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
How kids are taught to read in Berkeley is slowly starting to shift.
Teachers are studying the science of reading. More students are learning phonics, sounding out words by letters and syllables. And the school district is screening every student to flag those who may have dyslexia, a learning disorder that causes difficulty with reading, writing and spelling.
But these changes didn’t come easily. They are the result of a federal class-action lawsuit, filed in 2017, by four families of Berkeley students with dyslexia who claimed the district failed to teach them how to read.
And though the suit settled in 2021, the district’s method of teaching reading, a balanced literacy curriculum developed by Columbia University Teachers College professor Lucy Calkins called Units of Study, remains in place.
Rather than teaching students to sound out letters, the curriculum relies on a method called three-cueing — where students use context clues like pictures to figure out words — that has now been discredited and banned in several states. Some Berkeley teachers still use cueing, while others have dropped the practice.
Berkeley’s reckoning with how it teaches reading comes as California faces dismal reading scores and amid a push for the state to do more to ensure children are taught to read using evidence-based approaches. Last year, over half of California students and 33% of Berkeley students could not read at grade level.
Now, the wheels are just beginning to turn in a district long devoted to Calkins. Advocates hope that aligning with the science of reading will help close one of the largest achievement gaps in the country — last year, 26% of Black students in Berkeley schools met state standards in reading, compared with 83% of white students.
“Historically, Berkeley has been — and is — widely known for being a balanced literacy district,” Superintendent Enikia Ford Morthel said during a November panel discussion referring to the Calkins teaching method.
“What we want to be known for is being a district that is disrupting the narrative, disrupting persistent trends and data and really responding to our students,” she said. “This is not just another initiative. This truly is an imperative.”
Some students and parents aren’t yet convinced. Without a firm commitment to adopt a curriculum rooted in the science of reading, they are skeptical that they will see all the changes they believe are long overdue.
“At some point, you have to take responsibility,” said Rebecca Levenson, a parent of two children with dyslexia. Levenson wasn’t part of the lawsuit against the district, but she believes “it’s important for parents who see their children suffer to use their voice and power to make a difference for other families that are in that same situation.”
The Berkeley lawsuit was the second filed in California in 2017 over literacy instruction. In the other suit, the public-interest law firm Public Counsel charged on behalf of students in the lowest-performing schools that California had failed to meet their constitutional right to read. Under a $50 million settlement in 2020, 75 schools received funding and assistance to improve reading instruction. They were encouraged, but not mandated, to select instruction based on the science of reading.
While a district review of its elementary school literacy curriculum found that Units of Study failed to teach foundational literacy skills like phonics and vocabulary, Ford Morthel has stopped short of calling on the district to drop Lucy Calkins. The district is now beginning the process of adopting a new curriculum for the fall of 2025.
At a recent school board meeting, George Ellis, the court-appointed monitor, hammered home the importance of changing the Calkins curriculum. Without a “sound, comprehensive” core curriculum, he said, “it doesn’t matter what interventions we’re really providing, because we’re just filling up holes all over the place, and we’re never going to get caught up here.”
Attorneys and advocates hope the Berkeley lawsuit will spur other school districts to act faster to avoid legal action, accelerating the adoption of the science of reading in California and across the country. But Berkeley’s experience also demonstrates just how many barriers stand in the way of changing reading instruction.
When Lucy Calkins developed her approach in the 1990s, the balanced literacy teaching method was heralded as a new philosophy of education. Rather than teaching from rigid phonics textbooks, teachers introduced students to an entire library of independent books with the goal of teaching kids to love reading.
Calkins was the “guru of reading for people in Berkeley,” said Maggie Riddle, a former teacher and principal at Berkeley’s Jefferson Elementary, now called Ruth Acty. Once Calkins’ approach came to Berkeley, phonics came to be seen as a rote, old-school way of teaching, “dumbing down” instruction. “Berkeley was anti-phonics. One hundred percent,” Riddle said.
Berkeley wasn’t alone in this. Balanced literacy once enjoyed nearly universal popularity. “It was being used in every single Bay Area district,” said Deborah Jacobson, a special education attorney who brought the suit, a federal class action, against the Berkeley district seven years ago.
But the approach has fallen under fire amid a national reckoning over reading instruction, with a consensus growing that balanced literacy goes against what we know about how the brain works when learning to read.
This understanding anchors the science of reading, an approach backed by decades of exhaustive scientific research that suggests most children need systematic lessons in phonics, or how to sound out words, as well as other fundamentals, such as building knowledge and vocabulary, to learn to read. Teaching foundational reading skills especially benefits English learners. Advocates say reading is a civil right and phonics helps bring social justice to Black students.
More than half of states have passed laws requiring schools to align with research-based methods or favoring phonics. In September, Columbia University cut ties with the Reading and Writing Project that Calkins led for decades, citing the need to seek out new perspectives. Calkins herself has revised her curriculum to incorporate more explicit instruction in phonics and phonemic awareness.
