I'm curious about where you got this definition of "back to basics". Are you sure that the educators you're categorizing as those in the back to basics camp long for a return to past practices due to nostalgia? Isn't it more likely that people advocate for past approaches because something new is tried and it doesn't work? Personally, I really don't care if I get labelled as advocating for "back to basics" (which, by the way, has happened to me many times. Maybe I'm one of the ones you describe here:) ). What I care about is using effective teaching techniques because when we do not use effective teaching techniques, students unnecessarily get left behind. We can split hairs and stress about labels, but good teaching is characterized by whether it's effective or not, not by whatever label is attached to it. A person can also say that they are advocating for the science of learning and not be advocating for effective techniques at all.
Thanks so much for this thoughtful comment Anna, I really appreciate it.
You make a great point: many people who advocate for “back to basics” aren’t doing it out of nostalgia. They’re reacting to situations where something new was tried and doesn't seem to work very well. In that sense, back to basics is partially a reactive movement; a response to approaches that many teachers and parents feel are ineffective. And that reaction makes sense.
The point made by the article is that the science of learning is something bigger than that. SoL is open to considering all evidence-supported ideas, even those that are not focussed on "going back to the basics." For example, the expertise-reversal effect is not something I would associate with the back-to-basics movement. But it is part of the science of learning.
I’m curious how you see it: Do you think back to basics and the science of learning are essentially the same thing, or do you think there a meaningful difference between them?
I'm afraid I can't answer your question because "back to basics" is not a well defined term. In my experience, it's mostly a phrase used by mainstream media and so I take it with a grain of salt because mainstream media write in such a way that people will read the article or take something away from it by a quick glance at a headline. I've mostly seen the phrase "back to basics" used in reference to advocacy for basic skills, but one also can't assume that when a person is advocating for basic skills that that's the only thing they're advocating for. Basic skills are prerequisites for higher order skills.
I see "back to basics" as competency based teaching. Cultivating Agency by Melbourne University seems to be one of those initiatives easily lumped into progressive camp. It would be good to see what evidence comes out of this when using a new metrics to measure competency for evidence, and having discussions around what counts as evidence.
I don't see where the science of learning and back to basics are mutually exclusive. I know that you acknowledge as much, but you present bullet points with the implication that they are exclusive to the science of learning but not back to basics.
We have to face an ugly reality: Students today are not as well educated as they were fifty years ago. I don't have the data to prove it, but it appears that in all respects, children taught in the 1970s learned history at least as well as students today. They were better at math and reading.
I think we all agree that the ultimate skill for anyone is the ability to gather information and rationally assess it. We must all be able to recognize the motives of those who attempt to influence us. Mere memorization is of little help here. But while the science of learning should excel at this, I'm not seeing it in the results.
SoR has been around for over 40 years. It has done nothing to reduce illiteracy.
About 80% of kids are confused with the way they are taught to read.
About 20% of them shut down/disengage from learning to read and they are classified as dyslexic when in fact they are shut down kids who disengage from learning to read.
About 60% of them struggle and figure out to read between grades 4 and 6. That is a lot of time wasted on learning to read.
How does one gather information and rationally assess it when one can't do the basic - read?
Get a copy of Shut Down Kids to understand why many intelligent kids can't read. Then question me.
I can speak of New Math, a hideous boondoggle of the 1960s to 1970s. I have no idea how that program ever got published, much less purchased by school systems.
I also remember waaaay back when I went to elementary school. My vocabulary book was called "Fun With Phonics". Near as I can tell, it taught me well. (That, and excellent teachers!) Not so far back, my grandkids learned to sound out words that they didn't recognize. It was impressive to watch them pronounce the phonemes in order to sound out the word.
You said, 'I think we all agree that the ultimate skill for anyone is the ability to gather information and rationally assess it. We must all be able to recognize the motives of those who attempt to influence us.
How do we radically gather information and rationally assess it when most of the educators and researchers on social media are controlled by powers that be?
What are the motives of those who attempt to influence us?
Coincidentally today I posted the first of a series of articles related to these very questions.
Great read. Just wanted to nuance that educators aren't trying to minimize cognitive, but rather optimize it. For true novices, this often means minimization. However, the teachers quickly scaffold upward to keep the students in the ~85% accuracy range. This is where the art of teaching emerges.
This is a great post continuing the same theme from other posts. What I'd add is that this isn't new. It's the same as what we already know from earlier research with new labels. Thanks again for reminding us of what's important to ensure effective learning. And I agree, it's not about back to basics. It's about what explicit instruction (meaning explicit teaching and an explicitly designed curriculum) can do for learning.
