To the Editor:
Re “OPINION: A name for rejecting the latest studying wars” (Nov. 18, 2022)
We’re lecturers who have been bought the very story that journalist Emily Hanford describes in her new podcast: a delusion about how college students be taught to crack the alphabetic code. So, we have been dissatisfied to see the latest letter by 58 professors, authors and curriculum builders responding to Hanford’s work. As an alternative of taking the chance to adapt their message, supplies and pedagogy in response to a powerful physique of proof, synthesized by Hanford for a public viewers, they provided an empty and disingenuous name to “reject the latest studying wars.”
However a central level of the “Bought a Story” podcast is that the analysis “wars” round foundational studying expertise have been already gained and misplaced many years in the past — and that few educators have ever heard of this analysis, as a result of a complete trade of schooling publishers, coaches and curriculum writers have both ignored or actively resisted it, needlessly encumbering the efforts of hundreds of lecturers like us, our college students, and their households alongside the best way.
To these accountable, “Bought a Story” might really feel like an assault. But Hanford’s work is best characterised as an investigation of the harms attributable to one misguided literacy follow — three-cueing — and the curricula and leaders who proceed to perpetuate it.
Many years of cognitive analysis overwhelmingly means that college students taught to decode utilizing systematic, express phonics outperform different strategies, corresponding to three-cueing. Three-cueing refers to a mannequin of studying instruction by which learners are prompted to guess at phrases utilizing footage (that means cues), letters (visible cues) or the context of the sentence (syntax cues) — often known as “utilizing a number of sources of knowledge” or “problem-solving,” all studying behaviors typified by struggling readers. Analysis additionally signifies that the three-cueing technique disproportionately harms weak college students, together with these with dyslexia and any pupil who can’t afford costly personal tutoring in decoding.
The latest letter didn’t point out the time period three-cueing as soon as, one in every of a number of methods by which the authors distort the details and the stakes of “Bought a Story” and the broader motion towards research-aligned foundational expertise instruction.
The letter makes a strawman of Hanford’s reporting, asserting that “it’s irresponsible to scale back the educating of studying to phonics instruction and nothing extra.” Her work does no such factor, suggesting solely that utilizing evidence-aligned decoding instruction is low-hanging fruit, a vital (albeit inadequate) step towards equitable entry to significant, joyful studying.
The authors mischaracterize Hanford’s evaluation of the three-cueing downside as a “fabricated phonics debate,” saying all of them already know and agree that “systematic phonics is crucial.” But Hanford produces mounds of proof on the methods “balanced literacy” curricula like signatory Lucy Calkins’ “Items of Research” each shortchange and contradict alphabetic code instruction.
There’s nothing fabricated about this — as lecturers, we now have seen it with our personal eyes. The signatories of the letter will not be conscious of those points due to their distance from the classroom (and in lots of circumstances, from studying analysis). However we hope they’ll pay attention once we say that the instruments and steerage we got have been each inadequate and deceptive. We have been handed Fountas and Pinnell’s “Literacy Continuum” textbook in our grad faculty packages; we got boxed units of Calkins’ “Items” upon arrival in our first lecture rooms. And we relied on them, encouraging college students to make use of footage or first letters to decode phrases, sending them off for unbiased studying with out us having taught them how. That isn’t as a result of we have been “naively insufficient” however as a result of we have been taught repeatedly to make use of these three-cueing based mostly methods by so-called consultants, and since the phonics contained inside these boxed units was something however systematic.
Lastly, the letter hand-waves away Hanford’s critique by demanding “the remainder of the story,” failing to acknowledge this type of cautious, deep-dive reporting on a particular facet of educating and studying as tribute to the complexity of our craft. It’s a rarity for mainstream journalism to dig so extensively right into a single slice of classroom follow; we’re extra accustomed to superficial drive-bys with analyses of NAEP scores and coverage initiatives that keep far faraway from the chalkface. However a concentrate on one facet of tutorial follow on no account reductions the significance of others, or of the structural inequities at play in our colleges. Let’s have extra in-depth reporting on different components of literacy — on read-aloud of complicated textual content, on language growth and bilingual studying, on difficult the canon, on educating poetry! — and on different points, like faculty funding and diversifying trainer pipelines, that we all know impression our college students, too.
We, the undersigned, are lecturers who do certainly “care deeply about doing the true work.” We care about equitable outcomes for our college students, throughout all domains of literacy. We don’t argue that Hanford’s work is ideal, nor that foundational expertise instruction would be the silver bullet for instructional (and even literacy) justice. However by means of our personal collective efforts, we now have realized from the analysis Hanford has amplified, altering the best way we educate early studying and accelerating each pupil’s entry to the alphabetic code and the wonders of literacy. We invite the 58 signatories of the latest letter — and the entire literacy group — to do the identical.
Greater than 650 present and former lecturers signed this letter, which was written by:
Callie Lowenstein
Bilingual intervention trainer, District of Columbia Public Faculties
Catlin Goodrow
Grade 3-5 studying intervention trainer, WA
Mark Anderson
Former particular schooling trainer in elementary and center faculty, present administrator, New York Metropolis Division of Training
Margaret Goldberg
Literacy coach, Nystrom Elementary, West Contra Costa Unified College District, CA, and co-founder, Proper to Learn Mission
Lindsey Burk
Highschool trainer, Penn-Delco College District, PA
Nathaniel Hansford
Grade 7-8 trainer, Ontario, Canada
Missy Purcell
Former Fifth grade trainer, Gwinnett County Public Faculties, GA
Megan Potente
Co-state director, Decoding Dyslexia CA, former elementary trainer and literacy coach
Sherri Lucas-Corridor
Proprietor, Designed to Train Tutoring Providers, GA
Elizabeth Reenstra
Former elementary faculty trainer and studying specialist, NJ, present Ok-8 structured literacy dyslexia specialist, Netherlands
Kate Winn
Kindergarten trainer, Ontario, Canada
Kristen McQuillan
Former Baltimore Metropolis Public Faculties trainer and administrator
Grace Delgado
Govt director of multilingual providers, Aldine Impartial College District, TX
Kareem J. Weaver
Oakland NAACP schooling chair-elect, Oakland Unified College District 20-year trainer (4-Fifth grade, bilingual) and principal.
Maria Murray, Ph.D.
President and CEO, The Studying League
Meredith Liben
24-year veteran trainer, studying advisor and creator, Know Higher, Do Higher
Kate Peeples, Ph.D.
Former particular schooling trainer and present particular schooling professor, Illinois State College
Tracy White-Weeden
President and CEO of Neuhaus Training Middle
(Disclosure: The Hechinger Report is an unbiased unit of Lecturers Faculty at Columbia College, the place Calkins and several other different signatories of the letter “A name for rejecting the latest studying wars” function professors.)