The article reasonably argues reading instruction complexity warrants teacher flexibility, not legislatively limited curricula. However, its core flaw lies in establishing a straw man portrayal of science of reading methodology that doesn't align with proponents' representations. From there, the author proposes an analogy that depends on this weakened straw man premise.

1. Straw man • Does the author put up a straw man of "science of reading" approaches? Despite making several characterizations of it, the author does not give a single reference to the curricula or guidance that she is critiquing, which makes it hard to test whether her representation is fair and accurate. However, we can make a provisional assessment by comparing the author's description to that of a document entitled, "The Science of Reading: The Basics", put out by the National Center on Improving Literacy, which is funded by the US Dept of Education.

In making this comparison, it is remarkable how much of the author's representation of the "science of reading" approach corresponds to this particular source. For example:

• The author argues the "science of reading" overemphasizes phonics in isolation rather than a balanced approach. The description confirms phonics is a key component, though not the only one.
• The author critiques lack of clarity on what constitutes "science of reading." The description acknowledges it is not one specific program but rather an evolving approach.
• The author expresses concern about overlooking English language learner needs. It is at least true that the "basics" description does not cover adaptations for those students.

However, when the author comes to discussing whether a "science of reading" approach would meaningfully address comprehension, we do see a straw man:

Approaches characterized as following the "science of reading" tend to overlook the needs of English learners. They might learn to decode words, but if they are prevented from building enough background knowledge through science and other subjects, they will be limited in their comprehension -- the purpose of reading.

With this, the author implies science of reading approaches may teach word decoding but will prevent students from building the background knowledge necessary for comprehension. However, the overview document we examined does not suggest science of reading curricula aim to restrict exposure to science, social studies, etc. that build background knowledge. And very notably, comprehension is explicitly included as a key component.

By setting up a theoretical curriculum bias that limits broader learning and knowledge acquisition, the author likely misrepresents some science of reading approaches. The critique attacks a hypothetical curricula limitation that science of reading promoters do not appear to espouse.

Additional Observations

• There is an analogy used by the author that we do not count as an independent false analogy fallacy only because it presumes the straw man above and builds on it. This analogy comes up right after asserting that methods based on the "science of reading" may overemphasize phonics, where the author says:

Learning to read in this way would be like learning to pedal on a stationary bicycle and then being expected to ride a bike through L.A. traffic without understanding balance, steering, speed and the rules of the road.

This strikes us as a rhetorical way to bring home the author's straw man portrayal of the science of reading approach. (She is essentially accusing the straw man of being guilty of the ludic fallacy for not preparing students to read in the real world.) The analogy would be a good one if that representation was not a straw man. If the straw man collapses, then so does this analogy, as it is an extension of it.

• The text has some phrases that allow wiggle room between the author attacking the entire "science of reading" approach vs curricula that claim to follow the approach but don't properly deliver on that claim. She mentions "approaches characterized as following the 'science of reading'," and "curricula that claim to be aligned with the science of reading." In both these instances, the author follows immediately with a "tend to" statement: the approaches "tend to overlook the needs of English learners" and the curricula "tend to oversimplify the process."

Does this mean they don't always overlook or oversimplify? This isn't made clear by the author, and thus the text remains a bit ambiguous as to exactly what is being critiqued. By targeting "characterized" or "claimed" alignment with the science of reading, the criticisms of overlooking learner needs or oversimplification may apply more to flawed execution rather than the underlying principles themselves.