LETRS: Weasels or Energy Efficient Light Bulbs?
Lexia® LETRS® Efficacy Research
Efficacy = power to produce an effect.
One of the impacts of the Read Act here in Minnesota is that many teachers will be forced to go to one of three state-approved re-education camps (programs) for professional development (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. State-approved “professional development” for teachers.
1. CAREIALL: Advancing Language and Literacy – Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement (CAREI University of Minnesota)
2. OL&LA: Online Language and Literacy Academy – Consortium on Reaching Excellence in Education (CORE)
3. LETRS: Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling (Lexia) LETRS, LETRS for Administrators, and LETRS for Early Childhood Educators
Now I absolutely agree that continued professional development for teachers is essential for the health of our schools. It is not possible to create a finished teaching product in three semesters of any teacher preparation program. To become and maintain one’s status as a master teacher, one must receive legitimate high-quality continuing professional development education. If you’re not evolving, you are devolving.
Evidenced-Based Professional Development
The Read Act here in Minnesota calls for “Evidence-based" instruction to be used for reading instruction. This is the standard. Thus, I am absolutely certain and highly confident that the three professional development programs identified by the Minnesota Department of Education and listed in Figure 1 are indeed evidence-based. No?
Of course they are. Because if they weren’t, that would mean the whole Read Act was a mirage, wrapped in an illusion, and swaddled in a boondoggle. It would also mean that Representative Heather Edelson, the sponsor of this bill, was a gullible bunny with lips stained red from drinking all the profit-based Kool-Aid.
So, what does it mean to be “evidence-based”? According to the Read Act, evidence-based means ... “the instruction or item described is based on reliable, trustworthy, and valid evidence and has demonstrated a record of success in increasing students' reading competency in the areas of phonological and phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary development, reading fluency, and reading comprehension” (The Read Act).
Since LETRS is one of these state-approved professional development programs, and because this is listed on the Minnesota Department of Education website, we can all be absolutely certain that the professional development program is “based on reliable, trustworthy, and valid evidence and has demonstrated a record of success in increasing students' reading competency in the areas of phonological and phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary development, reading fluency, and reading comprehension.”
Yes?
Science of Reading
The Read Act mandates that all reading instruction in Minnesota be based on the science of reading. This sounds like a very good thing. We know that science is a good thing, and using science in reading instruction is a good thing. But what exactly is meant by the “science of reading”?
The Reading League defines the science of reading as “a vast, interdisciplinary body of scientifically-based research about reading and issues related to reading and writing. This research has been conducted over the last five decades across the world, and it is derived from thousands of studies conducted in multiple languages. The science of reading has culminated in a preponderance of evidence to inform how proficient reading and writing develop; why some have difficulty; and how we can most effectively assess and teach and, therefore, improve student outcomes through prevention of and intervention for reading difficulties” (The Reading League).
Just listen to the important words here: interdisciplinary, scientifically-based research, thousands of studies, preponderance of evidence, improve student outcomes, prevention of reading difficulties.
Who could possibly argue with these important-sounding words? But it’s still a bit unclear what exactly is meant by the science of reading. For a better understanding, let’s turn to Dr. Timothy Shanahan.
In a recent article he published in Reading Research Quarterly, the good Dr. Shanahan explained that the SoR is commonly understood today as the exclusive use of strategies that have been shown to be effective using controlled experimental research and conducted in actual classroom learning environments. Accordingly, this is the only type of research that should be used to design reading programs and make reading policy.
SoR = Strategies shown to be effective using controlled experimental research and conducted in the settings in which they will be used, which in this case are classrooms.
This is very important. Applying this standard to the three professional development programs mandated by the Minnesota Department of Education enables us to have confidence that all three programs have been shown to be effective using controlled experimental research and conducted in actual learning environments. Of course! We would expect nothing less from the Minnesota Department of Education.