A decade ago, California adopted a framework for K-12 literacy that encouraged districts to use evidence-based reading instruction, now commonly called the science of reading. But it wasn’t required, and the state didn’t push districts to adopt it.
Over the past two years, the state has taken steps toward a literacy plan but continues to leave to districts what curriculum and textbooks to use under a policy of local control. A new law passed in the summer will require that all children be screened for dyslexia and other reading disorders beginning in 2025. And by July 1, California will require teacher preparation programs to provide literacy training based on the science of reading.
Still, advocates say these changes don’t go far enough. The California Early Literacy Coalition plans to sponsor legislation that would create a comprehensive state literacy plan, mandating training in the science of reading for all teachers, not just new ones, and requiring the use of textbooks rooted in the approach.
When Berkeley Unified was sued in 2017, Riddle said she saw it as an opportunity. She had moved up through the ranks to become head of K-8 schools and led legal negotiations for the district for two years. “Nobody ever wants the district to be sued, but it cast a light on the needs of kids in reading, especially kids with dyslexia,” Riddle said.
Not everyone saw it that way. It took five years to reach a settlement agreement, and the district’s core curriculum was a sticking point in negotiations. “The resistance was serious, but the lawsuit was serious, too,” recalled Riddle. During negotiations, the district implemented Fast Track Phonics to get phonics instruction into classrooms, but advocates criticized the decision as putting a Band-Aid on a broken system, leaving the core Calkins curriculum intact.
Berkeley signed the settlement agreement in 2021, but due to the pandemic, didn’t start working on implementation until the following year, extending the three-year plan until 2025. Initially, Ellis, the court monitor, criticized the school district and its board for failing to embrace the settlement. And in February, Jacobson said the district had breached the settlement agreement by moving too slowly, but decided not to file a notice in court after district leaders promised action.
In the last year and a half, the district has started taking steps toward the science of reading.
Elementary teachers did a book study of “Shifting the Balance,” an introduction to science of reading practices. The district implemented a universal screening system to flag students who might have dyslexia and started training literacy coaches to implement phonics-based intervention programs like Orton-Gillingham and Heggerty. The district also established a new department of curriculum and instruction, hired a districtwide literacy specialist, and began developing a multi-tiered system of support for struggling readers.
The district’s new focus has made a huge difference for some teachers, even those with decades of experience.
Angélica Pérez, a reading specialist at Thousand Oaks Elementary, said though she has known about phonics for years and even taught it, only recently has she received the systematic training she needed to implement it well with struggling readers.
The changes have won over some of the district’s critics, including Jacobson. “There is a new sense of urgency with the new administration and a new level of commitment,” Jacobson said. “Every year the light bulb seems to go on, more and more.”
They have also earned the praise of the teachers union president. “There is a systematic plan to make sure our teachers are getting what they need so they can do their jobs best,” said Matt Meyer, president of the Berkeley Federation of Teachers.
For families whose children struggle with reading, Berkeley’s decades-long commitment to balanced literacy came at a price. Many students with dyslexia have either missed out on learning, or their parents have paid thousands of dollars in private tutoring to catch them up.
“After a certain point, the research shows that it becomes unrecoverable,” said Eliza Noh, a Berkeley parent who has a child with dyslexia. “The early years for teaching people how to read are critical.”
Levenson’s two children, Eva Levenson and Wen Dolphin, both have dyslexia and attended Berkeley schools 18 years apart. But Eva received private reading intervention, while Wen did not. The family says their experience shows the difference phonics-based intervention can make.
Dolphin dropped out of school at 15, while Eva, now a sophomore at Berkeley High, is taking the same challenging classes as her peers. She began writing for The Jacket, Berkeley High’s student newspaper, and in October, penned an article about the Calkins curriculum.
“I know that my life trajectory could have been very different if I would have had the support that I needed in those really formative years,” Dolphin told a crowd at a Berkeley school board meeting last year.
When Lindsay Nofelt’s son was diagnosed with dyslexia, she shelled out thousands of dollars on a phonics-based intensive reading intervention program. Her son’s reading ability improved quickly, but what took Nofelt longer to piece together was Berkeley’s role in her son’s story.
Even after listening to Emily Hanford’s podcast “Sold a Story,” which thrust Calkins’ curriculum into the spotlight, she didn’t connect the literacy debate to Berkeley schools.
“I thought, if Emily Hanford is writing about this and sounds like it’s not serving the needs of the students, then there’s no way that Berkeley Unified school system would use such a discredited curriculum,” Nofelt said.
But over time, Nofelt realized her son wasn’t the only one in Berkeley struggling with reading. As she learned more about the science of reading and the class-action lawsuit, she realized that the kind of reading instruction Hanford was describing in her podcast was happening in Berkeley. “When I found out they were one and the same, all of the pieces fell into place,” she said.
Two years ago, Nofelt formed Reading for Berkeley to educate parents about early literacy and give them resources to advocate for their children. It’s now a resource that Nofelt wishes she had when she was trying to help her son — digestible content designed to help families ask questions about their children’s literacy education and support their reading abilities.
