NCTE Members,

Please support the proposed resolution below:

Voting: All NCTE members are invited to attend the Annual Business Meeting, scheduled this year for November 22, 2024, from 5:30–7:00 p.m. ET, and to take part in discussions and vote on resolutions about issues of concern to the profession! Membership must be verified before the start of the meeting.

Sense-of-the-House Motions: These statements reflect the opinion of the majority of members attending the Annual Business Meeting. They may be offered for discussion and action at the Annual Business Meeting. To be considered for deliberation, sense-of-the-house motions must be prepared in writing, must not exceed fifty words, and must be submitted to NCTECommittees@ncte.org, to the attention of the NCTE President or Parliamentarian, by noon ET on the day of the meeting. Such motions, if passed, are advisory to the Executive Committee or other appropriate Council bodies. They do not constitute official Council policy.

Christian Z. Goering

Katie Kelly

Hannah Schneewind

Jennifer Scoggin

Dorothy Suskind

Paul Thomas

Meghan Valerio

Since the 1980s, literacy teachers’ professionalism, knowledge, and abilities have been under scrutiny and attack, and then intensified since 2018 (Aukerman, 2022a, 2022b, 2022c; Kraft & Lyon, 2024; Thomas, 2022a, 2022b, 2024). To complicate matters, the literacy field continues to engage in tired Reading Wars (Newkirk, 2024; Tierney & Pearson, 2021). Debates over how children learn to read, combined with sensationalized media coverage on early reading proficiency and instruction, have eroded public trust of teacher expertise and resulted in an overwhelming push for a Science of Reading, a nebulous term whose definition is overly grounded in explicit and systematic phonics instruction (Aydarova, 2024).

As of September 2024, 40 states have passed restrictive literacy legislation grounded in the Science of Reading (Aydarova, 2024; Reinking, Hruby, & Risko, 2023; Schwartz, 2024). High profile and boxed commercial reading programs are now mandated nationwide, marketing a narrow definition of “science” aligning with structured literacy (Malchow, 2014). Teaching credentials are also in question, as many states require teachers to obtain structured literacy certifications. With over thirty years of flat reading scores with persistent race and social class data gaps (Aydarova, 2023, 2024; Reinking et al., 2023), the reading crisis narrative prevails, framing teachers as the cause agents, and consequently resulting in overt limitations placed atop teacher autonomy, including decision-making and instructional materials.

Historically, political reforms have heavily influenced how literacy is conceptualized, taught, and measured. Scientific-based instruction was mandated under No Child Left Behind’s Reading First. Shortly after the NCLB passing, the National Reading Panel Report emphasized a decontextualized approach to reading instruction. In efforts to control the outcome of students’ success, scripted programs were and continue to be created. Scripted programs provide teachers with step-by-step instructional language, materials, and assessments to use, negating teachers’ ability to individualize instruction and craft curriculum that is reflective of students’ cultural experiences. While some claim that scripted programs plan for engagement (Gunter & Reed, 1997; Shanahan, 2006), others report students’ withdrawal and disconnection from literacy lessons and experiences (Shelton, 2010). To contest this disengagement narrative, publishers emphasize teaching the program with fidelity, a script-flip that blames teachers for aspirational student achievement outcomes (Shelton, 2010).

Such rigid approaches to literacy instruction have taken away teachers’ instructional autonomy, reduced opportunities for student responsiveness and engagement lessons, and placed learning and outcomes in the hands of program creators (Afflerbach, 2022; Resolution on scripted curricula, 2008). Additionally, the scripted programs founded on narrow view of reading science have “whitewashed” curriculums, erasing diverse perspectives and identities, and deprived students of culturally relevant and responsive education (Delpit, 1988; Khan, et al., 2022; Muhammad, 2020; Riggel, et al. 2022). Amidst scripted programs and legislative mandates, literacy teachers are faced with a plethora of obstacles and restraints that impact their agency and autonomy, and consequently, negatively impact student reading proficiency by mis-serving marginalized and minoritized students within a one-size-fits-all series of mandates (Disotaur, et al., 2024).