"When our decisions about teaching are based more on loyalty to a worldview than on what helps students learn, we all lose. And the kids who need effective instruction are hurt the most." Thank you for saying this! It's at the heart of Paul Kirschner's Cautionary Tale: Reflecting on the Roulette Wheel of Research Translation (https://harriettjanetos.substack.com/p/paul-kirschners-cautionary-tale-reflecting?r=5spuf).
"When our decisions about teaching are based more on loyalty to a worldview than on what helps students learn, we all lose. And the kids who need effective instruction are hurt the most." One of the biggest problems in education summarized so succinctly. Thank you thank you for this post. Restacking now.
The passage ignores that Back to Basics was popular because it was a return to what was proven to have worked. In that respect it was "evidence based" even though the cog science research of today was not there. It was not, as is implied if not outright stated in this piece, based on tradition for tradition's sake.
Yes, there have been improvements over the years like retrieval practice, interleaving, spaced repetition and the like. But the essential components of "back to basics" are the same as what the "science of learning" provides. The fact is that it worked effectively for many years. The mantra that it wasn't based on "understanding of cognitive science" etc sounds like the mantra that progressives like to say to criticize traditional modes of teaching: "Students are lacking conceptual understanding."
I teach these principles to my students. But when I use "practice-based evidence" to test their effectiveness, I often don't find significant correlations between use of the principle and performance, for both self report and behavioral data.
But GPA remains modestly predictive every time. Even when my students claim that my assessments are different from other teachers. So I'm increasingly skeptical that these principles matter a lot in higher education at least, and most research designs I've seen are so low in external validity, I see no value in them.
The reference used in the article says: Ehri, L.C., Nunes, S.R., Stahl, S.A., & Willows, D.M. (2001). Systematic phonics instruction helps students learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis.
Has systematic phonics instruction helped?
Don't get me wrong, I teach my dyslexic students using phonics.
Why was a kid who was taught systematic synthetic phonics for a year not able to read?
How did I manage to get him to read within weeks?
The distraught mother who is an accomplished teacher (you may Google her name) came to Twitter in December 2020 for help.
I'm curious about where you got this definition of "back to basics". Are you sure that the educators you're categorizing as those in the back to basics camp long for a return to past practices due to nostalgia? Isn't it more likely that people advocate for past approaches because something new is tried and it doesn't work? Personally, I really don't care if I get labelled as advocating for "back to basics" (which, by the way, has happened to me many times. Maybe I'm one of the ones you describe here:) ). What I care about is using effective teaching techniques because when we do not use effective teaching techniques, students unnecessarily get left behind. We can split hairs and stress about labels, but good teaching is characterized by whether it's effective or not, not by whatever label is attached to it. A person can also say that they are advocating for the science of learning and not be advocating for effective techniques at all.
Thanks so much for this thoughtful comment Anna, I really appreciate it.
You make a great point: many people who advocate for “back to basics” aren’t doing it out of nostalgia. They’re reacting to situations where something new was tried and doesn't seem to work very well. In that sense, back to basics is partially a reactive movement; a response to approaches that many teachers and parents feel are ineffective. And that reaction makes sense.
The point made by the article is that the science of learning is something bigger than that. SoL is open to considering all evidence-supported ideas, even those that are not focussed on "going back to the basics." For example, the expertise-reversal effect is not something I would associate with the back-to-basics movement. But it is part of the science of learning.
I’m curious how you see it: Do you think back to basics and the science of learning are essentially the same thing, or do you think there a meaningful difference between them?
I'm afraid I can't answer your question because "back to basics" is not a well defined term. In my experience, it's mostly a phrase used by mainstream media and so I take it with a grain of salt because mainstream media write in such a way that people will read the article or take something away from it by a quick glance at a headline. I've mostly seen the phrase "back to basics" used in reference to advocacy for basic skills, but one also can't assume that when a person is advocating for basic skills that that's the only thing they're advocating for. Basic skills are prerequisites for higher order skills.
I see "back to basics" as competency based teaching. Cultivating Agency by Melbourne University seems to be one of those initiatives easily lumped into progressive camp. It would be good to see what evidence comes out of this when using a new metrics to measure competency for evidence, and having discussions around what counts as evidence.
I don't see where the science of learning and back to basics are mutually exclusive. I know that you acknowledge as much, but you present bullet points with the implication that they are exclusive to the science of learning but not back to basics.
We have to face an ugly reality: Students today are not as well educated as they were fifty years ago. I don't have the data to prove it, but it appears that in all respects, children taught in the 1970s learned history at least as well as students today. They were better at math and reading.
I think we all agree that the ultimate skill for anyone is the ability to gather information and rationally assess it. We must all be able to recognize the motives of those who attempt to influence us. Mere memorization is of little help here. But while the science of learning should excel at this, I'm not seeing it in the results.
