Third graders read along as teacher Patty Lopez reads a text about plastic straws aloud.
Credit: Zaidee Stavely / EdSource
A few years ago, I met a first-grade English learner in a bilingual program who was learning to read in Spanish. The student, who I’ll call Elena, and her mother were from Guatemala. Elena’s mother only had a second-grade education, but she knew that one facet of Elena’s education was the gateway to all future opportunities: learning to read.
Elena had started school late, and her mother was taking no chances. She worked with Elena to teach her some basics — how letters formed syllables and syllables formed words. Elena was able to read by the end of first grade, but the outcome could have been very different without her mother’s efforts. Whether she knew it or not, what Elena’s mother taught Elena aligns with decades of reading research on how the brain learns to read — regardless of native language.
Unfortunately, most children from low-income communities like Elena’s do not share her story. Millions of California students fail to make adequate progress in reading. Today, only one-third of economically disadvantaged Latino students and one-fourth of economically disadvantaged African American students meet or exceed grade-level standards in English language arts. This is not because they are incapable of learning, but largely because they are not taught using effective practices supported by a broad consensus of reading researchers and experts.
These practices include a strong emphasis on foundational literacy skills, typically known as phonics and decoding, and an emphasis on developing language, comprehension and knowledge.
But foundational literacy skills are not given enough attention in California, leaving too many students with a weak or nonexistent foundation for literacy development and academic success.
Literacy achievement in California is alarming. Fewer than half of California students meet or exceed grade-level standards in English language arts. For decades, California students have been either smack in the middle or, more often, trailing national reading achievement. In the most recent national assessments, California’s fourth-grade students’ scores were below 36 other states in reading proficiency. And, according to research from the Stanford Education Data Archive, California has one of the largest gaps in fourth-grade reading proficiency between low-income and non-low-income students in the nation.
The real-world consequences of poor literacy skills are devastating for both individuals and society as a whole:
Our state has invested millions of dollars in literacy over the past decade, but we are still not seeing an adequate return. This is, in part, because much of the policy to date has consisted of mixed and confusing recommendations from the state. We have failed to put into practice the best knowledge we have about promoting literacy development.
Meanwhile, states like Mississippi have gone from significantly below average in reading proficiency and among the worst in the nation to significantly above the national average and one of the most improved, after passing comprehensive early literacy policies that align with reading research. The average low-income California fourth grader is a full year behind their counterpart in Mississippi.
California now has the potential to make similar progress and take a positive step forward if elected leaders in Sacramento choose to vote for Assembly Bill 1121. The bill could help align decades of interdisciplinary reading research with reading instruction by providing paid professional development for elementary school educators in more effective literacy practices and requiring school districts and charter schools to adopt English language instructional materials from a new State Board of Education list aligned with evidence-based means of teaching literacy (identified in current law).
For too long, we’ve debated whether reading should be taught as decoding, emphasizing phonics (letters, sounds), or as meaning-based, emphasizing “whole language” or so-called “balanced literacy.” In reality, decoding, language comprehension skills, and knowledge development are all necessary to achieve reading success.
Even with advanced language skills and vast knowledge, you can’t be a successful reader if you can’t pull words off a page quickly, effortlessly and accurately. Similarly, you can’t be a successful reader if you lack the language and knowledge to make sense of words.
AB 1121 will help move us toward a more comprehensive approach to reading instruction, emphasizing the importance of developing the neural pathways between sounds, letters, and meaning that are necessary for the brain to learn to read.
Building these pathways is essential for those learning in any language. Research around the world demonstrates there are many commonalities in learning and teaching to read in any language, whether it’s a language one already knows or is simultaneously learning. English learners have much to gain from implementing known effective approaches to teaching reading, which include what Elena’s mother did instinctively to help her build a strong foundation of literacy.
In the Information Age, reading is the gateway to all future opportunities. Our students don’t have time to waste while we, the adults they’ve entrusted with their education, continue to fight fruitless “reading wars.” If we care about our children’s futures, and our state’s, we must push for effective reading instruction in all classrooms by passing AB 1121.
•••
Claude Goldenberg, a former first grade and junior high teacher, is Nomellini & Olivier Professor of Education, emeritus, at Stanford University. His areas of expertise are literacy education and English language learners.
The opinions in this commentary are those of the author. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.
