The Reading Wars and the Role of Policy
Focus on Student Outcomes, Not Inputs
For years, there has been a tug of war around how to teach reading.
One camp has advocated for teaching students how to decode written words on the page through learning phonics and phonemes and the like. They’ve historically been labeled the “phonics” camp, but more recently they’ve been called the science of reading group because it isn’t just about phonics. Although phonics is critical, it is also just one piece of this branch of learning how to read.
The science of reading is often thought more of a rope that braids together a variety of strands. There’s phonics, but also things like phonological awareness, decoding, and the like as part of a branch of this rope that’s thought of as “word recognition.” On the other branch, you have language comprehension, which include strands like background knowledge, vocabulary, language structure, and the like. When you weave these strands together, you get someone who’s able to read and comprehend.
The other side has often been labelled the “whole-language” camp and focused on making reading “joyful.” They have used methods like three queuing, which essentially asks readers to figure out words based on context and nearby images and the like.
There’s a deeper commentary here about how we as adults probably shouldn’t assume that things that we as adults have automated into long-term memory may be boring to kids. They’re genuinely interested in cracking the codes of how adults do their work; they want to get their reps in to perfect it. That’s not boring to them.
Our latest episode of Class Disrupted isn’t so about that “debate,” however, because the research has been crystal clear for a long time that the so-called “science of reading camp” is the vastly superior way to learn how to read. The “whole language camp,” what’s also been called “balanced literacy” in some quarters because of the approach of one of the acolytes behind the method, doesn’t actually teach children how to decode and read. The adherence to that whole language method has been almost criminal in terms of how it’s shortchanged millions of kids.
The question we tackle in our latest episode, however, is a different one. As we think about how to get to a point where all children are taught in line with the best evidence around learning to read, should state legislatures ban specific curricular materials from the whole-language camp or legislate which materials to use? Diane Tavenner and I ultimately conclude—as we have in other episodes in our podcast—that state legislatures would be better to stay out of the specific inputs of education and instead focus on the student outcomes we desire. We reach our conclusion for a whole host of reasons, including that the nature of science is that it changes as we learn more; that it isn’t just curriculum that’s needed to get teachers teaching through the “science of reading”; and that policy is better focused on student outcomes rather than inputs. And that the ultimate in accountability would empower parents to find the right educational option that helps their child make progress and master how to read.
This is a challenging topic. States around the country are passing legislation to try to bar teachers from using the flawed whole-language method. I certainly understand the instinct. If you want to learn more about why teachers have used this method, I highly recommend Emily Hanford’s Sold a Story podcast, complete here with two new bonus episodes. Emily’s done incredible work here, and the podcast is equal parts heartbreaking and uplifting.
I hope you’ll listen to our full take, though, on why policy that legislates curriculum won’t get us to the promised land.
A Focus on Outcomes
I’m nothing if not consistent on this push for outcomes. Policy should empower individuals and focus on outcomes, not inputs. Defining a system’s inputs constrains innovation—which I define as changes that help people make progress (meaning if it doesn’t help people make progress, it isn’t an innovation). A focus on defining inputs can lock a system with mediocre to poor outcomes in place. Focusing on outcomes encourages continuous improvement—or innovation—toward a common set of goals.
I joined the former chancellor of the California Community Colleges, Eloy Oakley, on his new podcast “The Rant” to talk about just this topic as it pertains to the Department of Education’s misguided Third-Party Servicer regulations that I’ve written about before in this space (see here and here, for example). And I talk about my contention that those focused on consumer protection should care about student outcomes, not inputs, when it comes to policy and regulation. Because focusing on inputs is keeping the present higher education system locked in place—and it’s not working. If so-called consumer advocates actually care about consumers, then they ought to change their stripes and focus on outcomes. Because right now they are hurting students.
You can listen to the podcast here, at “Balancing Innovation with Consumer Protection.”
In line with this, I’m excited that the Carnegie Foundation and the Educational Testing Service are teaming up to try and replace Carnegie units—which measure the time students spend in school—with actual learning. When people like me advocate for competency-based or mastery-based learning, you need to replace the measurement of time with something—and that means you need assessments that measure learning. Here’s more about the effort—and one concern I have with the work ahead.
Learner Mobility and Transfer
More than two-thirds of bachelor's degree holders in the United States have transcripts from multiple institutions. If you're going to college, that means the odds are high that you'll go to multiple colleges before you get a degree.
But students lose an estimated 43% of their credits when they move to a new institution.
Nowhere is this worse than at community colleges perhaps. And for every 100 community college students who want to transfer to a four-year college, only 31 will and only 14 of those will complete a bachelor's degree.
These facts are why I was so intrigued to learn about George Mason University’s ADVANCE program. Its president, Gregory Washington, joined me and Jeff Selingo on Future U. to share more about this program, which is a partnership with Northern Virginia Community College (NOVA). Students who enter NOVA in this program feel like they are also George Mason students from day one. There's a real sense of belonging. They get George Mason email addresses, can use the library, and get invited to sporting events. And the program gets results.
Is this a model all colleges could emulate? Many more should. Colleges need to wake up to the reality that students go to multiple institutions and that declining demographics means they'll need to find creative ways to fill out their classes after freshman year. And yet it won't be easy because it flies in the face of so much of the traditional four-year college business model.
Which is why I'm ultimately skeptical there are great policy fixes here that fall short of moving to a competency-based—or mastery-based—learning model, in which we focus on assessing learning, wherever it occurs, instead of counting credit hours. Yes, that means a focus on outcomes, not inputs, yet again. And yes, I’ve written a whole paper about that, “Creating Seamless Credit Transfer,” which you can download here for free.
Future U. Live from NAIS
Finally, friend of the Future U. podcast Debra Wilson, the incoming president of the National Association of Independent Schools (NAIS), interviewed me and Jeff live for a keynote address at the NAIS annual school heads conference. We recorded the session, and in this episode of Future U., we give our hot takes on a variety of issues that Debra asked us about, from what did we learn from the pandemic to college admissions and from student mental health to preparing the next generation of teachers. Check it out here.
As always, thanks for reading, writing, and listening.