[Reading-hall-of-fame] Re: Response from Sarah Just

Sat May 18 17:25:59 BST 2019

In response to P. David's comments (correspondingly numbered):
1. A discourse analysis might show what was accomplished; on the other
hand, Sara's rhetorical framing of the situation is likely not to change,
however.

2. Sara's pushback suggests that she "knows" the US Dept of Ed's stance is
likely to deter us from making a counter-argument through *Education Week*?
Maybe, maybe not. Should we submit our letter (lightly edited) to *Education
Week?  *By lightly edited, I mean an intro that states our letter was sent
to PBS/News Hour (and leave it at that -- no mention of Sara's response).
In the past, EW has occasionally offered a view from both sides.

3. I agree, but outside of a response that includes research on how
students respond to phonics instruction, I think our options are limited.

4. The chances seem few that PBS/News Hour would do a segment on
RHoF's perspective, unless of course, other news media jumped on "our side
of the story." Here, I'm referring to the *Atlanta Journal-Constitution *and
 Maureen Downey. As the AJC's education journalist, she consistently brings
attention to controversial issues. Downey's Get Schooled Blog is popular
among educators in Georgia. Peter Smagorinsky is a regular contributor to
that blog. I'm not saying that an AJC blogger shares the same status as
Sara at PBS/NewsHour, but getting our letter's message out to the public
through Get Schooled would be a ground-up approach. I'm guessing everyone
who signed the letter knows of a similar "local" or maybe even syndicated
journalist who could parlay our message.
Worth a try?

Donna A.

On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 11:48 AM P Pearson <ppearson at berkeley.edu> wrote:

> Several issues come to mind on a first reading, and I am not sure yet what
> to make of them or how to respond, but I'll get them down in print while I
> am still thinking about them:
>
> 1.  Is this a show mainly about how a group of parents used a political
> process to get the schools in a particular locale to sit up and take notice
> of how their kids were being underserved?  Or is it about defining dyslexia
> and teaching allegedly dyslexic-diagnosed kids in a particular way?  While
> it may have been intended to be the former, did it really accomplish the
> latter?  We should do a careful discourse analysis of the entire segment it
> we want to show what purpose it served.
>
> 2. Does pointing to the widespread acceptance of dyslexia as a diagnostic
> category within the field of special education, along with citing it
> official recognition by the US Dept of Ed constitute sufficient license for
> its use (or in PBS's case, portraying it as an uncontested construct)?
>
> 3.  If the producers recognize, as they assert, that kids, including
> officially diagnosed kids, need all the other stuff we mentioned in our
> letter, why didn't they say so?  Why focus on one facet of teaching reading
> when so much more is required to stand a chance of doing justice to kids'
> needs and goals?
>
> 4.  Does the rhetorical force of their response suggest to us that they
> think the conversation is over?  What's the likelihood that they will
> consult the RHF or its members for a future show?
>
> Looking forward to the responses of others.
>
> David P
>
>
>
> On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 4:38 AM David Reinking <reinkin at clemson.edu>
> wrote:
>
>> Here is Sara Just’s response.  Thoughts? Next steps?
>>
>> David R
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Professor Reinking,
>>
>>
>>
>> First, I’d like to thank you for taking the time to share your concerns
>> about our recent story on dyslexia and reading instruction in Arkansas.
>> While I’m sorry that you found issues with our work, I genuinely appreciate
>> the thoughtfulness of your note.
>>
>>
>>
>> With your concerns in mind, my team and I went back through the reporting
>> we did and reviewed the piece we aired, which was produced with our
>> partners at Education Week. It’s worth remembering that our goal for this
>> piece was to show how a group of concerned parents had driven change in
>> education policy at the state level, and in doing that we explored the
>> aspect of reading instruction most relevant to the story.
>>
>>
>>
>> In your letter, you raised two main points of concern.
>>
>>
>>
>> The first, as I read your letter, was to challenge our reliance on the
>> term dyslexia as an identifiable learning disability. I appreciate your
>> point that diagnosing dyslexia is complex and perhaps unsettled. And while
>> it’s true that the Diagnostic Statistical Manual moved to a single, broad
>> category of disability, the term dyslexia is still used in states and
>> districts per guidance from the U.S. Department of Education
>> <https://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/memosdcltrs/guidance-on-dyslexia-10-2015.pdf>.
>> As such, dyslexia falls under the umbrella of a specific learning
>> disability and is a condition that qualifies a student for help under
>> federal education law.  Our reporting on this piece, and in others, has
>> found that within the field of special education—including among many
>> professional organizations, educators, advocacy groups, parents, and
>> students themselves—the term dyslexia is both well-used and well-defined.
>>
>>
>>
>> Your second concern was that we oversimplified reading instruction. It’s
>> true that our segment focused on phonics, which we understand is just one
>> piece of the reading puzzle. We recognize, as you might argue, that
>> students also need phonemic awareness, vocabulary, fluency, and
>> comprehension, along with many other things such as exposure to good books.
>>
>>
>>
>> Our report did not prescribe a particular phonics program or outline the
>> amount of phonics – or other literacy instruction – recommended in a
>> classroom. We sought to highlight that a strong grasp of sound-letter
>> correspondences is key to effective reading, and we were motivated to that
>> emphasis because the parents at the center of the policy change in Arkansas
>> had found the absence of phonics had been an obstacle to their own
>> children’s reading success.
>>
>>
>>
>> Professor Reinking, we have great respect for your and your colleagues’
>> expertise on matters of reading instruction and we take seriously the
>> concerns you and those who also signed the email have raised. We are
>> committed to providing our audience with education coverage that is
>> accurate and clear. We expect our coverage of these matters, including
>> reading educational approaches, and students who struggle in reading, will
>> continue to be subjects of our future coverage. As you suggested  in our
>> email, we will certainly keep you and the others listed below in mind as we
>> go forward in our coverage.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Sara
>>
>>
>>
>> Sara Just
>>
>> *Executive Producer*
>>
>> *PBS NewsHour*
>>
>> *Sjust at newshour.org <Sjust at newshour.org>*
>>
>> *703-998-2496*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/private/reading-hall-of-fame/attachments/20190518/192b0cd6/attachment-0001.html>