Disrespecting Teachers: Troubling Developments in Reading Instruction.

think it is likely that all reading researchers and teachers of reading, regardless of their theoretical perspective, would agree that the push for "scientifically-based" reading instruction represents a watershed moment in the history of reading instruction. For those who readily embrace the formulation of replicable, reliable research embedded in No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the focus on scientifically-based reading instruction is a long overdue antidote to reading failures in our schools. Even those of us who reject the assertion that only replicable, reliable reading research is worthwhile agree that effective classroom instruction must be underpinned by solid theory and research (Allington, 2002; Coles, 2003). Still, "scientifically-based" reading research has failed to identify any cure-all for reading failures (Duffy & Hoffman, 1999). Nor has "reliable, replicable" reading research uncovered any reading methods that work for all students, all of the time (Allington & Johnston, 2001; Pearson, 1997). Yet, it seems that circumscribed notions of "scientifically-based" research emerging from the federal Department of Education are being used to severely limit the professional discretion of teachers (Edmondson & Shannon, 2002). Edmondson (2004) asserts that educational "policies are the articulation of someone's hope for the way something should be, and they are revealed through various texts, practices, and discourses that define and deliver those values" (p. 419). My sense is that the expectation that educational research should regulate classroom instruction, emblematic of broader trends