Reading Between the Lines: Framing Texas' House Bill 3 Reading Practices

Reading Between the Lines: Framing Texas' House Bill 3 Reading Practices

Texas House Bill 3 (HB3), passed in 2019, stipulates the Science of Teaching Reading (SoTR) requirement that new PreK–6 teachers must meet. For the past six decades, the "Reading Wars" debate (Strauss, 2018) has been fueled by new developments in research (Kim, 2008); all aim to find the most effective way to teach students to read which is often reduced to two approaches: whole-language versus phonics-based instruction.

Texas' Science of Reading policy advances phonics-based instruction. Educators and researchers express concern that such a strict focus on phonics instruction "is being used to silence the voices of literacy teacher educators and teachers rather than invite the collective exploration of possibilities" (Hoffman et al., 2020, p. S255). The Texas Education Agency (TEA) presents the policy of HB3 in a series of videos online. 

    Phonics-based instruction is supported by developments in cognitive science while whole-language approaches are supported through decades of observational research. Phonics instruction presents a systematic, developmental path of reading instruction that lends itself to a neoliberal agenda of managerialism and accountability (Lemann, 1997). Each side has a different epistemological approach: The phonics-instruction supporters point to cognitive sciences as a more valid and reliable knowledge, often calling it based on hard science in public media (e.g. Hanford, 2019); Whole-language proponents do not discount the use of phonics, they just do not consider it as essential in learning to read. Instead, building on Goodman's and Clay's theories from the 1970s, whole-language approaches advocate a cuing system that they argue readers use to make sense of texts. 

    Teachers find themselves in an increasingly neoliberal environment of metrics and accountability, and the Science of Reading requirements of HB3 intensify the prism of accountability. The TEA frames the SoTR requirements as the state's commitment to supporting literacy, but the TEA directs its message about the requirements and implications that produces a message that belies the debate around the reading wars.

Methodology

My research question is "How does the TEA frame the required reading practices under HB3?" For this analysis I utilize Entman's (1993) frame analysis. According to Entman, when one frames they "select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for the item described" (p. 52). An analysis of frames thus involves determining how TEA has "define[d] problems. . .diagnose[d] causes. . . ma[d]e moral judgments. . . and suggest[ed] remedies" (p. 52). The TEA's presentation of information guides the receiver of the message in their interpretation of the material.

    I selected a video the TEA (2019) released about the reading practices required under HB3 instead to analyze instead of the bill itself because I considered educators would most likely encounter the requirements through video. This format  of analysis aligns with the principle of "audience autonomy" (Entman, 1993, p. 56) since the presentation is the most probable medium of engagement. According to audience autonomy I will consider the likely interpretations of each message and not present possible interpretations that one would be less likely to conceive. 

    According to "content analysis" (p. 57) I will use my background as an English teacher and as someone who works with pre-service teachers to consider what would be the most important information to teachers affected. Administrators and teachers would focus on different aspects of this policy; for this reason I will focus on the required actions of teachers most salient to this framing.

Findings

    The TEA relies on three main frame packages throughout their presentation about reading practices: (a) the State is committed to the support of literacy (b) the Science of Reading is based on objective truths, and (c) implementation is flexible. In their introduction they state, "HB3 provides a wealth of support for literacy" (TEA, 1:00). They then advance to the problem of reading development in Texas: 

Only 58% of Texas students currently come to Kindergarten ready, and in 2018 only 4 in 10 students met the state's 3rd grade reading standard. . . Per the 2017 National Assessment of Education Progress . . . Texas children rank 46th in the country in 4th grade reading proficiency, a decline of five spots since their 2015 ranking. (TEA, Slide 5)

They have defined this problem as "reading challenges" (1:48) and diagnose the cause of this problem as a lack of reading skills.

    They explain that "reading is fundamental to academic and job success" (4:15) which suggests that Texas is failing its students by not preparing them to read. They continue to explain  that "two prominent reading theories, both supported by extensive scientific research" (4:15) have emerged over the last six decades of research across disciplines. They detail aspects that pertain to decoding/word recognition skills through Gough's and Tunmer's (1986) "Simple View of Reading" (TEA, Slide 11) and Scarborough's (2001) "Reading Rope" (TEA, Slide 13). 

    They have established declining reading proficiency as the problem, diagnosed that the problem is related to decoding by stating "80% of students who read below grade level demonstrate decoding or word reading weaknesses" (TEA, 6:09), imply that they will not have academic nor job success with poor reading skills, and suggest scientifically backed research as the solution.

Implementing Solutions

    The TEA explains that "a person must demonstrate proficiency in the Science of Teaching Reading on a new standalone certification exam in order to teach any grade from pre-Kindergarten through grade six" (7:03). For already practicing teachers the presenter repeats the notion that this is all about support by repeating the idea that "HB 3 provides significant support for literacy including the following three initiatives" (8:07). They state that these are initiatives which connote positivity, yet the slide lists "requirements" of attending "reading academies" and for district-certified practices of using a "phonics curriculum" and "integrated reading instruments" (TEA, Slide 19).

Under this logic, requiring teachers to follow these "initiatives" will result in students being taught decoding and word recognition skills therefore solving the "reading challenges" they face. They explain that reading academies are not new and are just one more of the "several iterations in the last 20 or so years" (9:22). They express an optimism to reading academies and note that "current reading academies are off to a great start according to both participant survey data and initial pre- and post-test results" (9:50). 

Problems Within the Solutions

    Recognizing that these reading academies will cost money with no dedicated funding, TEA frames different models of implementation as evidence of supporting literacy and being flexible in implementation. They write, "There are two, competency-base [sic] models to meet the requirements in statute: blended or comprehensive" (Slide 25). They frame the blended option as the most flexible explaining, "Through this blended model, these teachers have the ability to demonstrate their skill in the competencies and test out of the academy" (12:45).

