Is the Science of Reading Community Anti-Book?

We didn’t think so, but reactions to our column on book-starved curriculum got us thinking.

Concerns about the disappearance of books from classrooms have been trending. Last year, “The Elite College Students Who Can’t Read Books” went viral. Just this week, Derek Thompson penned his concerns and the New York Times shared plans to investigate the issue.

Our most recent column – “Why have books disappeared from many ELA curricula?” – quickly became our most-read, befitting the trend. It generated plenty of reactions.

As expected, we heard a loud chorus of concern, all the way up to Influential journalist Matt Yglesias, who featured our work in his recent column.

Yet we were surprised to see numerous comments from educators questioning the importance of reading whole books. A few examples:

Although I get that people have strong opinions, I would be interested in EVIDENCE and data demonstrating the value of reading full length novels over excerpts.

I feel like one of the big lessons of balanced literacy was just because it “feels nice” or “feels right” doesn’t mean it’s evidence-based. It makes me wonder about this idea of whole books and “literature” being important. Bottom line: I would like some evidence one way or another.

Emily Hanford’s work brought phonics back to classrooms based on science not because of a loud movement. I would suggest you back up your article with research before demanding schools add something because you “feel” it is important. That is what got us in trouble with “Whole Language and Balanced Literacy”.

There seems to be a pendulum swinging between approaches that center high volume reading of full texts and phonics-based approaches meant to build foundational skills. We could all use some clarity here about which grades need which kinds of texts, how much, and what kinds of interventions are needed for upper grades kids who still struggle to read. While I do want to see elementary schools adopt curriculum that encourages kids to read deeply within whole texts, I also remember that reading deeply with whole texts was Lucy Calkins’ Units of Study’s big selling point. Seems like we are under-learning the lessons of the recent past.

Many of the comments came within “science of reading” Facebook groups, where a surprising share of commenters defended passage-heavy curriculum.

This had us shook.

There IS evidence for working with whole books, and we know of two efforts to capture it, which should help address the confusion. (Watch this space.)

In the meantime it seems worth taking a moment to sit with the question: have teachers been picking up anti-book signals during the Science of Reading era?

After all, some of the comments seem reactionary, expressing hesitation about the value of books, just because Lucy Calkins and balanced literacy are pro-book.

Also, phonics and fluency and knowledge and oral language inspire regular posts in Science of Reading spaces. The importance of whole books feels lost in the conversation.

It’s also worth considering the messages coming from the organizations getting behind the Science of Reading. State lists and curriculum review processes don’t all give love to whole books.

State lists tend to default to EdReports reviews of materials. We haven’t seen any state make an effort to promote curricula designed around whole books.

EdReports evaluates programs for text complexity, but obviously not for text quality and length, or Wonders and Into Reading would never earn top marks.

The Reading League reviews look closely at the quality of books that support foundational skills instruction, but they are more agnostic on the other content. Each review screens for decodable books and against the use of “predominantly predictable and/or leveled texts.” In the comprehension section, the Reading League evaluation tool includes this criteria: “Students are asked to independently apply reading comprehension strategies primarily in short, disconnected readings at the expense of engaging in knowledge-building text sets.” It’s a worthy goal! But strangely, Wonders passes that test, receiving a reassuring “1” score, even though it has no books. Reading League reviewers also call Wonders’s “read alouds text selection… rich and varied.” For Into Reading, the Reading League review says the program “revolves around authentic picture books and myBook texts which are complex and grade and age-level appropriate.” The members of our team who use those programs don’t concur. We have already explained that Wonders and Into Reading are book-lite. Soon, we will show the ways they fall short for knowledge-building content.

The Knowledge Matters Campaign cheers curricula that use “worthy texts,” and it does an exemplary job of actually showing the “rich, rigorous, diverse texts” that are used by each program. However, the Campaign only features the programs with good content. Its website calls out basal and balanced literacy programs for the “lack of universal access to rigorous texts,” but readers need background knowledge to know that “basals” means Wonders, Into Reading, and the like.

At the Curriculum Insight Project, we are firmly pro-book and pro-Science of Reading. We can all be both! Work with chapter books and plays nurtures reading stamina, develops perseverance with texts and topics, and builds classroom community through discussions of great books. Also, kids love reading wonderful books! We could go on about this. Kelly Carvejal-Hageman (who has worked with Bookworms in multiple districts) puts it, “Reading provocative texts invite greater levels of critical thinking and stimulate a culture of literacy.”

All students have a right to experience and discuss grade level, high interest, whole books – and quality curricula enable that by design, even for students who are below grade level.

We want to hear from you. In the comments, please tell us what signals you are getting about the importance (or unimportance) of book-level content in ELA.

Reporters should also hear from you! We encourage educators to complete the New York Times survey about books in schools. Dana Goldstein’s form says she is asking about high school curricula, but her comments in social media suggests she may take on other grade bands, so we think she should hear from you, regardless of grade. Also, she was kind enough to say that our recent report was “helpful,” so we know she’s paying attention to more than upper grades. You don’t have to stop at the New York Times if you know other journalists who might be interested in this trending topic.

Let’s keep these conversations going. As always, drop a line if you want to get involved in our work.

What We’re Reading

Our friend Brent Conway wrote a thoughtful piece about the importance of curricular coherence.

Journalist Kelsey Piper wrote about the “Southern Surge” states, emphasizing the role of curriculum in the gains in Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Alabama.

Help Us Out

Please take our elementary school day survey if you haven’t already (and you’re in a K-5 school).