By Nancy Hennessy

Fact:

Dysteachia does exist. Unfortunately, I can attest to its existence based on my own teaching experiences and my interactions with fellow educators in schools across the country. Despite my best efforts and a resolve to meet the needs of my struggling readers, I was often unsuccessful. Neither my undergraduate nor my graduate work adequately prepared me for working with these students. My experience is not unique; I continue to meet teachers who have lived this story!

Fact:

Educators are looking for the “clues” that will solve the mystery of reading proficiency. They recognize the right of students to read, and accept the responsibility of teaching them. Their confidence in themselves and feelings of professional competency are often linked to their students’ successes. While some may feel inundated by current educational demands and, perhaps, even a bit resistant, educators are generally hungry for solutions that will make a difference for their students. While evidence-based programs are necessary tools, they alone are not sufficient. “Programs don’t teach; teachers do” (Moats, 2009).

Fact:

What is missing from teacher preparation and professional development programs is the deep knowledge base that promotes connections between research and practice. We all need an understanding that goes beyond a basic definition of the essential components of reading and recognition of available assessment tools. To design and deliver purposeful instruction, educators must understand how reading develops, why students struggle, why all components of reading instruction are necessary and how to teach them, and how to analyze data. We need to realize “that language systems underlie reading and writing, and that students’ difficulties with reading and writing are most effectively addressed when the structures and functions of language are taught to them directly” (Moats, 2009). Teachers must believe that “Literacy is a secondary system, dependent on language as the primary system so effective teachers know a good deal about language” (Snow, Griffin & Burns, 2005). In other words, we must understand the nature and inter-relationships of language systems (phonology, orthography, morphology, semantics, syntax, discourse, etymology), their contributions and connections to component skills of reading, as well as the complexity of skilled reading. Yet, study after study of teachers’ knowledge in the areas of language and literacy have documented inadequate levels of such knowledge.

Fact:

• Teachers do not receive sufficient knowledge of the science of reading in teacher preparation or graduate programs.

• Many educators lack disciplinary knowledge that is reflective of foundational understanding of language structures and the relationship to reading proficiency.

• Most licensure tests do not assess research-based reading knowledge.

• Most standards documents do not fully specify the knowledge base necessary to teach reading.