Today, students with dyslexia and their parents are watching Berkeley closely, their hope resting on the district’s commitment to the science of reading.
At a recent school board meeting in January, Eva Levenson told the Berkeley school board directors and superintendent that she is still waiting to see a plan that addresses the failure of the district’s core curriculum.
“I don’t understand what’s in the way of making a shift when, both in other states and locally, districts are able to help kids now. How is it possible we aren’t doing it in Berkeley right now?”
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 (20)
Comments Policy
We welcome your comments. All comments are moderated for civility, relevance and other considerations. Click here for EdSource's Comments Policy.
Jim Brown 3 months ago3 months ago
I appreciate the progressive approach that BUSD maintains to provide the best learning experience for every student. I am an elementary teacher at MDUSD, having worked here for 25 years, and I have seen many changes in reading instruction. I agree with the intent of keeping people informed about developing practices in education. The article recently posted offers evidence about the reading war currently in the spotlight. I find it extremely invaluable to keep the … Read More
I appreciate the progressive approach that BUSD maintains to provide the best learning experience for every student. I am an elementary teacher at MDUSD, having worked here for 25 years, and I have seen many changes in reading instruction. I agree with the intent of keeping people informed about developing practices in education. The article recently posted offers evidence about the reading war currently in the spotlight. I find it extremely invaluable to keep the public finger on the pulse of what is going on.
Despite this, a recent article challenged Berkeley’s decision to use this curriculum, citing incomplete and sometimes incorrect information about its effectiveness. The Units of Study curriculum has been a game-changer for many schools, including mine, leading students in those schools to higher levels of success and joy in reading and writing. Its 21st-century curriculum, in particular, has gained widespread recognition as a child-friendly, responsive, yet challenging language arts curriculum that accelerates the development of both reading and writing skills in ways that also support teacher professionalism and agency. It was never the case that the Units bypassed phonics: Calkins has 22 books on phonics.
Furthermore, the 2022 edition of the Units of Study are deeply grounded in essential research findings from the Science of Reading, and the Units are supported by a collection of decodable texts being heralded as some of the best of their kind. Thanks to its creator, Lucy Calkins, the revised Units of Study curriculum prioritizes phonics instruction in both reading and writing, encouraging teachers to prompt students to focus on the letters before meaning when they encounter tricky words. The new Units also emphasize the importance of phonemic awareness, which is crucial in developing critical reading and writing skills.
Granted, no curriculum alone leads to student success. Schools that have flourished using the Units of Study curriculum attribute their success to the curriculum and effective teaching methods, innovative educational strategies, strong leadership, and a focused commitment to student achievement and well-being.
I am concerned that when George Ellis presented his findings during a recent Berkeley Unified School District Board Meeting, his recommendations were based on outdated data and did not reflect the updated Units of Study curriculum. The 2020 lawsuit settlement can be met by the district giving all-important attention to students with special needs: it needn’t create the curricular disruption and expense and implementation lag that will be the consequence of any decision to alter the general ed curriculum. The settlement requires new IEP goals and universal screening, and it focuses on district-wide reading intervention and SPED policies, procedures, and practices, all of which I support. These changes can and should be implemented without the district departing from the successful Units of Study.
Ellis acknowledged that implementing effective reading instruction can be complex and challenging and that no single curriculum can support the reading needs of every student. The Response to Intervention (RtI) model has three tiers that ensure a foundational support system that intensifies based on student needs. By following this model, the district can provide effective reading intervention and support to its students and can do so while holding firm to the vibrant and effective Units of Study curriculum.
In conclusion, the Units of Study curriculum has proven to be an effective tool in helping schools achieve higher levels of student success. It is essential to understand that effective reading instruction is not a one-size-fits-all solution but a rather complex and nuanced process. Therefore, it is crucial to adopt a responsive and adaptive approach that provides students with the support and intervention they need to succeed.
Replies
Brian Caulfield 3 months ago3 months ago
“In conclusion, the Units of Study curriculum has proven to be an effective tool in helping schools achieve higher levels of student success.”
Share your data supporting this assertion.
Thank you.
Anne 3 months ago3 months ago
While all students deserve excellent research-based reading strategies and instruction, as an educator, I am confused by this article because what you refer to as “Lucy Caulkins” units of study actually does come with large boxes of phonics kit instruction. I know this because I myself have prepped these phonics kits for co-teachers.
P. David Pearson 3 months ago3 months ago
My name is P. David Pearson, and I retired in 2017 from UC Berkeley, where I taught and conducted reading research as a professor and dean in the Berkeley School of Education. Thanks to Ally Markovich for bringing what has become a national conversation (really a debate that borders on a free-for-all at times) down to the local level. Unfortunately, things are a lot more complicated than Ally Markovich's wide reaching and ambitious piece suggests. First, … Read More
My name is P. David Pearson, and I retired in 2017 from UC Berkeley, where I taught and conducted reading research as a professor and dean in the Berkeley School of Education. Thanks to Ally Markovich for bringing what has become a national conversation (really a debate that borders on a free-for-all at times) down to the local level. Unfortunately, things are a lot more complicated than Ally Markovich’s wide reaching and ambitious piece suggests.
