[Reading-hall-of-fame] Re: Update on letter to PBS
Cathy Roller
rollercm at gmail.com
Thu May 23 18:30:54 BST 2019
Great Letter!
On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 10:23 AM David P. Reinking <David.Reinking at uga.edu>
wrote:
> 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
>
> Victoria Risko, Professor Emerita, Vanderbilt University,
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
--
Cathy M. Roller
402-218-7410
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/private/reading-hall-of-fame/attachments/20190523/9e150a26/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Reading-hall-of-fame
mailing list