What You See Is Not What You Get: Science of Reading Reforms as a Guise for Standardization, Centralization, and Privatization.
Saved in:
| Title: | What You See Is Not What You Get: Science of Reading Reforms as a Guise for Standardization, Centralization, and Privatization. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Aydarova, Elena1 (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | American Journal of Education. 2024, Vol. 130 Issue 4, p653-685. 33p. |
| Subject Terms: | *Common Core State Standards, *Curriculum change, *Educational change, Legislative sessions, Video recording |
| Abstract: | Purpose: In the last 5 years, many states have introduced science of reading (SOR) reforms that require increased attention to foundational skills instruction in grades K–3. The fast spread of these policies raises questions about the mechanisms that facilitated their rapid adoption. The purpose of this article is to examine how SOR discourses obscured or legitimated agendas of various policy actors involved in promoting literacy reforms. Research Methods/Approach: Grounded in anthropology of policy, this study examines interactions between legislators, policy makers, and policy advocates in Tennessee. Data sources include video recordings of legislative sessions, policy artifacts, reports, media articles, and interviews. Findings: The study documents how the focus on the "science of reading" disguises pursuits of conservative think tanks and major philanthropies in promoting curriculum reforms. Intermediary organizations' advocacy for particular instructional materials and consulting services aligned with Common Core State Standards, even in the states that moved away from them, paves the way for greater standardization, centralization, and expansion of private sector involvement in educational services. Implications: Positioned in the wider sociopolitical context of neoliberal education reforms, SOR advocacy becomes a performance that obscures privatizers' efforts to use literacy legislation as a mechanism for securing a market share for their products and services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of American Journal of Education is the property of University of Chicago and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Education Research Complete |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Purpose: In the last 5 years, many states have introduced science of reading (SOR) reforms that require increased attention to foundational skills instruction in grades K–3. The fast spread of these policies raises questions about the mechanisms that facilitated their rapid adoption. The purpose of this article is to examine how SOR discourses obscured or legitimated agendas of various policy actors involved in promoting literacy reforms. Research Methods/Approach: Grounded in anthropology of policy, this study examines interactions between legislators, policy makers, and policy advocates in Tennessee. Data sources include video recordings of legislative sessions, policy artifacts, reports, media articles, and interviews. Findings: The study documents how the focus on the "science of reading" disguises pursuits of conservative think tanks and major philanthropies in promoting curriculum reforms. Intermediary organizations' advocacy for particular instructional materials and consulting services aligned with Common Core State Standards, even in the states that moved away from them, paves the way for greater standardization, centralization, and expansion of private sector involvement in educational services. Implications: Positioned in the wider sociopolitical context of neoliberal education reforms, SOR advocacy becomes a performance that obscures privatizers' efforts to use literacy legislation as a mechanism for securing a market share for their products and services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 01956744 |
| DOI: | 10.1086/730991 |