First, neither Calkins’ Units of Study nor other programs labeled balanced literacy fail to teach phonics. Granted they tend not to rely exclusively on the centuries-old synthetic phonics (decoding “bat” as buh+ah+tuh = /bat/). But they do teach students to unlock unknown words by using a combination of these word-reading approaches.
(a) decoding words sequentially by relying on letter-sound knowledge,
(b) using word families (if you can know the -at family of words and can combine that knowledge with knowledge of the sounds associated with consonants at the beginnings of words, then you can read a bunch of words, like cat mat sat fat rat pat vat),
(c) reading entire words, especially those with tricky or ambiguous spelling-sound patterns (of, the, give, have, great, sew, read) as complete, intact units, and
(d) using sentence context, oral language expertise, and world knowledge either to narrow down the range of possible pronunciations (it must be either hav or hayv) or to confirm an hypothesis (hayv doesn’t make sense, so I’ll go with hav).
I’m not here to defend Units of Study per se, but it must be recognized that in their latest edition, Calkins and her colleagues did infuse a lot more word reading curriculum activities, including sequential decoding than in earlier editions.
Second, it is unfortunate that depictions of what is called the Science of Reading in both social media (e.g., Emily Hanford’s Sold a Story or any of her earlier pieces) and the popular press (e.g., Nicholas Kristof’s error-ridden piece in the New York Times) have tended to focus on the allegedly overwhelming body of evidence favoring a phonics approach to early reading over alternative approaches, such as whole language (which has not been in widespread use in California or other states since the ascendancy of President George W. Bush’s No Child Left Behind initiative circa 2002) or some version of balanced literacy.
After reviewing the research on the efficacy of systematic phonics versus alternatives across many decades, the 2000 National Reading Panel report, which is the main citation used by those who are strong phonics advocates, concluded that there is a robust if not enduring advantage to early systematic phonics instruction over unsystematic phonics, and the effect is much more reliable on measures of word identification than on text comprehension if the program (a) is delivered in the early (K-2) grades, and (b) is part of a comprehensive curriculum that attends to other important program features such as comprehension, language, and knowledge development.
Moreover, there is little evidence supporting later phonics instruction (past grade 2) or the use of specialized decodable texts (such as Dan can fan Nan). [Sounds a lot like what many of us, myself included, call balanced literacy]. Nor was there any evidence that synthetic (the sequential decoding of buh-ah-tuh) approaches were superior to other more analytic approaches (such as word families); what mattered was that the approaches were systematic.
Post-National Reading Panel syntheses of the research (after 2000) have consistently found that early systematic phonics emphasis programs elicit (a) consistent advantages over other programs (usually less-systematic approaches) on measures of the reading of isolated real words and pseudowords (e.g. lan or san) and (b) inconsistent and short-lived effects on comprehension.
My conclusion after reading all of this work: We all tend to fall victim to the quest for that single, silver bullet that will fix everything and ensure that every student learns to read well. What’s worse is that the longer and louder we shout the glories of our personal panacea from the educational treetops, the more likely we are to sink into our own ideological marshes, where the only people we talk to are folks who think just like us. The debate sounds way too much like our political debates over immigration, abortion, book censorship, or universal health care.
Reformer 1 says, It’s the code! And if we would just see to it that kids learn phonics, the rest would take care of itself. Problem solved!
Reformer 2 says, It’s language! If we would just rely on language strengths and build from there, presto, problem solved!
Reformer 3 says, It’s strategies! Equip kids with strategies to work out the bumps (puzzling words and puzzling meanings) along the road to reading expertise, and they’ll take it from there. Problem solved!
Reformer 4 says, It’s motivation! Engage kids, and… problem solved!
Reformer 5 says, It’s knowledge! If we would just focus more on knowledge, the need to teach so many skills and strategies would suddenly vanish. Problem solved!
Reformer 6 says, It’s cultural relevance! If we would just see to it that all kids could see themselves in the curriculum, … problem solved!
Reformer whatever says, It’s whatever! If we would just address whatever, problem solved!
A generous interpretation of the debate is that these single-factor solutions are the unintended consequences of enthusiastic attempts by well-meaning scholars and educators to ensure that their absolutely essential research-based practice receives the emphasis it deserves in school reading programs. But parties to these quests risk playing a zero-sum game—a game in which the only way one position can win is if another loses.
Here’s my reading: We gotta do it all! Reading and writing are too complex to believe or hope that simple, single-factor approaches will solve the puzzle of making meaning in the presence of texts. In my reading, no panaceas exist–not even systematic, synthetic phonics, and not even the richest, most progressive of knowledge-based curricula.
