Sometimes, on occasion, people are interested in my perspective on teaching and learning. Often, they seek insights related to teaching neurodiverse children, early autism signs, or crafting inclusive curricula – topics I’m passionate about and can discuss for hours. However, lately, some individuals have been asking me for my thoughts on the Science of Reading or Balanced Literacy. Given my Ph.D. in Teaching and Curriculum and my role in teaching a graduate course on literacy, it’s understandable why people turn to me for input. The requests, I found, were well-intended, as they came from families in my community and other educational professionals who wanted to know what is the right thing that we should do for children. But I have been having this conversation with myself and other teachers YEARS before the public started to notice or become involved in the conversation. Look, I think the conversation is well-intended, but it is too small. 

Yet, I must express my frustration with this trend. It perturbs me when asked to take a side in the debate between the Science of Reading and Balanced Literacy, as neither approach adequately caters to the diverse needs of ALL learners. I firmly reject the notion of universality when it comes to developing and implementing teaching methods. Why are we so fixated on a one-size-fits-all approach? Imagine if the fashion design industry collectively decided that the average pant size for women is a 14, and henceforth, only size 14 pants would be produced. It’s inconceivable, right? So, why should we similarly insist on a single approach in education? This fixation is weird, lazy, and fundamentally inequitable.

So What Do I Think?

I believe that the Science of Reading (SOR) and the literature surrounding it are highly exclusive. As someone with a penchant for delving into research landscapes, I’ve noticed that even within scholarly work, these studies lack comprehensiveness. While you can find them scattered across disciplinary research journals, the focus tends to revolve around white educators and/or white students. While this is valuable, it’s also limiting. When it comes to the Science of Reading, research on English Language Learner populations, Autism, Dyslexia, and students from Black and Brown communities is notably scarce.

I want to clarify that I’m not suggesting that the approaches advocated by SOR are inherently invalid due to the limited research. What I am emphasizing is that we lack sufficient information to assume that SOR can effectively support all diverse communities of students. My findings from the SOR literature indicate that this approach, on its own, is exclusive. It doesn’t cater to the unique strengths and learning styles found in Black and Brown communities, and it exhibits shortcomings in terms of accessibility, cultural sustainability, and the long-term creation of meaningful knowledge. 

The State Approaches Science of Reading: “Back to Basics”

Earlier this month, Governor Kathy Hochul made a significant announcement as part of her 2024 State of the State message: New York State (NYS) would be adopting a “Back to Basics” framework for teaching phonics through Science of Reading (SOR) approaches. This initiative aims to ensure that every school district across the state embraces instructional best practices rooted in the Science of Reading.

While this announcement represents a move in a certain direction, whether it’s the right direction is a subject of debate. I have concerns that some districts may discard practices that have proven effective for diverse learners. As a former kindergarten teacher who has witnessed numerous state-led initiatives, I am particularly worried about the potential impact on teachers, especially those working with kindergarten students, English Language Learners (ELLs), and neurodiverse children. I know from experience that this “Back to Basics” approach has the potential to disrupt progress, successful pathways, and well-established scaffolded literacy practices that have been effective for years.

I’ve never quite understood the saying “throwing the baby out with the bathwater” because, frankly, I’ve never seen anyone tossing out babies with bathwater. However, I think I finally grasp the sentiment behind it…

Balancing Literacy: Fostering the Joy of Reading Beyond Phonics and Cueing

To clarify, I hold no opposition to the initiative itself; in fact, I acknowledge the benefits of establishing a foundational system for teaching phonics. Equipping children with robust decoding skills is crucial, as it empowers them to unlock the intricate code of the alphabet. However, my genuine concern lies in the lack of subtlety in our approach to the Science of Reading (SOR). Some proponents may overly rely on SOR as a means of facilitating literacy learning, sometimes neglecting the equally crucial aspect of literacy teaching.

It’s essential to distinguish between what students passively absorb and what is actively instilled in them. While we certainly want students to learn that ‘A’ says /æ/ (as in “cat”), it’s equally important to infuse joy into this learning process. We want children to engage with the sounds, embark on playful adventures that involve identifying other words in their environment that feature the /æ/ sound. This playful exploration is where the magic of learning to read truly unfolds.

Let’s take orthographic mapping, a practice often associated with SOR, as an example. I fully endorse this fascinating cognitive process, where readers connect spoken language sounds to the written letters or groups of letters representing those sounds in words. Orthographic mapping is akin to a treasure hunt for the brain, involving the discovery and understanding of how words are constructed. This journey can be as exhilarating as deciphering a secret message. By encouraging students to actively participate in this process through play and exploration, we ignite their curiosity and passion for language.

Consider a young reader encountering the word “cat” for the first time. Through playful activities, they can break down the sounds: /k/ – /æ/ – /t/. They might realize that combining these individual sounds creates the word they see on the page. This moment of realization is akin to solving a puzzle and is incredibly gratifying. This joyful approach to literacy not only enhances learning but also fosters a profound connection between students and the world of words. It empowers them to navigate the language they encounter in their environment, transforming it from a mere collection of letters into a source of wonder and exploration.

