[Reading-hall-of-fame] Re: Letter to PBS about dyslexia segment
Judith Green
judithlgreen at me.com
Sat May 11 01:59:10 BST 2019
Hi david and all
I don’t know if this will help but here’s a thought – –AERA has just changed the name of Division do you do research methodology’s with four sections which have statistics measurement qualitative and mixed methodologies age or plural. The idea is that no one methodology can capture the complexity. There is a new On research as well as measurements and assessment or evaluation and assessment that was recently published with articles on research methods.
There may be some things in the handbook for complementary methods and education research that might be a value. There are I think 36 chapters of which 20 some god are different methodologies. There are eight areas for research histories including policies and Who can study home and multicultural settings by James Banks.
What I see happening here is the same as what happened in earlier days when the 30 year review of special ed literature became the base for no Child left behind and the special ed world sent it to the different Education representatives for the legislature for Congress both houses that influence what they saw.
I’m not sure whether the educational policy Institute has anything on response to instruction which is the special ed approach but I think their articles that are challenging that through the policy Institute. It might be helpful for us to contact the EPI which is a consortium of universities on policy analysis and they re-analyze policy claims. Might be an area to contact them and see if they have anything that might be useful for the next steps.
I really value David what you’re asking and I think we might want to make some connections with the group that does policy analysis.
I’m not sure when I’m sending house but I am I just thought I would share of it.
Judith
Sent from my iPhone
> On May 10, 2019, at 5:25 PM, P Pearson <ppearson at berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
> One of the issues that I find frustrating is the appropriation of science to a particular, and narrowly defined set of methods--so narrow that few chemists, physicists, or biologists would recognize them as the "full tool box" that science needs to do its work. Not sure whether to tackle it head on or let it slide.
>
> If anyone knows of any definitive references to bolster that point, I'd be appreciative. In the past, I have appropriated the validity discussions of Donald Campbell (of Campbell and Stanley) to make that point. Something more recent would be helpful.
>
> David (P) not (R) and not (O).
>
> Do we have enough for a House of David?
>
> pdp
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 4:46 PM Shirley B Heath <sbheath at stanford.edu> wrote:
>> Yes, I agree with Diane and trust David to work on this! I am happy to sign on.
>>
>> Thanks to all, for these days it seems a hopeless task to try to correct or set straight anything!
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Shirley
>> 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 3:27 PM
>> To: Diane Lapp
>> Cc: reading hall of fame
>> Subject: [Reading-hall-of-fame] Re: Letter to PBS about dyslexia segment
>>
>> I am willing to take a shot at some minor revisions, but I can't do it till morning.
>> pdp
>>
>> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 2:41 PM Diane Lapp <lapp at sdsu.edu> wrote:
>> Hello David, Jeanne & Vicki,
>> Thank you all for the time you spent crafting this letter. I believe that it is important that this more balanced perspective be shared with PBS. I also agree with Dick Anderson that we should, more specifically, offer PBS ideas for what we believe they should do in order to provide balanced information on this topic.Perhaps a line or two or paragraph could be added to the letter that suggests they air a session including members from ILA, American Psychiatric Association, and others with deep knowledge regarding literacy learning and instruction so that a balanced perspective regarding literacy learning and dyslexia appears.
>>
>>
>> Please sign me on the final letter as
>>
>> Diane Lapp, EdD
>> Distinguished Professor of Education, San Diego State University
>> Instructional Coach and Teacher Leader, Health Sciences High and Middle College, San Diego,CA
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On May 10, 2019, at 7:39 AM, P Pearson <ppearson at berkeley.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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
>>> ****************************************
>>>
>>> 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
>>
>>
>> Diane Lapp,EdD
>> Distinguished Professor of Education
>> College of Education
>> San Diego State University
>> 619-405-8705
>> http://go.sdsu.edu/education/ste/dr_lapp_bio.aspx
>> @lappsdsu (twitter)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 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
>> ****************************************
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 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
> ****************************************
>
> 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/20190510/4aabd663/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Reading-hall-of-fame
mailing list