The details reported in James Neff’s story about the science of reading and Oregon’s teacher education programs seem damning indeed. But the story as a whole begs two questions: What is the rationale for Oregon professional educators’ choice to use alternative approaches to teaching reading? What outcomes of importance to the broader community are being measured and included in the body of evidence about reading achievement?

In my experience of teaching K-12 in many settings and documenting the practices of teachers in exemplary programs all over the country, I’ve found few “true believers” in any particular system of teaching reading. Rather, good schools have many creative professionals who weave together strategies that address both the skills needed to be good readers and the other competencies expected of productively engaged community members.

Neff’s story would have been fairer and more helpful if it had mentioned the basis of the choice by Oregon’s professionals to choose an instructional system that was not centered on the “science of reading.” Of course, skill in reading is essential, but Oregon has long been the source of major components of systems that are part of teaching reading effectively, systems that were adopted nationwide. And every instructional choice involves outcomes besides mastery of content. What is Oregon doing instead of this, and why?

Mary Leighton, Ph.D.
Eugene