School boards and district administrators have been busy this spring adopting and subscribing to new literacy curricula. The rush to buy new books for elementary age readers is due to a new state law that requires literacy programs in all public schools based on the Science of Reading.
For nearly 30-years, the vast majority of Wisconsin school districts used the most popular reading instruction system, known as Balanced Literacy. It was developed by a New Zealand teacher that observed a single classroom of students who were being taught to “read” through the use of picture books, reading on their own, and guessing the words on the page based on what was depicted in the picture. In its time, Balanced Literacy was seen as the fun, new way to get kids to read, compared to the “boring” method used for generations before with instruction based on phonics, sounding out the letters to learn the words, and vocabulary, memorizing what words mean.
No more following along with the teacher: “C-A-T. Kuh, ah, tuh. CAT!” Now, a child could just see a cat on the page and the letters c, a, and t under it and “read” cat! (Unless they guessed “kitty”, in which case the teacher would gently asked: “What else could it be?” until the student proclaimed “cat”.) Proponents claimed that Balanced Literacy removed the drudgery from learning how to read, gave kids more control over what they read in the classroom, and created a “love of reading” that would last a lifetime.
Except, it didn’t do any of those things. Since widespread adoption of Balanced Literacy starting in the 1990’s, American schools have seen a continual decline in reading scores ranging from elementary schools all the way through high schools. Kids fell behind, and never caught up. And that made them less likely to want to pick up books.
Having covered school board meetings for two-thirds of the time Balanced Literacy was the norm in schools, I recall how excited teachers and administrators were to introduce the latest curriculum and books that they recommended for their youngest readers. Words like “fun”, “easy” and “intuitive” were commonly tossed around. And school board members, likely all raised on phonics and vocabulary learning, never asked many questions about the building blocks of reading that they had learned and how they would be applied in the new curriculum.
When the decline in reading scores started, administrator after administrator blamed the “change” and the “need for teachers and kids to adjust to this new process”. School boards and parents were assured, reading scores will improve. Then when that didn’t happen, teachers and administrators turned to blaming the “test”. “We test kids too much! They don’t have time to learn!” “Not all kids test well. Trust me, we see they can read just fine.” And school board members just nodded in agreement, and snarkily referenced all of those pesky national and state standards.
And when reading score continued to decline, teachers and administrators claimed they didn’t have enough staff or money to make sure kids could read properly. The publishers of Balanced Literacy programs issued more and more “catch up” curricula (for an additional cost), districts hired “reading coaches” and “literacy coordinators”. Parents who came to teachers’ conferences were told their kids may just have “learning issues” and should be in special education programs. Or that families should consider seeking outside help from tutors, at their own expense. All while school board members approved more money for new hires and new materials while expressing confidence that they were “taking the necessary steps to turn this around”.
And when reading scores got even lower, administrators started blaming “socio-economic factors” for why kids couldn’t read. “Kids don’t come to school prepared to learn.” “Kids aren’t read to in the home anymore.” So school districts adopted before and after school reading programs, sent kids home with free books to share with their parents, and launched all day four-year old kindergarten, three-year old kindergarten, and early childhood learning programs–while school boards went out for referendum after referendum to cover the “recurring costs”–all of which was finally going to improve reading and comprehension.
Finally, the cycle of lunacy and spending came to a stop when researchers at the collegiate level, alarmed by continuing drops in reading comprehension scores and the declining ability of the incoming students at their schools to comprehend the most basic of materials and concepts, decided to look at the techniques used to teach kids how to read. And what they found is that letting children “figure it out” with picture books and gentle suggestion was NOT how most humans learn best how to read. As it turned out, learning how to sound out letters and words better matches the way developing brains learn the spoken language, and how that brain processes new information. Phonics and vocabulary learning was vindicated.
But, that does not explain why it took an act of the Legislature in Wisconsin–and a growing number of other states–to replace Balanced Literacy with the Science of Reading programs in public schools. While you can certainly understand that changing curriculum comes with an upfront cost of subscribing to the materials and training your teachers how to instruct within the new format, you would hope that districts would see that improved reading from day one will defray the exorbitant expenses going to try and catch kids up in the current system. (Although, I can certainly see districts wanting to keep funding for all of those positions and remedial programs. If they aren’t needed anymore, how can you justify getting that additional state aid and taxpayer dollars?)
What puts me off now, is that the same administrators who pushed for Balanced Literacy for so many years in front of some of the same school board members are touting the requirement of going to the Science of Reading as an “obvious” way to raise reading scores. They are “excited”, they are “confident”, and they are “very optimistic”. School board members, who for year after year approved Balanced Literacy curricula and all of the subsequent support materials for ‘struggling readers” “can’t wait” for this “new” program–which was how I learned to read in the 1970’s and my parents learned how to read in the 1960’s.
The lone exception I’ve seen so far was Appleton School Board member Ed Ruffalo, who seemed incredulous that kids could learn how to read just by learning the sound and meanings of words, since the English language has so many homophones and words with several meanings. As was explained to the board, 85-percent of our language is “normal”–and once kids master that amount, they can learn more about the “exceptions”.
The one thing I have yet to hear at ten school board meeting about new reading curricula is an apology. Not one administrator has apologized for pushing for Balanced Literacy, leaving us with two or three generations of people who can’t read or comprehend that well. Not one school board member that willingly dumped hundreds of thousand and millions of dollars on grossly-inadequate reading programs has apologized for not questioning at any point if it might not be “the test”, or “the kid” or “the parents”, or “society in general” that was to blame for poor reading scores. I have spoken to parents who were told to their faces by teachers and reading specialists that their child “wasn’t trying hard enough”, or needs “special help” but have received no apology either for having their child put through a process that was only going to result in failure.
When the Science of Reading gets us back on track in literacy scores–and all other areas of learning–again, I hope to be retired and no longer having to cover school board meetings. I would probably be incredibly irate when those administrators who did all they could to block needed change start taking credit for the results of something they could have had for decades.