Third, I applaud the systematic screening of students for dyslexia, and I hope the tools will screen for a range of factors that might contribute to less-than-adequate reading performance: surely potential problems with auditory and visual processes, but also with language, knowledge, motivation, and social/emotional factors. Reading difficulty, like reading expertise, is a multi-faceted phenomenon; and so our screeners must be, and, for that matter, all our assessments of progress in becoming literate must be multi-faceted.
Fourth, if anyone believes that increasing the emphasis on early phonics, especially synthetic phonics, is going to solve the reading problem or close the achievement gap, I predict—with a high degree of confidence—that they will be disappointed.
My prediction is that 5 or 6 or 8 years from now, we will be chewing on the stagnant reading scores from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) — and we will be engaging in a retrospective analysis of how we could ever have believed that a simple return to the good old days of teaching the code (just like we ourselves were taught way back when) would be the silver bullet.
We will repeat the retrospective analyses we did after the cognitive revolution of the 70s and early 80s, or the Whole Language era of the late 80s and early 90s, or the No Child Left Behind period of the Bush II years, or the more recent supposedly Balanced Literacy era. When it is no longer possible to attribute what we regard as abominable scores on the reading portion of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) to balanced literacy or Lucy Calkins, we will look for a new scapegoat. And the most likely candidate will be the particular version of the Science of Reading that underlies a lot of the current reform rhetoric.
By the way, I am all for the science of reading (or preferably the sciences of reading)—but I see lots of shortcomings in the currently fashionable Science of Reading. Another by the way regarding NAEP: looking at the long arc, NAEP reading scores have not gone to hell in a handbasket since they started the trend lines in the early 1970s; to the contrary they rose steadily through the 70s into the mid 90s and have stagnated with minor ups and downs since then, at least until the onset of Covid, which really did knock NAEP scores for a loop. Moreover, it would be foolhardy to attribute the ebbs and flows of NAEP to any particular movement or approach to teaching literacy; too much else is going on in the world for simple attributions.
Fifth, and I am now moving from points for which I can cite supportive evidence to moral and ethical values I hold—as they apply to issues that plague our society. It’s appropriate for the broader society to expect the educational community to do its damnedest to offer all students curricular opportunities to acquire the literacy skills to get a good job, be a good citizen, and live a good and personally satisfying life. I don’t know a single educator who strives for less than that. We want to improve those opportunities and talents for all students, and we want—in the process—to close those gaps between majority and minority and between rich and poor.
But after spending 60 years (my first teaching job began in a 5th- grade classroom in Porterville, CA in September 1964) trying to do just that, I have concluded that the broader society has to do its part as well. We won’t solve the reading problem in America until and unless we solve a host of other problems. The right to read entails the right to the very best and most scientifically grounded and culturally sustaining curriculum we can muster. But it also entails many other rights: good health care, pre-school learning opportunities, decent and affordable housing, satisfying jobs, safe neighborhoods, fair justice systems. We won’t get to any of these rights without fundamental reforms that redistribute wealth, income, and privilege. Time to get moving on that agenda, starting with the fall elections.
Sixth, and in this final point I want to bring it back to Berkeley. I’m glad that Berkeley schools are embracing the code, screening for dyslexia (and other reading stumbling blocks) and upping the ante on ensuring that all kids have a full range of tools to unlock words that puzzle them. It helps to know what sounds the letters make! But not by putting brakes on the other facets of the curriculum on which Berkeley has made lots of progress across many different curriculum cycles.
Let’s not turn the discussion into a zero-sum game in which we teach more word-level stuff and work less with language, knowledge, motivation, collaboration, cultural relevance, comprehension, or critique. Even though most scholars who support the SoR are careful to say that the science is about more than decoding, it is the decoding message that captures the headlines in the social and print media. The last thing we need in the current post-truth era is readers who can decode with meticulous accuracy the texts they might otherwise take at face value. Skepticism, perhaps the canonical scientific value, should not be sacrificed while enacting the science of reading.
If you want to know more about my reading of this whole science of reading reform movement, here is the url for a recent chapter I wrote with Kristi Madda and Taffy Raphael. And here is the url to a webinar on the topic that my colleague Rob Tierney and I hosted in September of 2023.
P David Pearson
Oakland, CA
Replies
Dr. Bill Conrad 3 months ago3 months ago
Dr. Pearson. Methinks Thou Dost Protest Too Much. The war is over. The debate is over. Evidence based and scientific approaches to teaching reading are now accepted as they should have been from after the publication of the National Reading Panel Report 20 years ago. You engage in logical fallacy when you reduce the recommendations of the National Reading Panel as being just old time phonics or decoding. Actually, the National Reading Panel argued that … Read More
Dr. Pearson. Methinks Thou Dost Protest Too Much.
The war is over. The debate is over. Evidence based and scientific approaches to teaching reading are now accepted as they should have been from after the publication of the National Reading Panel Report 20 years ago.
