Monday, January 27, 2020

Fact-checking Phonics, NRP, and NCTQ – radical eyes for equity

Fact-checking Phonics, NRP, and NCTQ – radical eyes for equity

Fact-checking Phonics, NRP, and NCTQ


The “science of reading” movement often claims that a systematic intensive phonics-first approach to teaching reading is endorsed by science that is settled, that the National Reading Panel (NRP) is a key element of that settled science, and that teacher education is mostly absent of that “science of reading” (a message that has been central to NCTQ for many years).
These claims, however, misrepresent what evidence actually shows. Here, then, are some evidence-based fact-checks of phonics, NRP, and NCTQ.
Phonics
Abstract
There is a widespread consensus in the research community that reading instruction in English should first focus on teaching letter (grapheme) to sound (phoneme) correspondences rather than adopt meaning-based reading approaches such as whole language instruction. That is, initial reading instruction should emphasize systematic phonics. In this systematic review, I show that this CONTINUE READING: Fact-checking Phonics, NRP, and NCTQ – radical eyes for equity