Reading https://www.apmreports.org/episode/2019/08/22/whats-wrong-how-schools-teach-reading https://www.apmreports.org/episode/2019/08/22/whats-wrong-ho... (201

Reading https://www.apmreports.org/episode/2019/08/22/whats-wrong-how-schools-teach-reading https://www.apmreports.org/episode/2019/08/22/whats-wrong-ho... (2019) was eye-opening for me. It's a must-read companion piece if you want to take this Atlantic article seriously, particularly with some of the politicization the Atlantic article tries to inject. From the Atlantic article: > An explanation that deserves equal consideration is what one might call the low-expectations theory. In short, schools have demanded less and less from students—who have responded, predictably, by giving less and less. The APM Reports article I linked above, in this context, would likely suggest that "low-expectations theory" might actually be an effect of a specific and well-intentioned methodology change: one that replaces phonics-based approaches with an effort to get pupils through books rather than being able to read every word. From APM Reports: > For decades, reading instruction in American schools has been rooted in a flawed theory about how reading works, a theory that was debunked decades ago by cognitive scientists, yet remains deeply embedded in teaching practices and curriculum materials. As a result, the strategies that struggling readers use to get by — memorizing words, using context to guess words, skipping words they don't know — are the strategies that many beginning readers are taught in school. This makes it harder for many kids to learn how to read, and children who don't get off to a good start in reading find it difficult to ever master the process. It goes on to describe the origins of the different methodologies, historical reactions, plenty of context on adoption, visual examples. There's an ongoing debate here, but it provides real food for thought. The Atlantic article could have done something similar, focusing on the methodologies at hand. Instead, it tries to conclude by assigning blame based on political affiliation: > But for Democrats, who pride themselves on belonging to the party of education, these results may be awkward to process. Not only are the southern states that are registering the greatest improvements in learning run by Republicans, but also their teachers are among the least unionized in the country. And these red states are leaning into phonics-based, “science of reading” approaches to teaching literacy, while Democratic-run states such as New York, New Jersey, and Illinois have been painfully slow to adopt them, in some cases hanging on to other pedagogical approaches with little evidentiary basis. The article provides no quantitative backing for these statements, much less evidence of causality. (The research they do cite has Massachusetts in 4th place, and New York in 10th place, for adjusted reading scores: https://www.urban.org/research/publication/states-demographically-adjusted-performance-2024-national-assessment https://www.urban.org/research/publication/states-demographi...) It's a good reminder to read articles critically, and seek external sources, when blame is being ascribed.