You engage in logical fallacy when you reduce the recommendations of the National Reading Panel as being just old time phonics or decoding. Actually, the National Reading Panel argued that there are 5 essential elements to teach reading that include phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, comprehension, and vocabulary. Your failure to include all of the elements of a quality early reading program are disingenuous at best. Misrepresentation of the science of reading will not win the day.
The theory of action promoted by the science of reading is far superior to the Balanced Reading Approach. In order to become effective readers, children must first hear the small sounds of oral language – the 44 phonemes. Next, they must associate these small sounds with graphemes or letters (aka phonics). Thirdly, children must read with automaticity so that they can devote more mental energy to comprehension. (fluency). And of course all of this work supports comprehension and vocabulary attainment for which there are also evidence-based approaches.
The balanced reading approach theory of action rests primarily on providing children with leveled readers expecting that exposure to text over time will ultimately improve the complexity of text that children can read. This approach has failed as evidenced by the mountain of student reading achievement data that demonstrates that fewer than half of children read at grade level. My analysis has shown that over 20 years, almost 50 million 4th grade children are not reading at proficient levels nationwide as measured by NAEP.
While the Units of Study included some phonics lessons, most who taught the program knew that these phonics lessons were optional and few taught them and none in a systematic way. When I was the Accountability director in Santa Clara Unified, I once queried a group of kindergarten teachers who were using the Units of Study if they could explain the difference between phonemic awareness and phonics. None could. Even the reading coach could not explain the difference. When presented with this uncomfortable information, the Reading curriculum director for the district claimed that it would be impossible for teachers not to know the difference between phonemic awareness and phonics as all of this had been explained to them at a professional development workshop two years ago.
Implementation is a critical problem in education. While many things may be in a curriculum, much is not taught even if it is important. But I am sure you know that. And of course it is a lurking danger in the upcoming implementation of science of reading approaches.
All roads do not lead to Rome when it comes to teaching reading. It is beyond time to recognize that science and evidence-based approaches to teaching reading following the 5 essential themes of reading is the way to move forward. There is much research to be done as you note in the teaching of phonemic awareness, phonics, and fluency to students who are struggling with reading beyond third grade. We should not use this deficiency though as a cudgel against science based approaches to teaching reading in grades K-2.
There are no magic bullets as you note. There is science though. And science now rules in education. Thank goodness as it has been a long time coming.
Lindsay Nofelt 3 months ago3 months ago
I really appreciate reading the discussion on this excellent reporting by Ally. This article isn't really about our experience with kids who struggle to read, (it's more about how hard it is to change a system even with a lawsuit to force it). However, I think our anecdotal stories help give the context that there are real kids and families who suffer because ineffective and misguided approaches to teaching reading were used.There are thousands of … Read More
I really appreciate reading the discussion on this excellent reporting by Ally. This article isn’t really about our experience with kids who struggle to read, (it’s more about how hard it is to change a system even with a lawsuit to force it). However, I think our anecdotal stories help give the context that there are real kids and families who suffer because ineffective and misguided approaches to teaching reading were used.There are thousands of us in Berkeley at this point. A few hundred each year that graduate with diplomas from Berkeley High who can’t read effectively.
This is the reality in a system that didn’t believe in data or evidence to inform practice. The system isn’t just broken for kids diagnosed with dyslexia. This is why the article referenced the achievement gap.
To round this out: My oldest child didn’t benefit from the screeners in place, and I think that a data point would have helped me believe in my gut when I asked educators to help, and listen to my intuition instead of them when I was told to wait it out. We are still battling bad habits at home, guessing words based on context and the first letter instead of taking time to break it up and read the actual word. I do blame the idea that there are “many ways to read” for this.
Things are changing: My youngest did get screened, and when I asked for and saw those scores, I was able to teach him to read at home (“100 easy lessons” for the win).
My hope is that with consistent, effective, and systematic foundational skills being taught in the classroom, the next generation of kids don’t need to be taught to read at home. Instead, that would happen at school and parents can just reinforce all the good stuff happening at school.
If this new curriculum is high quality and starts in 2025 as planned we should see the effect in state scores in 2030 when my kids are in high school. So I’ll still be around watching, and doing my best to make my experience an outlier instead of common.
Marshall Eubanks 3 months ago3 months ago
"How is it possible we aren’t doing it in Berkeley right now?” They circle the wagons and reject change. Problem kids and their parents will "age out" if we can stall long enough. Public education does not serve the children or their parents anymore. They haven't in decades. Drive through a district office parking lot sometime. It looks like a luxury car lot. Educators have a lot to protect and hide. 'Your … Read More
“How is it possible we aren’t doing it in Berkeley right now?” They circle the wagons and reject change. Problem kids and their parents will “age out” if we can stall long enough.
Public education does not serve the children or their parents anymore. They haven’t in decades. Drive through a district office parking lot sometime. It looks like a luxury car lot. Educators have a lot to protect and hide.
‘Your tax dollars at work!
Replies
N Rios 1 month ago1 month ago
If you’re in the district office, those are most likely administrators’ cars, not those belonging to actual teachers/educators. I’m still driving my 200,000+ miles clunker.
