Mem Fox once said, in referring to the move from whole language to ‘back to basics’, “Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.” It was a plea to not lose what we gained by the engagement and creativity engendered by the whole language movement. Ultimately, we did arrive at a model of balanced literacy. Now we hear that to adopt ‘the science of reading’, we must throw out balanced literacy. We acknowledge that educational methods are dynamic, changing as the world changes, and as we learn more about the varied ways that children learn. However, can’t we make changes to balanced literacy without losing the context of meaning making?  

When we hear calls for ‘the science of reading’ we usually read references to phonics awareness and practice programs. We interpret this to mean that this ‘science of reading’ is looking at only ONE tool in the very big picture of reading, when reading is about meaning making and asking purposeful questions. Yes, we do need to teach some of the tools to support our students as they find answers to life’s questions, but please consider the danger of losing the driving force in learning: MEANING and PURPOSE. Why propose that we abandon our whole-parts-whole meaningful and purposeful curriculum and just focus on one part?

Excuse me, do we only want students to read phonetic words? WHY do we want to do that when half the words in the list of the most high-frequency words in written English DO NOT FOLLOW THE PHONICS RULES taught in early elementary ‘science of reading’ programs!!!  The first months of lessons in ‘science of reading’ programs focus on single syllable words with “short” vowel sounds in the middle position—cat, mat, pig, pet, dog, rug—and sentences are restricted to using only those words already taught. This results in contrived, essentially meaningless or disconnected texts. The first twelve most high-frequency words are: “the”, “and”, “a”, “to”, “said”, “in”, “he”, ‘I”, “of”, “it”, “was”, & “you”. Only “and”, “in”, and “it”—25%—fit those rules Why deprive learners of access to other strategies to read for meaning? Why? Is it because we are a market driven country and need to sell new phonics programs?     

And…if we appropriately define the science of reading in a broader sense as comprehension on a quest for meaning making, we need to consider the extensive research on engagement and motivation that supports a balanced literacy classroom. If you have some new suggestions on teaching decoding skills, share them, but don’t deprive children of the excitement, passion, and ownership that comes from learning in a context of rich children’s literature. Don’t deprive children of making discoveries about content and language in texts–including the rhyme, rhythm and repetition of predictable books right from the start as we model language to young children in the Pre-Verbal and Pre-Print phases of reading.

If the science of reading, is a humanistic science, then let’s view it in its broad sense which includes reading for purpose and meaning!

Gay and Margaret