Black teachers: How to recruit them and make them stay
Lessons in higher education: What California can learn
Keeping California public university options open
Superintendents: Well-paid and walking away
The debt to degree connection
College in prison: How earning a degree can lead to a new life
English learners need foundational skills like phonics and vocabulary in addition to instruction in speaking and understanding English and connections to their home languages.
Those are two agreements laid out in a new joint statement Tuesday authored by two organizations, one that advocates for English learners and the other for the “science of reading.” The organizations, the National Committee for Effective Literacy and The Reading League, had previously appeared to have deep differences about how to teach reading.
The authors hope that the statement dispels the idea that English learners do not need to be taught foundational skills, while also pushing policymakers and curriculum publishers to fully incorporate English learners’ needs.
“I hope we stop hearing so much about the science of reading being bad for English learners and emergent bilinguals. And I hope that it helps move those who are working to build the knowledge in the science of reading to think of English learners or emergent bilinguals in Chapter 1 rather than Chapter 34,” said Kari Kurto, national science of reading project director at The Reading League.
“We came together with a common goal: to develop proficient readers and writers in English and, we hope, in other languages,” said Martha Hernandez, executive director of Californians Together, which advocates for English learners in California, and a member of the National Committee for Effective Literacy. “I think we both kind of learned that we had more in common than we didn’t.”
Several contributors said they hope the statement could help California move past roadblocks to adopt a comprehensive literacy plan to ensure that all children can read by third grade, including important skills for students learning English as a second language.
“We can stop arguing about whether foundational skills are important. We can stop arguing about whether we value bilingualism in and of itself. We can stop bickering and identify what are the challenges out in the field to make these things happen,” said Claude Goldenberg, professor of education emeritus at Stanford University.
Only 42% of California’s third graders can read and write at grade level, according to the state’s latest Smarter Balanced test. The state has faced increased pressure to adopt a plan with a clear focus on reading skills known as “foundational” — phonics (connecting letters to sounds), phonemic awareness (identifying distinct units of sound), fluency, vocabulary and comprehension.
Advocates for English learners had raised concerns that an increased focus on phonics might exclude other critical skills, such as learning to understand and speak the language and connections between English and other languages.
The joint statement makes it clear that English learners need explicit instruction in phonics, vocabulary and comprehension, and that they also need to have instruction in oral language development — learning to speak and understand English — to make sure they understand the words they are learning to sound out.
Not only is understanding meaning important for reading comprehension, but brain research has also shown that it’s needed in order to begin recognizing words. When students sound out a word they know, their brain begins to recognize it for future reading, a process known as “orthographic mapping.” But if a student doesn’t know the meaning of the word they’re sounding out, the brain can’t file away the word as recognizable, Goldenberg said.
In addition, the authors agreed that when possible, students should have access to dual language instruction, in which students learn to read and write in both their home language and English.
“A student’s home language is an asset that should be valued and nurtured,” reads the statement. “Instructional practices in which teachers explicitly encourage students to make connections between their home language and English benefit their language and literacy development.”
“It’s so significant because we have had so many decades of policy and many practices of thinking of English learners, labeling them as deficient in many ways because they don’t know English,” said Magaly Lavadenz, executive director of the Center for Equity for English Learners at Loyola Marymount University.
The statement, which was signed by more than 190 individuals and 80 organizations, is the culmination of months of discussion that began in 2022, after the National Committee for Effective Literacy published a white paper raising concerns and discrediting some practices implemented under the name of the “science of reading.” After many months of discussion, The Reading League and NCEL held a joint summit in Las Vegas in March, where experts from both groups spoke.
At that summit, many people began to realize they agreed on more than they had previously thought, said Kurto. For example, she said, someone who was considered a science of reading expert would say something, and experts on English learners would clap.
“And they were just looking at each other like, ‘Wait, you believe that too?’” Kurto said. “I feel like that happened throughout the room.”
A large part of the statement deals with defining the term “science of reading.”
The statement emphasizes that the term “science of reading” refers to a large body of research on reading and writing, including research on teaching phonics, vocabulary, and other foundational skills, and also on teaching students to read in a second language.
Making sure that the research on how English learners learn to read is included in what is considered “science of reading” is crucial, said Hernandez.
“I think it really points out the research to implementation gap, that when translating knowledge to practice, sometimes there are misconceptions,” Hernandez said. “It identifies practices that are currently implemented in schools under the name of the science of reading that do not align with the research of how English learners and emergent bilingual students learn to read.”
It clarifies that the “science of reading” is not just one curriculum, a “one-size-fits-all” approach, or a focus only on phonics.