LETRS
This paper examines one of these professional development programs: Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling (Lexia) or LETRS. I wanted to find the “reliable, trustworthy, and valid evidence” that “has demonstrated” that LETRS had “a record of success in increasing students' reading competency in the areas of phonological and phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary development, reading fluency, and reading comprehension”. I was eager to start reading all the research showing the demonstrated record of success that LETRS has had in increasing students’ reading competency.
Because my trust in the Minnesota Department of Education is strong, I knew that I would soon find all the research conducted over the last five decades across the world, and derived from thousands of studies conducted in multiple languages to support the proposition that LETRS professional development (a) enabled teachers to teach better, (b) readers to read better, and (c) was better than other forms of professional development. Easy-peasy, simple-pimple.
But, alas alack, when I searched the research database at Minnesota State University, nothing came up. Hmmm. Hmmm.
Thank You Lexia Learning!!
However, after a short Google search, I did come across the Lexia® website (www.lexia.learning.com). Lexia publishes LETRS. According to the website, “For 40 years, Lexia® has led the science of reading revolution helping educators create real literacy change.” On their site it says that Lexia Learning contains “Science of Reading K-8 Solutions.”
Who doesn’t like a good solution? And since there were lots of pictures of happy smiling teachers and happy smiling children, I just knew I could trust this to be an accurate and reliable source of information.
Recommended by LinkedIn
On this website, I found the research I was looking for. It was called, Lexia® LETRS® Efficacy Research and published on 7/20/2023.
Efficacy means the power to produce an effect. Here at last was the research that would show that LETRS has the power to produce an effect, which in this case would be improved teaching and improved student outcomes. Thank you, Lexia Learning. I knew that I could depend on you.
LETRS Efficacy Research
The Introduction to the LETRS Efficacy Research promised that “Educators who complete LETRS gain the deep knowledge needed to be literacy and language experts in the science of reading (p.1).”
Excellent!
But then I ran across a confusing passage. It said, “Qualitative research and non-causal quantitative research can offer important and unique insights into the nuances of educator experiences and the factors that shape their use and perceptions of LETRS.” Well, yes. Many of us have been saying for years that we must embrace the full spectrum of research methodologies in coming to understand reading instruction. But this is not in accordance with the Science of Reading.
The Science of Reading is firmly based on the exclusive use of strategies that have been shown to be effective using controlled experimental research and conducted in actual classroom learning environments. This is the only type of research that should be used to design reading programs and make reading policy. But there it was on page 1, “qualitative and non-causal quantitative research.” How was it possible to find causes using non-causal quantitative research? And how was it possible that Lexia and LETRS would be held to a much lesser scientific standard than the reading teachers in Minnesota?
Key Findings
The primary purpose of LETRS is to “improve teacher knowledge and instructional practice” (pg.3). The report says that “the weight of empirical evidence suggests it can improve teacher knowledge and instruction when used as intended” (p. 3).
Empirical means data collected by observation or experience. And in this case, there was a weight of it. That must mean there’s so much empirical evidence that it would be heavy enough to weigh it.
I read each of the 18 research studies used as empirical evidence. (By the way, the research studies used to provide "empirical evidence" were pretty pathetic. There were many methodology concerns. I will analyze these in the next paper.) Lexia reported five key findings. My analysis is found below each of the key findings.
#1. “Improved teacher knowledge and practice. Teachers who completed LETRS training demonstrated higher levels of knowledge and improved instructional practice across a variety of objective and self-rated measures.”
Andy Analysis: This is not accurate. It would be more accurate to say that teachers who completed LETRS training demonstrated higher levels of LETRS knowledge, as we would expect. If you teach something, students are generally going to score higher on measures of that something that was taught. However, there was nothing in any of the research studies to suggest that LETRS knowledge was linked to improved teaching performance. There was nothing in any of the research studies to suggest that LETRS knowledge was necessary to teach reading effectively. In most cases, teachers were asked to complete a survey indicating their perceptions and beliefs about things. Perceptions and beliefs are not what most would include as strong empirical evidence.