Recommendations for Honoring Teacher Autonomy:

NCTE values teachers as pedagogical and content experts who know how best to serve individual students literacy needs. Teachers have both generic and situated knowledge (Afflerbach, 2022; Tierney & Pearson, 2024) and are uniquely positioned to make instructional decisions to meet the needs of all students. For this to happen:

• Teachers must be treated as agentitive professionals who are best suited to make decisions for their students.
• Curriculum and teaching materials must be neither legislatively banned nor mandated, for such restrictions prevent teachers from making instructional decisions based on the unique needs of their communities, schools, and students. Teacher accountability must be driven by students’ need not program and policy fidelity or test scores. Deficit-based educational policies and practices must be replaced to reflect students’ cultural identities, practices, and funds of knowledge as assets (Moll et al, 1992; Muhammad, 2020; Souto-Manning & Martell, 2016).
• The validity and effectiveness of instructional practices must be grounded in a wide range of evidence, including diverse and compelling bodies of research and teachers’ varied experiences.
• The weight of testing data should be recalibrated and re-designed to better represent student achievement and the impact of teacher practice and educational materials. Notably, the achievement levels of NAEP, as well as the reporting of testing data, tends to distort both student achievement and teacher quality.
• Legislation and policy must serve to support schools, teachers, and students in ways that honor human agency while resisting the cycles of the education marketplace and educational fads.

The current era of reading crisis in the US once again fails to address the most powerful influences on students acquiring literacy, social and in-school inequities. Instead, teachers are being both de-professionalized and scapegoated in media and political misrepresentations of reading science as well as national test data. For historical and current challenges facing student literacy, the key lies not in switching to yet another round of reading theories and commercial reading programs, but to establish learning and teaching conditions that center serving the individual needs of students and supporting the autonomy of their teachers to serve those needs.

References

Afflerbach, P. (2022). Teaching readers (not reading): Moving beyond skills and strategies to reader-focused instruction. Guilford Press.

Aukerman, M. (2022a). The Science of Reading and the media: Is reporting biased? Literacy Research Association Critical Conversations. CC BY 4.0 license. https://literacyresearchassociation.org/stories/the-science-of-reading-and-the-media-is-reporting-biased/

Aukerman, M. (2022b). The Science of Reading and the media: Does the media draw on high-quality reading research? Literacy Research Association Critical Conversations. CC BY 4.0 license. https://literacyresearchassociation.org/stories/the-science-of-reading-and-the-media-does-the-media-draw-on-high-quality-reading-research/

Aukerman, M. (2022c). The Science of Reading and the media: How do current reporting patterns cause damage? Literacy Research Association Critical Conversations. CC BY 4.0 license. https://literacyresearchassociation.org/stories/the-science-of-reading-and-the-media-how-do-current-reporting-patterns-cause-damage/

Aydarova, E. (2024). What you see is not what you get: Science of reading reforms as a guise for standardization, centralization, and privatization. American Journal of Education, 130(4). https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/730991 

Aydarova, E. (2023). ‘Whatever you want to call it”: Science of reading mythologies in the education reform movement. Harvard Educational Review, 93(4), 556–581, https://doi.org10.17763/1943-5045-93.4.556

Blaushild, N.L. (2023). “It’s just something that you have to do as a teacher”: Investigating the intersection of educational infrastructure redesign, teacher discretion, and educational equity in the elementary ELA classroom. The Elementary School Journal, 124(2), 219-244.

Compton-Lilly, C.F., Mitra, A., Guay, M., & Spence, L.K. (2020). A confluence of complexity: Intersections among reading theory, neuroscience, and observations of young readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1), S185-S195. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.348

Delpit, L.D. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people’s children. Harvard Educational Review, 58, 286, 296. https://newlearningonline.com/new-learning/chapter-8/synthesis-more-recent-times/lisa-delpit-on-power-and-pedagogy

Disotuar, D., Lazrow. S., Holmes-Ware, E., & Henning, C. (2024). Equity and the Science of Reading. Children’s Literacy Initiative. https://cli.org/resources/equity-and-the-science-of-reading/

Edling, S. (2015). Between curriculum complexity and stereotypes: Exploring stereotypes of teachers and education in media as a question of structural violence. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 47(3), 399–415. https://doi.org10.1080/00220272.2014.956796

Gunter, P.L., & Reed, T. M. (1997). Academic instruction of children with emotional and behavioral disorders using scripted lessons. Preventing School Failure, 42, 33-38.