Frances O'Neill Zimmerman 3 months ago3 months ago
A renowned expert in early childhood literacy and advocate for effective teaching of reading to children was recently-deceased Superintendent Anthony Alvarado of New York City District 2 public schools who became Chancellor of Instruction in San Diego Unified K-12 in 1998. Alvarado believed highly-trained teachers could foster life-long reading among young children by using frequent read-alouds along with phonics-based instruction, carefully-leveled reading libraries in every classroom and every … Read More
A renowned expert in early childhood literacy and advocate for effective teaching of reading to children was recently-deceased Superintendent Anthony Alvarado of New York City District 2 public schools who became Chancellor of Instruction in San Diego Unified K-12 in 1998.
Alvarado believed highly-trained teachers could foster life-long reading among young children by using frequent read-alouds along with phonics-based instruction, carefully-leveled reading libraries in every classroom and every classroom an information-rich information environment with many opportunities to see printed words, to use spoken language and to write independently.
Alvarado’s system was not called “science of reading,” but it was joyous and very effective.
Elizabeth Silva 3 months ago3 months ago
I'm retired now, but phonics was the way to go when I was a child and it's still the way to go. How on earth can the average person read without phonemic awareness? Of my four children, two needed specific phonics instruction – and one of them even had to tap out syllables on her arm, and two (because of their learning styles) almost absorbed the sounds of the letters seemingly by osmosis. They … Read More
I’m retired now, but phonics was the way to go when I was a child and it’s still the way to go. How on earth can the average person read without phonemic awareness?
Of my four children, two needed specific phonics instruction – and one of them even had to tap out syllables on her arm, and two (because of their learning styles) almost absorbed the sounds of the letters seemingly by osmosis. They learned to read that quickly, but it was still based on phonemes. What makes me mad is the constant reinventing of the wheel when it’s unnecessary and even counterproductive.
Andrea Calhoun 3 months ago3 months ago
I'm concerned by the bias and misinformation in this article. I agree that it must be very distressing and disorienting for a parent with a child with dyslexia that has fallen behind in reading. But the curriculum itself cannot diagnose children. The way in which this article sets the criticism up this way is incredibly odd. It's up to the states/districts/administrators to implement assessments that help identify dyslexia and other potential learning disabilities. Like Xandra, … Read More
I’m concerned by the bias and misinformation in this article. I agree that it must be very distressing and disorienting for a parent with a child with dyslexia that has fallen behind in reading. But the curriculum itself cannot diagnose children.
The way in which this article sets the criticism up this way is incredibly odd. It’s up to the states/districts/administrators to implement assessments that help identify dyslexia and other potential learning disabilities. Like Xandra, I believe the critique is on training and priorities over curriculum writers.
Karen Yee 3 months ago3 months ago
This article is disheartening! As a reading specialist for over 20 years, I know well the role "systematic phonics" plays for early readers and continued "word study" plays for older readers. However, I also understand how the integration of the three cueing systems work in support of reading development! The "cuing system" concept was not developed by Lucy Calkins, but by Joy Cowley, a New Zealand Educator who's research is known throughout International … Read More
This article is disheartening! As a reading specialist for over 20 years, I know well the role “systematic phonics” plays for early readers and continued “word study” plays for older readers. However, I also understand how the integration of the three cueing systems work in support of reading development! The “cuing system” concept was not developed by Lucy Calkins, but by Joy Cowley, a New Zealand Educator who’s research is known throughout International Reading Research Institutions!
I get very tired of the “either-or” discussion for reading instruction programs. I can not speak about reading instruction in the Berkley Unified S.D., but I can speak about classroom reading instruction in other districts where I have had direct experience. Well-trained teachers use both systems to support and motivate their students, guiding them to independent reading with appropriate comprehension. Students with dyslexia barriers need extra/more instruction … so early diagnosis and intervention is critical.
Let’s support legislation that provides early diagnosis of dyslexia and easy access to needed interventions to support student success in reading. Let’s support quality professional development and preparation for our teachers of reading.
Larry Wiener 3 months ago3 months ago
There has been talk of screening all students for dyslexia. It doesn’t take very long. It was asked because some people thought it might be discriminatory. I think we would serve a lot of students by universal screening.
Replies
John Fensterwald 3 months ago3 months ago
Larry, screening of all K-2 students for dyslexia and other reading challenges will be required, starting in 2025-26. The state will fund teacher training on a screening tool that UCSF has developed, with state funding, although districts will be able to choose from a list of screeners.