It acknowledges that teachers do not want to waste their time with content they already know and that administrators do not want to budget for all teachers to attend the academies.

Discussion

Overall, the state places much of its authority in the common conception of science as valid, reliable, and objective. They mask the insinuation that teachers are the reason reading scores are down through repeatedly explaining their plans for support rather than calling it training. Additionally, the mandate to use a scripted phonics-curriculum is glossed over since focusing on this would highlight the deprofessionalization of teachers.

What Science of Reading?

    The state frames the science of reading as a solved debate. They pay no attention to the debates as identified in the introduction. As they present the "two prominent reading theories" (TEA, 4:15) they do not explain any of the context or background of the study. I posit that the only reason the TEA used Gough's and Tunmer's (1986) Simple View of Reading was to use those words—simple view—when talking about reading practices. The actual title of the paper is "Decoding, Reading, and Reading Disability" which the TEA does not explain. Likewise, Scarborough, whom the TEA also relies, cautioned about an over-reliance on phonological skills: "contrary to what one would expect according to the phonological model, the research clearly indicates that phonological skills are not necessarily the best or only predictors of the future reading abilities of beginning students" (Scarborough, 2004, p. 7).  The TEA, neither providing context nor full papers, frames these ideas in a misrepresentation to advance the idea that reading can and should be simple and systematic. 

Support or Control

    The most repeated phrase about HB3 throughout the entire presentation was the reminder that all of these requirements support literacy. By requiring new teachers to pass the SoTR exam they claim they are supporting teachers to develop literacy-teaching skills that will be highly effective in teaching reading. All teachers taking the test between January 1st and September 6th, 2021 need to have a raw score of  just 24 out of 72 questions. That is 33% correct to be classified as proficient. The state has again undermined their message about what leads to a highly effective teacher.

    This is not about support as the TEA claims, it is about controlling the ideas of literacy. The state is utilizing its power through policy to control the discourse of teachers surrounding literacy practices. For existing teachers, they require them to attend what they refer to as "Reading Academies" even though the official name is "Teacher Literacy Achievement Academies" (Slide 21). They frame their requirements as a commitment to support literacy but, reading between the lines of their framing, they produce an agenda of mass teacher retraining.

Deprofessionalization

    The neoliberal agenda of policy in the past few decades is a reorganization of public education according to principles of privatization and managerialism that lead to a deleterious focus on metrics (Giroux, 2013). As the state requires more certification tests and moves to scripted curricula and integrated reading assessments they are displacing power from teachers to those of corporations that control the production of tests and materials. It reduces teachers' agency while increasing their level of accountability according to evaluations and testing.

Flexibility

    Ultimately, TEA frames the lack of dedicated funding or clear steps to implementation as a desire to allow for flexibility—skirting the problem of how to find time and funds. They cite some additional sources of revenue that districts can draw from, yet there are no specific funds for implementing reading academies and phonics curricula. This undermines the previous framing of support, and framing this shortcoming as flexibility is the TEA's attempt to assuage those critiques.

Conclusion

    TEA has framed the reading requirements under HB3 as supportive of literacy in a flexible and scientific way; the declining reading scores of Texas' elementary students as simply  a lack of effective reading instruction; a lack of understanding of linguistics and phonics on teachers' behalves; and provide solutions through certification tests, reading academies, and curricular requirements. Never do they question their own judgment about this, instead, placing the burden of declining reading scores on teachers. While phonics has been shown as integral to reading, it is not the end-all-be-all of teaching students how to read (Goldenberg, 2020). The pendulum of the reading wars continues to swing from whole-language to phonics approaches, dragging teachers along as the wars play out in policy.

    More should be done to assert that teachers are professionals with expert experience in their field instead of as technicians. Instruction continues to be stripped down to the bare mechanics, leaving out the humanity of education. Rather than focusing so much on how kids read, policymakers would do best by learning why kids read. So much focus on the how will erode the why. Continuing to focus so much on the science of reading rather than the art of reading will result in students who can decode all day yet are separated from the context and passion that gives meaning to reading. 

References

Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58.

Goldenberg, C. (2020). Reading Wars, reading science, and English learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1), S131–S144. doi.org/10.1002/rrq340

Hanford, E. (2019, August 22) At a loss for words: How a flawed idea is teaching millions of kids to be poor readers. APM Reports. https://www.apmreports.org/episode/2019/08/22/whats-wrong-how-schools-teach-reading

Hoffman, J. V., Hikida, M., & Sailors, M. (2020). Contesting science that silences: Amplifying equity, agency, and design research in literacy teacher preparation. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1) S255–S266. doi.org/10.1002/rrq.353

Kim, J. S. (2008). Research and the reading wars. Phi Delta Kappan, 89(5), 372–375.

Lemann, N. (1997). The Reading Wars. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1997/11/the-reading-wars/376990/

Scarborough, H. S. (2005) Developmental relationships between language and reading: Reconciling a beautiful hypothesis with some ugly facts. In H. W. Catts & A. G. Kamhi (Eds), The connections between language and reading disabilities (pp. 3–22 ). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Strauss, V. (2018, October 30). Perspective | Why the ‘reading wars’ are a waste of time. Washington Post.https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2018/10/30/why-reading-wars-are-waste-time/

Texas Education Agency. (2019, September 12). HB3 in 30: Reading Practices [Video] 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SwCb2Oq_KE

Truthout Interviews with Henry A. Giroux. (2013, August 22). [Video] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUSexfb7YME