.Dombey at brighton.ac.uk<mailto:H.Dombey at brighton.ac.uk>> wrote:
Excellent -Remarkably thorough and well presented.

Add my name in if it's of any use!

Best wishes,

Henrietta Dombey
Professor Emeritus of Literacy in Primary Education
University of Brighton UK
________________________________________
From: reading-hall-of-fame-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk<mailto:reading-hall-of-fame-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk> [reading-hall-of-fame-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk<mailto:reading-hall-of-fame-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk>] on behalf of Hoffman, James V [jhoffman at austin.utexas.edu<mailto:jhoffman at austin.utexas.edu>]
Sent: 10 May 2019 14:45
To: David Reinking
Cc: reading hall of fame
Subject: [Reading-hall-of-fame] Re: Letter to PBS about dyslexia segment

Fantastic . . add me PLEASE

On May 10, 2019, at 8:37 AM, David Reinking <reinkin at clemson.edu<mailto:reinkin at clemson.edu><mailto:reinkin at clemson.edu<mailto: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<mailto:David.Reinking at uga.edu><mailto:David.Reinking at uga.edu<mailto:David.Reinking at uga.edu>> or reinkin at clemson.edu<mailto:reinkin at clemson.edu><mailto:reinkin at clemson.edu<mailto: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<mailto:reinkin at clemson.edu><mailto:reinkin at clemson.edu<mailto: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<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fliteracyworldwide.org%2Fdocs%2Fdefault-source%2Fwhere-we-stand%2Fila-dyslexia-research-advisory.pdf&data=02%7C01%7Cvictoria.j.risko%40vanderbilt.edu%7Ca60c72906af04799b84e08d6d5836638%7Cba5a7f39e3be4ab3b45067fa80faecad%7C0%7C0%7C636931157775549255&sdata=H3jBmcs2tQIYfPMonneUiLXVC6y5DWeE2%2FMhD620xJg%3D&reserved=0>  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<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fliteracyworldwide.org%2Fdocs%2Fdefault-source%2Fwhere-we-stand%2Fila-dyslexia-research-advisory-addendum.pdf&data=02%7C01%7Cvictoria.j.risko%40vanderbilt.edu%7Ca60c72906af04799b84e08d6d5836638%7Cba5a7f39e3be4ab3b45067fa80faecad%7C0%7C0%7C636931157775559260&sdata=i4qO0shyoyxlBcCC%2BC%2BtkqVc9%2BhLquLqPvUCT8dRrC0%3D&reserved=0>  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.