Libraries, Nurses and Healthy Food or More Phonics? Which is the Better Investment?

When the New York Times and The Washington Post recently ran opinion pieces asserting that there is a national reading crisis and a single solution: more phonics instruction (the Times also added a news article about how the phonics-focused “science of reading” movement is sweeping the nation), three literacy experts—David Reinking, Peter Smagorinsky, and David B. Yaden—responded in opposition to the current “science of reading”/phonics frenzy.

Published in The Washington Post, they questioned the current popular narrative of a national crisis in reading achievement and its supposed link to a lack of phonics instruction. They made it clear they were not opposed to phonics instruction but they believe the task of teaching children to read is more complex and multifaceted than is suggested by “Science of Reading” acolytes.

As researchers and teacher educators, we, like many of our colleagues, shake our heads in resigned frustration. We believe phonics plays an important role in teaching children to read. But, we see no justifiable support for its overwhelming dominance within the current narrative, nor reason to regard phonics as a panacea for improving reading achievement.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/05/23/phonics-reading-analysis/ 

They also stated “we do not see convincing evidence for a reading crisis, and certainly none that points to phonics as the single cause or a solution.” 

If you didn’t already know, Florida is all-in on “The Science of Reading” (SOR). So much so that the Florida Legislature recently passed HB7039, which requires “All reading literacy instruction must be grounded in the science of reading, to include: instructional strategies; interventions; curriculum; materials; teacher preparation programs; professional learning systems; classroom instruction; instructional materials; and the use of three-cueing is prohibited.“

The use of three-cuing is PROHIBITED. Three-cuing is a teaching strategy where learners are prompted to use cues (semantic, grammatical or visual) when they are attempting to read an unknown word. SOR acolytes believe systematic and explicit approaches to phonics instruction are incompatible with the three cueing model, because they believe three-cuing models downplay the importance of phonics. So, in a state which constantly repeats the mantra that “one size does not fit all” while promoting privatization and “choice,” the legislature is banning the use of a particular reading strategy. Florida teachers will have one less tool in their toolbox.

Of note, many districts across Florida had invested millions of dollars in state-approved Reading/Language Arts textbooks containing three-cuing in preparation for the 2022-23 school year (as part of the “Most Aggressive Transition Timeline in Florida’s History.“) Late in this year’s legislative process, HB7039 was amended to include a provision of $150 million to the FLDOE to provide school districts with supplemental materials to replace portions of the previously approved, now prohibited, curriculum.

Two questions:

• Why are such costly changes necessary?
• Could $150 million be better spent?

According to the Staff Analysis for HB7039, the bill was needed because “Results from the 2022 NAEP show that 39 percent of grade 4 students and 29 percent of grade 8 students in Florida are performing at or above the NAEP proficiency levels.” NAEP is the National Assessment for Educational Progress, often referred to as “The Nation’s Report Card.” It looks at long term Math and Reading trends across the nation by testing a small sample of students every 2 years.

Is it a crisis that only 39% of Florida’s 4th graders and 29% of Florida’s 8th graders scored proficient or above on NAEP? Not if you understand NAEP achievement levels.

Here is the problem: NAEP proficiency levels are NOT equivalent to grade level performance. I’m going to type that again: NAEP proficiency levels are NOT equivalent to grade level performance. This is the misinterpretation of NAEP scores, repeated over and over again by individuals who should know better (I’m looking at you Arne Duncan and whoever wrote the HB7039 Staff Analysis). “Proficient” on the NAEP demonstrates a level of competency over challenging subject matter. Proficient and above students should be considered to have earned an “A.” It is the students scoring at basic level that are considered to be reading at grade level.

Is it a crisis that only 39% of 4th grade reading scores deserve an “A”? (I don’t think so.)

The 2022 NAEP showed that 71 percent of grade 4 students and 69 percent of grade 8 students in Florida were performing at or above the NAEP Basic levels. Florida’s scores exceed the 61% of grade 4 students at or above Basic nationally, and, with 69% of Florida’s 8th graders at or above Basic, Florida’s scores are not significantly different from the national average. These results do not describe a “crisis” (at the state or national level).

Will a greater focus on phonics improve reading scores? In their Washington Post response, Reinking, Smagorinsky, and Yaden describe a study from the early 2000s where students receiving extensive phonics instruction scored no better on tests of reading comprehension than did students in schools providing more conventional instruction. They wrote:

“These findings do not mean that phonics is unnecessary or unimportant. They simply suggest that there is no basis for the conclusions that the absence of phonics is the cause for a reading crisis and that the sole solution to reading difficulties is intensive phonics instruction for all readers. Nor is there a reason to believe that more phonics is the linchpin to raising reading achievement.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/05/23/phonics-reading-analysis/

The authors suggested “the lack of evidence supporting an increase in phonics may indicate that there is already enough phonics being taught in schools.”

Are there other sorts of investments, well supported by data, which might lead to greater reading achievement than increasing the amount of phonics instruction? The authors suggest several:

• More libraries and librarians. There is hard evidence that in schools with a good library and librarians, reading scores are relatively high.
• More School Nurses. There is a shortage of school nurses, which can lead to increased absenteeism and decreased achievement.
• Programs that address poverty. It is well known that standardized test scores reflect family incomes and educational reforms which do not address broader social factors like poverty often fail.
• Feed hungry children. The availability of free meals are associated with enhanced academic performance, including reading and math test scores.

The authors conclude:

“So, to boost reading achievement, why not legislate more funding for libraries, school nurses and programs to feed hungry children? There is no less evidence, and arguably more, that such legislation would improve achievement better than increased phonics instruction would.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/05/23/phonics-reading-analysis/

Why not, Florida? Why not spend HB7039’s $150 million on libraries, nurses and/or free meals – programs more likely to improve achievement – rather than on re-writing curriculum the state approved just a year or so ago? Which is the better investment?