#2. “LETRS often implemented with other interventions. Schools, districts, and states that implement LETRS often do so alongside other large-scale initiatives. Educators variously perceive these initiatives as helping or hindering LETRS implementation.”
Andy Analysis: This key finding doesn’t tell us anything. LETRS is often implemented alongside other large-scale initiatives. Okay. So what? Educators have perceptions of these initiatives. Okay. Again, so what? There was nothing in any of the 18 research studies linking LETRS with teacher practice our student outcomes. Also, teachers perceived the initiatives as helping or hindering LETRS implementation. Okay. But again, so what? This tells us nothing of the efficacy of letters. They said these initiatives are perceived as either helping or hindering LETRS implementation. Perceptions, helping and hinder, and implementations. Again, so what? There was nothing in any of the studies linking LETRS to improved outcomes related to reading instruction or students' reading.
Also, I reviewed all 18 of the research studies. Even though this key finding is not very flattering to LETRS, it was NOT a major takeaway from any of the research that I read.
#3. “Implementation linked to improved outcomes. Positive teacher outcomes were most likely to be observed in studies that reported moderate to high levels of implementation.”
Andy Analysis: This key finding is finding is blatantly false. There were no teacher outcomes, positive or negative, reported in these studies, other than teacher’s perceptions of their knowledge or measures of their knowledge related to LETRS.
Perceptions are hard to observe. Yes, you can use a Likert Scale and have participants rate their perceptions. This can be used to get "quantifiable empirical data" – but this is pretty lame. Hardly a positive teacher outcome.
There were no outcomes linking LETRS to improved reading instruction or improvements in students' reading. There were no outcomes related to comparing LETRS to other professional development programs.
#4. “Educators perceive LETRS learning to be essential. Studies that address educator perceptions of LETRS suggest that educators view their learning as playing a positive, if not essential, role in improving student reading.”
Andy Analysis: Only the studies that addressed educators’ perceptions of LETRS are included in this key finding. The measurable outcome was a perception measured by a survey. Again, we're talking about perceptions! Since when do rational human beings make $100 million decisions based on perceptions? There is no hard data to tie LETRS to teacher performance or student outcomes.
How many educators perceive LETRS learning to be essential? Are these educators representative of a larger population?
Also, this is a self-selected population. Only the educators who took the LETRS course took the survey. Unless it was mandated, they wouldn’t be taking the course unless they thought it might be unhelpful. The conclusion here is a stretch.
#5. “LETRS demonstrates remarkable adaptability. LETRS has been implemented in a variety of contexts, ranging from single schools to state-wide multicomponent literacy initiatives. While careful implementation planning is always warranted, challenging contexts may call for support from Lexia’s Customer Success Management.”
Analysis: I reviewed each of the 18 research studies. There was nothing in any of them related to “remarkable adaptability”. Also, saying that you might need to call Lexia’s Customer Success Management for support is hardly a ringing endorsement for LETRS. It also certainly says nothing about its efficacy.
Key Finding From the Key Findings
My key finding is more of a question. Were the people who wrote this report weasels or energy-efficient light bulbs? A weasel is defined as a deceitful or treacherous person. An energy-efficient light bulb is one that is not too bright.
Innovate UK Winner: MySpeekie® – Speech Sound Typing Keyboard: Even toddlers can type Phonemies (fun IPA-aligned characters) to see their chosen words & hear them voiced. | Creator of MyWordz® and The Word Mapping Tool.
4moThank you for this! I thought I was the only one bothering to dig deep. And the Reading League bigwigs blocked me from asking questions in their SoR groups long ago.
Create the Play- Don't Follow the Puck
4moThanks for breaking down the "research." When you peel back the fancy language, the "results" speak for themselves.
Director/Consultant at Maureen Morriss Consulting Group
5moI love ‘easy-peasy, simple-pimple’ ha!!!