“Science of reading is not one size fits all, and it is incumbent on us as professionals to keep those misconceptions at bay and stop perpetuating them and not allow others to perpetuate them,” said Becky Sullivan, director of K-12 English language arts curriculum and instruction for the Sacramento County Office of Education.
California-based contributors to the statement said they hope the state pays attention to it when creating the literacy road map proposed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in his state budget bill.
They also hope it pushes California school districts to fully implement the English Language Arts/English Language Development Framework, which was adopted in 2014 and encourages explicit instruction in foundational skills and oral language development instruction for English learners. But many districts are not following those guidelines, experts said.
State education law requires that English learners receive specific instruction in the English language both within their classes — integrated English language development — and separate from their regular classes — designated English language development.
“We have not fully implemented designated ELD across the state,” said Lavadenz. “We need to do more and better work at the local level in providing designated ELD, because it’s in those spaces where specific attention to literacy development for English learners takes place.”
Kurto said she hopes the agreements in the joint statement will also help classroom teachers, who may have been confused or hesitant because of the perceived differences between experts in the “science of reading” and English learner fields.
“It’s hard enough to be a teacher right now,” Kurto said, “and when you’re hearing voices saying you should not listen to those people or these people, it makes it really hard to do your job.”
Panelists discussed dual admission as a solution for easing the longstanding challenges in California’s transfer system.
A grassroots campaign recalled two members of the Orange Unified School District in an election that cost more than half a million dollars.
Legislation that would remove one of the last tests teachers are required to take to earn a credential in California passed the Senate Education Committee.
Part-time instructors, many who work for decades off the tenure track and at a lower pay rate, have been called “apprentices to nowhere.”
Comments (6)
Comments Policy
We welcome your comments. All comments are moderated for civility, relevance and other considerations. Click here for EdSource's Comments Policy.
Kristen Koeller 7 months ago7 months ago
The California chapter of The Reading League welcomes the guidance and collaboration between TRL and NCEL. The joint statement gives educators confidence to move forward with instructional literacy practices anchored in reading science and comprehensive, asset-based, language development. All students in California will benefit from this!
Mary Johnson 7 months ago7 months ago
Not just English Leaner Students should be targeted for Science of Reading. Parents of non-Spanish students who speak English only have been complaining for years and their voices have not been heard or listened to. Parents been requesting more phonic and decoding for all students, no matter what language a student speaks. The majority of articles talk about how science of reading is beneficial for English Learners Students only. Data collected from SBAC show … Read More
Not just English Leaner Students should be targeted for Science of Reading. Parents of non-Spanish students who speak English only have been complaining for years and their voices have not been heard or listened to. Parents been requesting more phonic and decoding for all students, no matter what language a student speaks.
The majority of articles talk about how science of reading is beneficial for English Learners Students only. Data collected from SBAC show that English-only Students are more than one or two levels behind in reading skills. As a advocate for over 30 years, I personally can’t choose any subgroup over all the struggling students based on language, zip code, gender or the skin of one color.
The problem with Dual Enrollment at the majority districts is 90/10 that Spanish over English is being taught, not 50/50.The students are missing out on learning basic sight-words and other skills needed to pass an all English test.
Replies
John Fensterwald 7 months ago7 months ago
Thanks for writing, Mary.
I invite you to use this link to read up on the EdSource stories on the science of reading that we have written with all students in mind. It will take up most of your weekend.
Dr. Bill Conrad 7 months ago7 months ago
Only about 13% of English Learners were proficient or advanced in English Language Arts as measured by the CAASSP in 2021-2022. And fewer than 10% were proficient in Mathematics. Methinks we can do better. The recipe for quality reading instruction was handed to us on a silver platter in the early 2000s by the National Reading Panel. It argued for the teaching of five essential reading elements including phomemic awareness, phonics, fluency, comprehension, and vocabulary. The reading … Read More
Only about 13% of English Learners were proficient or advanced in English Language Arts as measured by the CAASSP in 2021-2022. And fewer than 10% were proficient in Mathematics.
Methinks we can do better.
The recipe for quality reading instruction was handed to us on a silver platter in the early 2000s by the National Reading Panel. It argued for the teaching of five essential reading elements including phomemic awareness, phonics, fluency, comprehension, and vocabulary. The reading experts did not recommend just teaching phonics. There is a progression for the explicit instruction in these key areas. Abundant research was provided and continues to grow in support of these key elements.
So it would behoove the educational community to adopt curriculum, pedagogies, and assessments that align with these five key elements for our English Learners.
