[Reading-hall-of-fame] Update on letter to PBS

[David P. Reinking]

Dear Hall of Fame Colleagues,

Based on the comments and discussion posted on this list, we composed a reaction to Sara Just’s (PBS NewsHour Ex Producer) and sent it to her.  She has again responded.  That correspondence is copied below.  Before sending it, we (Jeanne Paratore, Vicki Risko, and David Reinking) shared it with several individuals who had made specific comments on the list about Ms. Just’s first response.

In other developments, Vicki Fox, Director of Communications at the Reading Recovery Council of North America, requested a copy of the letter, which we have sent to her for dissemination through various means available to her.  We sent her the original, including all the signees, but only after no one responded to our previous posting offer to remove anyone who felt uncomfortable with the letter circulating to other outlets.

We were contacted by an ad hoc group of about a dozen literacy professionals, including our own Donna Scanlon, who coincidentally was meeting at Texas Womens University this week to discuss concerns about legislation related to dyslexia in their respective states as part of a national trend.  At their request, David R briefly joined one of their meetings via video conference to update them on the PBS letter and the Hall of Fame discussions.  They are interested in coordinating our respective efforts.  [Donna, please correct/update my account here if needed.]

As several postings on the list suggest, there are other ideas on the table for ways the letter might be used, as well as other alternatives to addressing the issues nationally.  We heartily support those efforts individually, or collectively.

David R

Here is the response we sent to Sara Just and her reply:

Dear Ms. Just,
I shared your response with my colleagues who signed the letter expressing concerns about the NewsHour dyslexia segment.  We appreciate you and your team reviewing the segment in light of our concerns and communicating to us your thoughts and conclusions.
However, we are disheartened that you see no need to correct the segment’s inaccuracies and imbalanced coverage.  We believe that not doing so has adverse consequences for parents, children, teachers, and for shaping the national dialog about learning to read and how it is taught.  In regard to the latter, the timing of the piece, even if unintended, is likely to advance a concerted effort in many states to pass ill-advised legislation, that narrows perspectives on and approaches to teaching reading, none of which is supported by conclusive research.
We hope that you will reconsider your decision, perhaps in light of the following points related to your response:

  1.  You state that the goal of the piece was “to show how a group of concerned parents had driven change in education policy at the state level,” with the implication that the changes they effected are positive ones for students and their teachers.  Yet, we believe that its title and approach communicated a much different intent consistent with our concerns. To offer perspective, imagine a parallel piece with the title  “What Parents Can Teach the Medical Profession About Keeping Their Children Healthy.”  The focus would be exclusively on parents, and supportive commentators, who believe that the medical community is in error, and should be mistrusted, because it does not acknowledge that immunization causes autism.  Imagine, too, that such a piece would omit any qualified representatives of the medical community to defend themselves or to challenge those views.  Perhaps not a perfect analogy, but one that we hope pointedly validates our concern and communicates what is at stake.
  2.  We are not sure what it means that Education Week is your partner.  Yet, we are confident that you would agree that PBS is ultimately responsible for the content of the piece.  Unlike PBS,Education Week is a commercial entity, and although it reports on topics and issues in education, it is not an authoritative, nor an inherently unbiased, source.  Its reporters, for the most part, have backgrounds in other areas of journalism and have no strong qualifications to speak authoritatively on education issues in general and literacy issues in particular.  Lisa Stark, who provided unqualified, inaccurate, and misleading commentary during this segment is a pertinent example (See: https://www.edweek.org/info/about/experts.html#blad).  Instead of relying on your partnership with Education Week, might you consider appointing someone deeply knowledgeable about education issues to take the lead on segments on this and future education issues and to serve as an in-house resource. Even better would be to create an educational advisory group comprised of highly qualified individuals who have broad perspectives about education, and whose networks include knowledgeable individuals who could be spokespersons on particular issues.
  3.  You agree “that students also need phonemic awareness, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension, along with many other things such as exposure to good books.”  Thus, we assume that you also agree that omitting that important perspective was misleading to parents and other viewers, as well as unfair to educators who must address the multiple dimensions of literacy beyond issues of decoding.
  4.  You pointed out that despite the DSTM’s decision to forgo dyslexia as a diagnostic category, it is included under the umbrella of specific learning disabilities, is used in schools and districts with guidance from the Department of Education, and is a term well-used and well-defined in the field of special education and ancillary groups.  That is partly, but not wholly true, and potentially misleading.  The field of special education is far from monolithic in its definition, indeed acceptance of, dyslexia. In fact, several of the signers of our letters have strong groundings in the field of special education.  Further the Department of Education is essentially a political agency, whereas the DSTM represents a negotiated consensus among independent scholars, researchers, and practitioners with deep knowledge, and with much training and experience.
  5.  Ultimately, it is a circular argument that some have an unshakeable belief in dyslexia and how it should be addressed instructionally, often sustained by inaccurate or incomplete information and, therefore, justifying a segment that provides more of the same.  As a case in point, if you have the time or inclination, we encourage you to enter “dyslexia” into an online search engine and skim the initial pages of whatever sites appear.  We are confident that you will quickly see that, even among the groups you cite, the term is not “well-used,” nor is it “well-defined.”
We hope you will accept our request here for reconsideration in the spirit it is offered.  It reflects our deep commitment to helping every learner to attain the personal and societal benefits of full literacy.  We wish to impress on you that the dyslexia segment was deeply flawed and that, as such, it does not measure up to the PBS’s high standards as a source of news and accurate reporting.  More importantly, it perpetuates many myths, unfairly disparages dedicated educators and researchers, advocates for instruction that will not well serve students, and may be used to advance ill-advised legislative actions in many states.  Whatever your decision, we again reassure you of our cooperative support in addressing this and future issues pertaining to developing literacy in schools.

Sincerely, on behalf of my colleagues,  David Reinking

CC
Jeanne Paratore, Professor Emerita, Boston University, jparator at bu.edu<mailto:jparator at bu.edu>
Victoria Risko, Professor Emerita, Vanderbilt University, victoria.j.risko at Vanderbilt.Edu<mailto:victoria.j.risko at Vanderbilt.Edu>

PS  I have copied these two colleagues who have worked closely with me on this response and the original letter.  Tomorrow, I leave for a 3-week trip abroad, and will not be as easily reached or able to respond.  However, they have graciously agreed to be available, if needed, in regard to this communication.


Response:

Professor Reinking,
I appreciate your detailed response and am sharing it with our team. But at this point I think the best we can do regarding the April 30 report is agree to disagree. We stand by that report and our team of reporters covering education.

Your feedback, however,  has further piqued our interest in considering additional stories around reading education, literacy and dyxlexia. As we go forward in looking at these subjects and ways to enlighten our audiences, we will consider your and the others copied here for input.

Thank for taking the time to watch the PBS NewsHour report and share your candid reaction.

Sincerely,
Sara  Just




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/private/reading-hall-of-fame/attachments/20190523/f20cd5a7/attachment-0001.html>