I recently came across an article arguing that the Science of Reading belongs in Tier 1 instruction and should not be reserved for expensive private schools, tutors, and dyslexia specialists.
On that point, I completely agree.
Dyslexia - A different perspective: My experiences teaching children with dyslexia.
I recently came across an article arguing that the Science of Reading belongs in Tier 1 instruction and should not be reserved for expensive private schools, tutors, and dyslexia specialists.
On that point, I completely agree.
Responding to Paul Thomas on Crisis, Faddism, and Educational Reform
I recently read a Substack article by Paul Thomas titled "The More Things Change ... : The Bi-Partisan Failure of Public Education (SC Edition)." It is a thought-provoking piece that challenges decades of educational reform in South Carolina and the United States.
Thomas argues that politicians and education marketers have created a perpetual cycle of crisis, reform, and disappointment. One generation is told that schools are failing. New standards are introduced. New training programmes are purchased. New materials are sold. A few years later, another crisis is declared, another reform is launched, and the cycle begins again.
A post of mine is still pending in Texas Dyslexia Teachers and Therapists.
This is what I wrote:
“A majority of kids classified as dyslexic are shut down kids. They disengage from learning to read due to confusion.”
The group says it was formed for dyslexia teachers and therapists to collaborate and share experiences and ideas. Anyone in that group could have asked me to explain the sentence, or to show the children I have taught. Instead, the post sits pending. The admin has not said what is wrong with it.
This morning at 3am, I read the following reply on my comment on Substack. It is comments like this that makes my day.
Stephane - The Story Coach
Thank you for sharing this with us. It’s a beautiful tale. I hope that all the parents and children who need this will find you <3
I argued that teaching letter sounds without extraneous “uh” sounds is essential. Yet, even schools using Jolly Phonics from day one still produce functional illiterates. Why? LINK
The deeper answer lies in prior knowledge — what children have already absorbed before formal instruction begins.
There is a brilliant Tamil proverb that describes a particularly absurd type of denial: "Hiding a whole pumpkin in a plate of rice" (முழு பூசணிக்காயை சோற்றில் மறைப்பது). It refers to the clumsy, impossible act of trying to obscure a massive, undeniable reality behind a tiny, flimsy cover.
Right now, a segment of prominent education academics is attempting to do exactly that.
For decades, the UK has mandated synthetic phonics as the foundation of reading instruction. Yet literacy outcomes remain stubbornly flat. That contradiction forces one of two conclusions: either phonics itself is flawed, or something is interfering with its effectiveness.
This post is prompted by my recent discussion with Dr. Karen Faulds. Her comments reflect a wider tendency to dismiss the role of early mis‑teaching, but they also highlight why this blind spot must be addressed.
If you follow the intense public debates surrounding the "Science of Reading," you have likely heard the loud academic pushback. A prominent group of educators and researchers insists that the nationwide reading crisis is nothing more than a media-driven myth and an exaggerated panic.
It started with writers like Paul L. Thomas and Andrew P. Johnson, but the list of academics denying the crisis runs deep.
Hope is what appears when people discover that progress is actually possible.
Amy Pleet-Odle recently wrote about how the world looked different after cataract surgery. The flowers were not brighter. The leaves were not sharper. The garden itself had not changed. She was simply seeing clearly for the first time.
I think Paul Thomas is asking the wrong historical question. (Scroll down to see Paul's full Substack post)
The issue is not whether every generation has complained that "kids today can't read." Adults have always complained about the young. Complaints about declining standards, declining morality, declining discipline, and declining literacy can be found throughout recorded history. The existence of the complaint tells us very little.
A reply to Paul Thomas on the reading “crisis,” the cracks, and the ten-minute check left unanswered since 2020.
Here is my comment on Paul Thomas’s Substack post - https://paulthomas701128.substack.com/p/the-kids-today-cant-read-problem
You are right that “kids today can’t read” is an old complaint, and Gray in 1942 is a fair exhibit. You are also right that the United States did not collapse because some children left school weak readers. Dominance is a poor measure of whether a preventable failure was allowed to stand.
For more than 15 years, I have worked with children who struggled to learn to read. Many of them had already been labelled "dyslexic." Yet in case after case, I found children who were bright, curious and eager to learn, but who had become confused by the way reading had been taught.
This observation led me to write Teach your Child to Read.
We often hear that teaching a child to read is simple. In theory, it is: you teach them the sounds the letters make, and then you show them how to blend those sounds together to form a word.
Simple, right? But as any parent or educator of a dyslexic child knows, simple is not the same as easy.
One of my favourite observations from Charlie Munger is his comparison of the human mind to a human egg. Once a sperm enters an ovum, a membrane forms around it to prevent other sperm from getting in.
Munger suggested that something similar happens in our minds. Once an idea takes hold, we often become resistant to alternatives. Instead of objectively examining new evidence, we begin defending what we already believe.