The 'science of reading' generalizability and the individual

[Horace B Lucido <hbl04@csufresno.edu>]

One of the major flaws in the attempt on many levels to discover the 'science of reading' lies in the belief that one can give evidence that a program 'works' with large goups of students so therefore will work for each individual student. Now, in order to do so such programs attempt to standardize instruction so that the same process should lead to the same results on each individual. 
In the 'hard' sciences one can follow a standardized prescription to do x, y and z to a 'physical entity' and the same results should follow. That is because the 'physical entity' -say pure water- experimented with can be reproduced in many locations and by many researchers so that all of its attributes at the outset are identical and the results reproducible.
Not so with the human person. In fact each individual is unique and so the process which worked with many individuals in Milwaukee cannot be predicated to work with many individuals in Houston. This mindset refuses to acknowledge difference and the response different individuals have to the same input. This is one of many reasons for teachers. They can modify instruction to best address the uniqueness of each person.
So those who attempt to find the 'science of reading' and other such educational 'sciences' begin their quest without really understanding the limits of generalizability and the nature of standardization in genuine scientific inquiry.
 
Rog ( Horace ) Lucido, Physics Instructor, Ret. 
Program Evaluator 
Adjunct Faculty, Fresno Pacific University 
Educational Consultant 
Educators and Parents Against Testing Abuse ( EPATA ) 
Assessment Reform Network Central Valley Coordinator 
Phone: 559-277-1312 
Cell: 559-355-4215 
email: lucid4@cvip.net 


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Horn, James" <jhorn@monmouth.edu> 
Date: Saturday, September 30, 2006 3:09 pm 
Subject: Re: [arn-l] Dick and Jane go bad 
To: arn-l@interversity.org 

> Looks like more of the "hang the functionary" and protect Maggie 
> bs to me. 
> 
> J 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: arn-l-owner@interversity.org on behalf of jerry Bracey 
> Sent: Sat 9/30/2006 11:15 AM 
> To: arn-l@interversity.org; literacyforall@yahoogroups.com 
> Subject: [arn-l] Dick and Jane go bad 
> 
> Here's the best take on the RF mess that I've seen. 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________ 
> 
> The following appeared on Boston.com: 
> Headline: Dick and Jane go bad 
> Date: September 30, 2006 
> 
> "READING FIRST was supposed to be a fairy tale of a US Department of 
> Education program that ushered children into the wonderful world of 
> reading. Instead, it become a dark fable about corrupt government 
> officials and conflicts of interest." 
> ____________________________________________________________ 
> 
> To see this recommendation, click on the link below or cut and 
> paste it 
> into a Web browser: 
> 
> 
> http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2006/09/30/dick_and_jane_go_bad?p1=email_to_a_friend 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________ 
> 
> This message was sent by jerry Bracey [mailto:gbracey1@verizon.net] 
> through Boston.com's email recommendation service. If you have 
> questionsor comments about this free service, please email us at 
> feedback@boston.com. 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------ 
> Direct list questions to listmom@interversity.net 
>