SoR has been around for over 40 years. It has done nothing to reduce illiteracy.
About 80% of kids are confused with the way they are taught to read.
About 20% of them shut down/disengage from learning to read and they are classified as dyslexic when in fact they are shut down kids who disengage from learning to read.
About 60% of them struggle and figure out to read between grades 4 and 6. That is a lot of time wasted on learning to read.
How does one gather information and rationally assess it when one can't do the basic - read?
Get a copy of Shut Down Kids to understand why many intelligent kids can't read. Then question me.
I can speak of New Math, a hideous boondoggle of the 1960s to 1970s. I have no idea how that program ever got published, much less purchased by school systems.
I also remember waaaay back when I went to elementary school. My vocabulary book was called "Fun With Phonics". Near as I can tell, it taught me well. (That, and excellent teachers!) Not so far back, my grandkids learned to sound out words that they didn't recognize. It was impressive to watch them pronounce the phonemes in order to sound out the word.
You said, 'I think we all agree that the ultimate skill for anyone is the ability to gather information and rationally assess it. We must all be able to recognize the motives of those who attempt to influence us.
How do we radically gather information and rationally assess it when most of the educators and researchers on social media are controlled by powers that be?
What are the motives of those who attempt to influence us?
Coincidentally today I posted the first of a series of articles related to these very questions.
Please read my post at https://www.dyslexiafriend.com/2025/10/the-silencing-of-dissent-why-dyslexia.html
Comment and share my post.
I agree that too many people uncritically accept what they are told, if the are told by someone they trust. And that trust is too readily placed.
Great read. Just wanted to nuance that educators aren't trying to minimize cognitive, but rather optimize it. For true novices, this often means minimization. However, the teachers quickly scaffold upward to keep the students in the ~85% accuracy range. This is where the art of teaching emerges.
Yes, good point. As you say, optimizing cognitive load is a better way to describe it. Thanks for the clarification.
What is scaffold? How does a child scaffold something new to what one has learned wrongly?
Here is one of many of my posts that you may like to read.
https://www.dyslexiafriend.com/2023/09/teaching-correctly.html
This is a great post continuing the same theme from other posts. What I'd add is that this isn't new. It's the same as what we already know from earlier research with new labels. Thanks again for reminding us of what's important to ensure effective learning. And I agree, it's not about back to basics. It's about what explicit instruction (meaning explicit teaching and an explicitly designed curriculum) can do for learning.
"When our decisions about teaching are based more on loyalty to a worldview than on what helps students learn, we all lose. And the kids who need effective instruction are hurt the most." Thank you for saying this! It's at the heart of Paul Kirschner's Cautionary Tale: Reflecting on the Roulette Wheel of Research Translation (https://harriettjanetos.substack.com/p/paul-kirschners-cautionary-tale-reflecting?r=5spuf).
"When our decisions about teaching are based more on loyalty to a worldview than on what helps students learn, we all lose. And the kids who need effective instruction are hurt the most." One of the biggest problems in education summarized so succinctly. Thank you thank you for this post. Restacking now.
The passage ignores that Back to Basics was popular because it was a return to what was proven to have worked. In that respect it was "evidence based" even though the cog science research of today was not there. It was not, as is implied if not outright stated in this piece, based on tradition for tradition's sake.
Yes, there have been improvements over the years like retrieval practice, interleaving, spaced repetition and the like. But the essential components of "back to basics" are the same as what the "science of learning" provides. The fact is that it worked effectively for many years. The mantra that it wasn't based on "understanding of cognitive science" etc sounds like the mantra that progressives like to say to criticize traditional modes of teaching: "Students are lacking conceptual understanding."
I teach these principles to my students. But when I use "practice-based evidence" to test their effectiveness, I often don't find significant correlations between use of the principle and performance, for both self report and behavioral data.
But GPA remains modestly predictive every time. Even when my students claim that my assessments are different from other teachers. So I'm increasingly skeptical that these principles matter a lot in higher education at least, and most research designs I've seen are so low in external validity, I see no value in them.
The reference used in the article says: Ehri, L.C., Nunes, S.R., Stahl, S.A., & Willows, D.M. (2001). Systematic phonics instruction helps students learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis.
Has systematic phonics instruction helped?
Don't get me wrong, I teach my dyslexic students using phonics.
Why was a kid who was taught systematic synthetic phonics for a year not able to read?
How did I manage to get him to read within weeks?
The distraught mother who is an accomplished teacher (you may Google her name) came to Twitter in December 2020 for help.
Read our discussion at https://www.dyslexiafriend.com/2021/09/tips-to-australian-teacher.html
Re: "While the two approaches sometimes overlap in what they recommend, they diverge in why they recommend it. That distinction is important."
So the "science of learning" is Taylorism.