There is No Causal Link Between LETRS and Reading Instruction or Achievement

This is part II of my analysis of the research supporting the LETRS professional development program.  LETRS is owned by Lexia which has an annual revenue of anywhere between $100 million to $500 million (Google research).  The parent group of Lexia, Cambium Learning, has an annual revenue of anywhere from $250 million to $750 million (Google research).  Keep in mind, however, that these are just Google facts, so the accuracy cannot be verified.  But suffice it to say, there’s a whole bunch of money being distributed here, and none of it is going to poor people or to fight global warming. 

My Alexa App tells me that Dr. Louisa Moats, the author of LETRS, is worth $20 million.  Again, like Google, this is not a very good source of data.  Alexia can say anything.  There’s no peer review.  But even if this is just a little bit correct, it’s still about $20 million more than I and the teachers who are forced to take LETRS training are worth. 

And why do I mention this? 

Context.  Context matters.  Whether you are looking at a letter, a word, a sentence, a fact, data, a reading curriculum, a professional development program, or a research study … context matters.  As such, research must also be considered in the context of the researcher’s past work as well as the social, political, and economic contexts in which it is found. 

Context matters. 

The context of LETRS is money. LETRS professional development cannot be fully understood outside the context of a whole bunch of money.  It’s designed by profiteers to generate profits for profiteers.  Also, LETRS cannot be fully understood without understanding the political forces shaping its forced implementation.  These are forces that are trying to disempower and control teachers and de-legitimize public education.  Make no mistake, LETRS is not an academic act.  As this short review of the supporting research shows, it is a political act.

Context matters.

LETRS and Causal Variables

Let’s start with the simple three-part proposition put forward by the good Dr. Moats and the LETRS family: What teachers know impacts their ability to teach, and teachers’ ability to teach impacts students’ ability to read; therefore, we need to find out what teachers don’t know and make sure they know it. 

Now, I somewhat agree with this three-part proposition.  It has been well established that having a body of knowledge is an essential component of expertise in any domain (Sternberg & Williams, 2010), including teaching (Bruer, 1999; Darling-Hammond, 1999; Eggen & Kauchak, 2007).  However, the question has always been, what kind of knowledge?  Dr. Moats claims that she has the right know of knowledge.  Like Moses coming down from the mountain, Dr. Moats offers us this special knowledge to save us from our reading instructional sins.

            Glory hallelujah.

            Put another way --

            A (LETRS professional development) = B (more effective teaching). 

            B = C (higher levels of reading achievement). 

            Therefore, A = C

            Also, A = D (the solution to all reading problems). 

            Also, A > E (all other forms of teacher professional development for reading)

            Also, F (all teacher preparation programs) < A.

            Amen.

I understand the sentiment.  However, the monkey wrench in this fly ointment is that Dr. Moats has yet to establish a causal link from A to B, C, or D.  The empirical data she offers consists of a lot of “perceptions”, observations, and surveys.  Also, there is a distinct lack of comparative research showing that A is greater than E, or that F is less than A. However, there is one causal variable that has been established: 

            A (LETRS professional development) = G (profits).

Again, we know that knowledge is important to good teaching.  However, I’m still looking for some legitimate research that shows Dr. Moats’s knowledge is the right kind of knowledge, or that Dr. Moats’s knowledge is more effective than say, Dr. Johnson’s knowledge, or Dr. Allington’s knowledge, or the type of knowledge you might find in the owner’s manual for an Evinrude outboard motor.

There is no research to establish a causal link between LETRS professional development and (a) teachers’ ability to teach reading effectively or (b) readers’ ability to read effectively.   Also, there are no controlled experimental research studies comparing LETRS to other forms of professional development.