One size doesn’t fit all in learning how to read

Credit: Allison Shelley for American Education

The K-12 “reading wars” discussions have been missing a critical point: No matter the curriculum used, too often, teachers are being asked to stick to a script and execute equal teaching, not equitable teaching. And equal teaching is illegal.

In the panicked quest to improve literacy outcomes, it’s tempting for schools and teachers to fall back on a “one-size-fits-all” scripted curriculum despite our knowledge that teaching all students the same thing, in the same way, at the same pace, can be ineffective for students with language or learning differences. Students have individual strengths and needs, and teachers should differentiate their approaches in response to the individuals in their class.

If it’s the same for everyone, it’s not targeted toward anyone.   

Equal, non-differentiated instruction is illegal for our students who are classified as English learners or who require special education services. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990 ensures that students with special needs are appropriately served by schools. Modifications and accommodations are required based on students’ strengths and needs to meet their individual education plans. Equal teaching — everyone getting the same thing — is not appropriate.

Similarly, in the 1974 Lau v. Nichols case, the Supreme Court determined that San Francisco’s school district was required to provide equal access — not equal instruction, but equal access — to all students. For students classified as English learners, English language development support was needed to provide students access to the core curriculum. The court based its decision on Section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 

If we were to expand the intention behind the court’s decision, we would ensure that all students — regardless of home language, ZIP code, or cultural background — get equitable access to education. This means doing whatever it takes to support individual students, not giving every student the same instruction. In particular, research has shown that scripted curricula don’t work for multilingual students. So, what does? Recently, science of reading advocates and multilingual advocates — including researchers — published a joint statement identifying literacy practices that are effective for multilingual students.

How can all students be successful? While a complete solution would extend beyond the education system, here are two important and realistic steps that could move us forward:

Improved and ongoing professional learning for teachers. The better teachers get at observing, assessing, diagnosing and intervening at points of difficulty, the better they will get at modifying and differentiating instruction based on students’ needs and strengths. Identifying students’ needs before they fall behind is key. The further behind they fall, the harder it is for students to catch up. By identifying and meeting individual needs, teachers can help all students succeed. Doing so requires equitable — not equal — teaching. Ongoing professional learning is required to help teachers continually practice and improve their skills. 

Culturally and linguistically responsive instruction. It’s important for students to see themselves in the curriculum to develop a sense of belonging and to increase engagement. Traditionally, students who are different in any way — whether by language, (dis)ability, culture, religion, race, ethnicity, immigration status, etc. — do not see themselves represented in the curriculum. Students from historically marginalized communities may not see themselves in the characters or content they study and can feel like outsiders, as if school is intended for others, not them. Teachers who learn from and about their students and who authentically integrate students’ lived experiences into the curriculum can engage and motivate students in their classroom. When teachers use culturally and linguistically responsive instruction, it is inclusive and not generic, not scripted and not the same for all. It is equitable, not equal.

These research-based solutions are not complex, but they require districts’ focus and state funding for teachers to have access to high-quality professional learning.

The most significant factor that impacts student learning is the teacher. So, the next time someone says that students should all receive the same instruction, share with them what works for individual students. Remind them that teachers have a legal obligation to provide all students access to content, and differentiated, culturally responsive approaches are needed to achieve that. 

●●●

Allison Briceño is an associate professor at San José State University and an OpEd Project Public Voices Fellow.
Claudia Rodriguez-Mojica is an associate professor of teaching at the University of California, Davis.

The opinions in this commentary are those of the authors. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.