Hoffman, J.V., Hikida, M., & Sailors, M. (2020). Contesting science that silences: Amplifying equity, agency, and design research in literacy teacher preparation. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1), S255–S266. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.353

Khan, F., Peoples, L.Q., & Foster, L. (2022) Lessons in (in)equity: An evaluation of cultural responsiveness in elementary ELA curriculum. The Education Justice Research and Organizing Collaborative, New York University. https://steinhardt.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/2022-10/Lessons%20in%20%28In%29Equity%20FINAL%20ACCESSIBLE.10.31.22.pdf

Kraft, M.A., & Lyon, M.A. (2024). The rise and fall of the teaching profession: Prestige, interest, preparation, and satisfaction over the last half century. EdWorkingPaper: 22-679. https://doi.org/10.26300/7b1a-vk92

Malchow, H. (2014, July). Structured literacy: A new term to unify us and sell what we do. International Dyslexia Association. https://dyslexiaida.org/ida-approach/

Moll, L., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory Into Practice, 31(2), 132-141.

Mora (2024) Dual Language Researcher Fact-checks SoR. https://moramodules.com/2024/06/15/dl-researcher-fact-checking-sor/

Mora et al. https://kappanonline.org/russo-goldenberg-response-to-english-learners-and-the-science-of-reading/

Muhammad, G. (2020). Cultivating genius. New York: Scholastic.

Newkirk, T. (2024). The broken logic of “Sold a Story”: A personal response to “The Science of Reading.” https://literacyresearchcommons.org/resources/

Ortiz, A.A., Fránquiz, M.E., & Lara, G.P. (2021). The science of teaching reading and English learners: Understanding the issues and advocating for equity. Bilingual Research Journal, 44(2), 153-157. DOI: 10.1080/15235882.2021.1976584

Reinking, D., Hruby, G.G., & Risko, V.J. (2023). Legislating phonics: Settle science of political polemic? Teachers College Record. https://doi.org/10.1177/01614681231155688

Resolution on scripted curricula. (2008). NCTE. https://ncte.org/statement/scriptedcurricula/

Rigell, A., Banack, A., Maples, A., Laughter, J., Broemmel, A., Vines, N., & Jordan, J. (2022, November). Overwhelming whiteness: A critical analysis of race in a scripted reading curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 54(6), 852–870, https://doi.org10.1080/00220272.2022.2030803

Shanahan, T. (2006, August/September). The worst confession: Using a scripted program. Reading Today, 24(1), 14.

Shelton, N. R. (2010). Program fidelity in two reading mastery classrooms: A view from the inside. Literacy Research and Instruction, 49(4), 315-333, https://doi.org/10.1080/19388070903229404

Souto-Manning, M. & Martell, J. (2016). Reading, writing and talk: Inclusive teaching strategies for diverse learners, K-2. NewYork, NY: Teachers College Press.

Schwartz, S. (2024, September 5). Which states have passed “science of reading” laws? what’s in them? Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/which-states-have-passed-science-of-reading-laws-whats-in-them/2022/07

Thomas, P.L. (2022a). How to end the Reading War and serve the literacy needs of all students: A primer for parents, policy makers, and people who care (2nd Ed.). Information Age Publishing.

Thomas, P.L. (2022b). The Science of Reading movement: The never-ending debate and the need for a different approach to reading instruction. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/science-of-reading

Thomas, P.L. (2024, March). We teach English in times of perpetual crisis: The long (and tedious) history of reading crisis. English Journal, 113(4), 21-26.

Tierney, R.J., & Pearson, P.D. (2021). A history of literacy education: Waves of research and practice. Teachers College Press.

Tierney, R.J., & Pearson, P.D. (2024). Fact-checking the Science of Reading: Opening up the conversation. Literacy Research Commons. https://literacyresearchcommons.org