Now, let’s shift our focus to Balanced Literacy’s three-cueing system, which has recently been a topic of debate in the reading community. I hold no disdain for the three-cueing system; I believe that children should be equipped with a diverse set of resources that are actively taught. There is nothing inherently wrong with the three-cueing system. I have utilized it, and there have been numerous instances where, instead of admonishing a student for a “guess,” I met them where they were at. For example, if a student read the word “Horse” as “Pony,” I would say, “Oh, I can see how you could think this word was ‘pony,’ but let’s consider the first letter sound. What sound does ‘H’ make? Now, let’s go back and try that again.” This approach not only encourages learning but also underscores the importance of trial and error in the process. It’s through these experiences that genius is cultivated. We should continue to embrace the practice of cueing, recognizing that asking students to use context clues to understand a word is a valuable strategy. After all, so much of our lives relies on context clues, making it an essential skill to cultivate in learners. Why would we take away such a playful and effective strategy from their toolkit?

 In fact, we might have a more understanding society if some of our greatest leaders had employed context clues to decipher complex global issues. Take the example of Nelson Mandela, who, during his time in prison, read and learned about the Afrikaans language and culture, allowing him to bridge gaps and foster reconciliation with his captors. His ability to navigate the nuances of language and culture played a pivotal role in the dismantling of apartheid in South Africa. It’s a powerful reminder that literacy extends far beyond the realm of reading words; it encompasses the capacity to comprehend, empathize, and communicate across diverse perspectives.

What Do The Experts Say?

My other concern pertains to relying heavily on the principles of the Science of Reading without considering the broader context and diverse needs of ALL of our students. While the Science of Reading offers valuable insights into early literacy development, it is not a one-size-fits-all solution. Each child brings a unique set of experiences, challenges, and learning styles to the classroom. Neglecting this diversity in our educational approach risks leaving some students behind.

Drawing from Dr. Gholdy Muhammad’s work on culturally responsive education, she emphasizes the importance of recognizing students’ cultural backgrounds as valuable assets in the learning process. As she notes in her book “Cultivating Genius,” “When we acknowledge the cultural strengths students bring with them, we unlock their potential for academic success.” This underscores the significance of integrating students’ cultural knowledge into literacy education to create meaningful and relevant learning experiences.

Additionally, Zaretta Hammond, in her book “Culturally Responsive Teaching and the Brain,” highlights the connection between culturally responsive teaching and brain-based learning. She argues that when we align instruction with students’ cultural contexts, we activate prior knowledge and neural pathways that facilitate deeper understanding and retention. In essence, culturally responsive teaching is not only equitable but also neurologically advantageous.

Furthermore, the zone of proximal development, a concept proposed by Vygotsky, underscores the importance of tailoring instruction to each student’s unique level of readiness. By rigidly adhering to a single teaching approach like the Science of Reading, we risk missing the individualized support that students need to progress effectively. Instead, we should consider a more flexible approach that combines the Science of Reading with culturally responsive teaching methods. This would allow us to meet students where they are and provide the necessary scaffolding to guide them to higher levels of literacy.

In essence, my concern about relying solely on the Science of Reading without considering the broader context and diverse needs of our students aligns with the principles of community cultural wealth, funds of knowledge, and the zone of proximal development. To foster a more inclusive and effective literacy education, we must embrace diversity, recognize the strengths that come from different backgrounds, and provide tailored support to ensure that every child has the opportunity to thrive in the world of literacy, all while recognizing the benefits of brain-based, culturally responsive learning strategies.

Where Do We Go From Here?

As we navigate the complex landscape of literacy education, it’s essential to consider our path forward. I’ve shared concerns and insights from a practitioner’s perspective, but now, let’s chart a more radical and transformative course. Here are three guiding principles to illuminate our way:

Unleash the Power of Inclusive Literacy Education: In our diverse classrooms, let’s not just acknowledge but celebrate the beauty of differences. It’s time to tailor our teaching approaches to meet the unique needs of every student, ensuring that no one is left in the shadows on their journey to success.

Ignite a Lifelong Love for Learning: Beyond the quest for reading proficiency, let’s prioritize a far-reaching goal—cultivating a lifelong passion for learning. This means connecting students with literature that resonates with their individual interests and backgrounds, nurturing their innate curiosity, and unlocking the doors to unbridled imagination.

Embrace Collaboration and Nuance: Education should never resemble a battleground but rather a collective endeavor to shape our future. Let’s foster an environment of open dialogue, where nuance is celebrated, and the wisdom of both experience and research converge to provide our children with the exceptional education they deserve. Together, we can forge a path towards a brighter future for all learners, guided not by fear but by the radiant light of possibility.