Ensuring that our English Learners are literate in reading within 3 years is critical. Recognition of the importance of bilingualism is also important but it should not take precedence over the urgency to ensure that our English Learners become expert readers as this will lead to their future academic success, and college and career readiness.
They most definitely should not be engaged in the failed Balanced Literacy boondoggle as they would benefit most from carefully designed explicit instruction in phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, comprehension, and vocabulary using evidence-based approaches. Not the alchemy of the failed Balanced Literacy system.
We have a moral and professional imperative to follow science and evidence-based approaches to teaching reading. And no, everything doesn’t go when it comes to teaching reading. Doctors gave up bleeding patients when they determined it was ineffective. We must do the same with proven ineffective educational initiatives like Balanced Reading.
Our El students are most vulnerable and at risk. They need the best curriculum, pedagogy, and assessments possible. Accept no substitutes. Follow the science.
Jill Kerper Mora 7 months ago7 months ago
The National Committee for Effective Literacy and the Reading League are to be congratulated for working together to produce this Joint Statement to acknowledge the importance of the research on literacy instruction for multilingual learners as a vital discipline within the Science of Reading. However, there is much work yet to be done to fully acknowledge and address the misinterpretations and misrepresentations of academic research that call into question the credibility of those who claim … Read More
The National Committee for Effective Literacy and the Reading League are to be congratulated for working together to produce this Joint Statement to acknowledge the importance of the research on literacy instruction for multilingual learners as a vital discipline within the Science of Reading. However, there is much work yet to be done to fully acknowledge and address the misinterpretations and misrepresentations of academic research that call into question the credibility of those who claim to have the authority to declare what is “scientific” and “evidence based” without a thorough knowledge of all the relevant research.
Those of us with expertise in language and literacy curriculum and instruction for English learners and for biliteracy learners in dual language programs continue to demand accountability for interpretations of findings of research studies that lack population validity because the sample populations of multilingual learners are not identified and data disaggregated according to learners’ characteristics. Without population validity, research findings may not be generalizable to students who are learning to read and write in their other-than native or dominant language.
Nor should legitimate and highly informative databases from non-experimental methodologies be mistakenly deemed “unscientific.” I refer specifically to the vast database of triangulated data from miscue analysis and eye movement studies in conjunction with neuroscience research. The voices of researchers with a diversity of perspectives must be honored and included if the Science of Reading is to be considered credible and applicable for improving literacy achievement for all students.
Caroline Grannan 7 months ago7 months ago
It would be interesting to know whether the districts that have fully implemented the guidelines are bringing more students to success when gauged with sound methodology. The current clamor about Science of Reading could be interpreted as faddish hype, and faddish hype has never been a a path to a successful innovation in education. The analysis below was posted by education scholar Stephen Krashen (sorry for the lack of first names): Huebeck (2023) states that due … Read More
It would be interesting to know whether the districts that have fully implemented the guidelines are bringing more students to success when gauged with sound methodology. The current clamor about Science of Reading could be interpreted as faddish hype, and faddish hype has never been a a path to a successful innovation in education. The analysis below was posted by education scholar Stephen Krashen (sorry for the lack of first names):
Huebeck (2023) states that due to “decades of research,” systematic phonics has “again emerged as best practice.”
This was not clear decades ago and is not clear now. A little more than two decades ago, Garan (2001), concluded that phonics instruction showed a large positive effect for at risk students in grades K and 1 on tests of decoding (pronouncing) regularly spelled words presented in isolation, but only a moderately positive effect for at-risk older (grades 2 to 6) children.
Phonics had only a moderate effect on measures of comprehension in K and 1, and no effect on tests of comprehension in older at risk children (grades 2 through 6). The texts, however, usually involved short, one-sentence passages and favored phonetically regular words (Garan, p. 66).
The most recent review is Bowers (2020), who reviewed 12 “meta-analyses” of the effects of phonics instruction. His conclusion: The emphasis on systematic phonics is “not justified”: “There is little or no empirical evidence that systematic phonics leads to better reading outcomes.” (p. 703).
Claims of “best practice” should be made of sterner stuff.
Bowers, J. (2020). Reconsidering the evidence that systematic phonics is more effective than alternative methods of reading instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 32:681–705
Garan, E. (2001.) What does the report of the National Reading Panel really tell us about teaching phonics? Language Arts 79,1.61-70Heubeck, E. (2023) ‘I Literally Cried’: Teachers Describe Their Transition to Science-Based Reading Instruction. Education Week. September 15, 2023.
Stephen Krashen 9/26/23