Jim 3 months ago3 months ago
The unions are opposed to screening and have blocked it for decades. EdSource has written about this numerous times. https://edsource.org/2022/why-is-california-one-of-the-last-states-to-not-screen-children-for-dyslexia/682543
Caroline Digman 1 week ago1 week ago
Hi Jim. I teach the 2nd Grade. 9 yrs in. I've talked to two CTA rep council members and I asked why CTA opposed screening. (I'm a CTA member and come from a long line of union reps.) One said CTA was fully aware that screening would compel a switch to structured literacy. It was never about the validity/importance of screening, it was a philosophical stance that CTA doesn't want teachers to be told … Read More
Hi Jim. I teach the 2nd Grade. 9 yrs in. I’ve talked to two CTA rep council members and I asked why CTA opposed screening. (I’m a CTA member and come from a long line of union reps.) One said CTA was fully aware that screening would compel a switch to structured literacy. It was never about the validity/importance of screening, it was a philosophical stance that CTA doesn’t want teachers to be told what to do.
For my context, I have a child with a severe phonological disorder. But he’s actually reading because he’s never been exposed to 3-cueing. For some more context, prior to working in education, I worked in criminal defense parole advocacy. I was a clerk who managed a small regional office for the California Parole Advocacy Program which was based out of McGeorge. Came out of the Valdivia Supreme Court case that due process was being repeatedly violated with parolees who had their parole revoked. Anywho…I spent two years at this job. I spent upwards of 20 hours a week reading paperwork to clients who could. not. read. Nonviolent offenders. “I can’t read, maa’m….can you read me my papers.” Over and over and over again. My office and another office handled 30,000 hearings a year. It was so rare that a client could actually read….
CTA’s most recent letter of opposition, this time to AB 2222, said everything about what I think is their real reason for opposition. Once again – a philosophical opinion and not based on science. It was at the very end of the letter. I’m paraphrasing, but it said something about not wanting to take away the joy teachers have. The now-retired first grade teacher who sent me her students for many years felt so much joy with Readers Workshop. Unfortunately, 1/3 of the students weren’t decoding at all and another 1/3 were muddling through, relying on memorization.
Here’s some final personal context. I come from a Union household, I’m a member of CTA, and I’m a union rep.
xandra castleton 3 months ago3 months ago
As the parent of a junior in BUSD whose dyslexia, dyscalculia + ADHD etc. wasn't diagnosed until 8th grade (the suggestion was adamantly poo-poo'd by all her BUSD teachers), I can confirm that not only was one particular bright, formerly book-loving child failed in elementary school, the district has zero services for dyslexia once they're in high school (that I could find, and I tried)*. This reporting is so important. I want to stress … Read More
As the parent of a junior in BUSD whose dyslexia, dyscalculia + ADHD etc. wasn’t diagnosed until 8th grade (the suggestion was adamantly poo-poo’d by all her BUSD teachers), I can confirm that not only was one particular bright, formerly book-loving child failed in elementary school, the district has zero services for dyslexia once they’re in high school (that I could find, and I tried)*.
This reporting is so important. I want to stress that it must be hard for the teachers to learn that they were teaching kids the wrong way, and most I’ve met are caring and well-intentioned. My comments and advocacy shouldn’t be taken as a critique of the teachers, but of the administration, who decides on the training and priorities.
*That could make a good follow-up article. Happy to talk + put you in touch with other parents of high schoolers with dyslexia 🙂
Replies
Brian C 3 months ago3 months ago
As the parent of a dyslexic child I hate to say this, but you can’t rely on the public school system.
The only solution is to hire private tutoring.
That’s not equitable.
But I’m afraid we’re beyond the point where public policy solutions can be hoped for within the next few years.
The problems with the balanced literacy approach have been known for decades.
Dr. Bill Comrad 3 months ago3 months ago
The children struggle to read because teachers, administrators, and governance fail to teach reading properly. This travesty is beyond imagination! When scientists discover an evidenced-based explanation for a natural phenomena, they immediately jettison older explanations. They would never try to create a balanced explanation. There is a paradigm shift. This is how science adopted the Copernican explanation that the earth revolves around the sun giving up the Ptolemaic explanation that the sun revolves around the … Read More
The children struggle to read because teachers, administrators, and governance fail to teach reading properly. This travesty is beyond imagination!
When scientists discover an evidenced-based explanation for a natural phenomena, they immediately jettison older explanations. They would never try to create a balanced explanation. There is a paradigm shift.
This is how science adopted the Copernican explanation that the earth revolves around the sun giving up the Ptolemaic explanation that the sun revolves around the earth! Education ought to follow the same model and adopt a paradigm shift towards science-based approaches to teaching reading. No exceptions.
Sadly education leaders within CA are extraordinarily weak seeking to accommodate both approaches to teaching reading. It will never work and children and families will suffer.
It might be a good idea to follow the money in this situation as it is not unheard of within K-12 education to get a wide array of perks and kickbacks for adopting a curriculum whether it is good for students or not!
Replies
Brian C 3 months ago3 months ago
“It might be a good idea to follow the money in this situation as it is not unheard of within K-12 education to get a wide array of perks and kickbacks for adopting a curriculum whether it is good for students or not!”
In a prior post you mentioned you worked in public educaton.
Any clues you can offer on how to substantiate this? What does this look like? What can I look for, as parent?
Many thanks!