5 Takeaways about the recent bad news on reading scores from NAEP
And one bonus takeaway: I'm hopeful we can turn things around
Welcome! I'm Lauren Brown and this is my newsletter on education issues that impact all of us— students, parents, educators & concerned citizens. Today I’m jumping into the storm surrounding the recent results from NAEP showing drops in reading and math scores and sharing what I learned from a webinar this morning on the topic.
Like many educators, I’m both distraught and unsurprised about the recent results showing drops in math and reading scores for U.S. students. So when I saw there would be a webinar this morning from Chad Aldeman and Jessica Baghian about them, I jumped on. (I understand there will be a recording available). Their work aligns with my understanding about education that works: the use of high quality curriculum that is focused on knowledge and content to strengthen skills, especially reading.1
You don’t need my commentary on the NAEP results themselves. Suffice it to say that they were dismal. You can read Aldeman’s overview on The 74 or on his substack. Here are my takeaways from Aldeman’s and Baghian’s webinar:
Takeaway #1. Science of reading initiatives will take time, work and commitment to fully implement. It is premature to conclude that recent shifts made by states to the science of reading didn’t work. Baghian repeatedly emphasized that policy is the starting line, not the finishing line. She lamented the unfortunate tendency to celebrate the passage of legislation as if that were all that needed to happen. Most states that have recently passed SOR laws have only just begun the work to implement them. It is not reasonable to expect we’d see the results of that work in this year’s NAEP reading scores. Those shiny new laws then have to be implemented thoughtfully which takes time.
A question this raises for me is the problem of turnover. Increased turnover among superintendents and principals along with our political cycles likely have a negative impact on education improvement. This likely contributes to the tendency of educators to look for the next shiny new thing instead of staying the course.2
Once meaningful improvement goals are established, everyone needs to get on board and professional development has to align with those goals.3 I suppose a corollary takeaway to this is that the pandemic interrupted everything, but the low scores existed before the pandemic. The distractions caused by the pandemic can’t get in the way of the work that needs to be done to improving reading and math.
Takeaway #2. Much work needs to focus on the classroom level. If we don’t focus on what actual students are doing with their teachers in the classrooms, we won’t accomplish anything. That means we have to pay attention to the core curriculum. There are SO MANY things going on in schools that teachers, administrators and districts have to consider that it can be hard to prioritize them. At the end of the day, what students learn and do in their classrooms is what matters. If kids can’t read, we have failed. Administrators and policymakers need to talk to and observe students and teachers on an ongoing basis.
Takeaway #3. While takeaway #2 suggests simplicity (it’s all about the classroom), my third takeaway is that the work to improve reading and math requires heavy lifting from everyone, PK through college. Baghian highlighted Louisiana’s attention to Pre-K education/early childhood, not just K-8. While taking care not to emphasize causation, she pointed out that the children who were the beneficiaries of that attention are now in 4th grade.4
It wasn’t brought up in this webinar, but I would add that in addition to early education, we need to consider the role played by Higher Ed in training our nation’s teachers. Others have written extensively about the lack of information preservice teachers receive about cognitive processes.5 We need more dialogue between Higher Ed and K-12 education on a variety of topics. Classroom teachers simply cannot be experts in every area in which they have to operate; the university experts can offer support and provide the evidence and research behind better curriculum and pedagogy.6
Takeaway #4. Let’s move the emphasis away from phonics and onto a more complete understanding of the science of reading. Natalie Wexler’s last post goes into more depth here, so I won’t belabor the point (see about halfway through her post). That anyone would think SOR is only about phonics just isn’t paying attention. To this point, Baghein noted that there was a fall off in reading gains by 8th grade and what is sometimes called the “decoding threshold.” To think that phonics instruction is the only thing one needs to read is like saying that to be a good football player, all you need to be able to do is catch the ball. So if you don’t already know about it, do some reading about the Scarborough Reading Rope, pay attention to role writing plays in improving reading comprehension, and let’s remember that even reading isn’t the end game here. We need to learn to read in order to learn about the world and function in it. While the NAEP only measures reading and math, social studies and science can be the “way in” to improve reading comprehension.
Takeaway #5. We cannot be distracted by politics. Just as we have to stay the course when a new principal or superintendent comes on board, we cannot be distracted by the politics of our governors or the president of the country. Or spend all our energy and moral outrage on what students should or shouldn’t be reading. In the Q&A on the webinar I asked if they shared my concern that the science of reading was becoming politicized. They both agreed and reemphasized some of the thoughts in “takeaway #1" above. Aldeman helpfully pointed out that there is meaningful work on improving reading by people on the both ends of the political spectrum. Everybody wants our students to know how to read and do math. That’s not a partisan position.7
Lots to think about here. And as I said in my subtitle to this post, I left the webinar feeling hopeful. Illiteracy has been described as “one of the most solvable issues of our time.”8 How fabulous that something as important as reading is so solveable??
Let’s get moving and solve it.
Aldeman writes on Substack and The 74 and is the founder of Read Not Guess, a literacy program based on the science of reading. Baghian was the Assistant State Superintendent and Chief Academic Policy Officer for Louisiana’s Department of Education, a state that once ranked at the bottom in education and has made dramatic advances. She is now leveraging that experience along with other Louisiana educators as president of Watershed Advisors, a group focused on helping other states achieve similar success.
I’m reminded of a few questions from the survey given by the University of Chicago’s 5Essentials about the unfortunate nature of educational programs and professional development initiatives to come and go. One of them asks Check out questions 31-33 from last year’s survey which you can find on page 8 of this document.
Jessica Baghian also mentioned the importance of integrated and sustained communication. This was mentioned specifically in regards to State Education Agencies, but is probably just as important on an individual school and district level.
In fact, she emphasized she’d like to see research on this.
Far too many to list here, but two that got a shout-out in the webinar were journalist Natalie Wexler and cognitive psychologist Daniel Willingham.
Again, I’ll reference Daniel Willingham here because of his work in application: using his expertise in cognitive psychology to consider its implications for teachers and what goes on in classrooms.
You can read more about the problem of polarization as it applies to the teaching of U.S. history in one of my previous posts, “Responsible Patriotism.” Two people that Aldeman referenced in answer to my question were Hugh Catts (he suggested everyone read this recent article he wrote) and Robert Pondiscio who recently began writing on Substack.
I’m not sure who said it. Kymyona Burk, who also got a shout-out in this webinar, is quoted saying that here. But it might also have been Jenny Mackenzie, the director of the documentary The Right to Read, (looks like her quote on the film’s website. Or it might have been Kareem Weaver, one of the stars of that film. Whoever said it, it’s a great point. And all 3 of those folks are doing important work on this. If you haven’t seen The Right to Read, I highly recommend it. It’s now free on YouTube.