Hello Everyone – I felt compelled to share this update. In here I am going to talk about the following
- A podcast I recently came across - A Sold Story: how children learn to read that's held sway in schools for more than a generation — even though it was proven wrong by cognitive scientists decades ago.
- How does this potentially exacerbate MHUSD’s declining test scores issue with on-going contracts as of March.
- What you can do.
1- A Sold Story:
I recently stumbled upon a new podcast called “A Sold Story” by an educational reporter, Emily Hanford, from American Public Media. In this 6 series podcast, she investigates how children learn to read that's held sway in schools for more than a generation — even though it was proven wrong by cognitive scientists decades ago (known as the Science of Reading evidence-based research).
The second episode revisits sixty years ago, when Marie Clay, in New Zealand, formulated a theory to teach reading, derived from her observational research. This theory, known as Literacy Processing Theory, laid the groundwork for internationally acclaimed reading intervention programs like “Reading Recovery” and “Leveled Literacy Intervention (LLI),” (used in MHUSD up until this year) which were significantly influenced by Marie Clay’s work. Fountas & Pinnell (founders of LLI which was also used in MHUSD), who were notably inspired by Clay, developed these programs. Additionally, key figures in literacy curriculum development in the U.S., such as Lucy Calkins, also drew from Marie Clay to create widely recognized literacy workshops. These teacher workshops emphasized teaching word recognition and comprehension (also known as three cueing method), a focus that stands in contrast to cognitive science principles. However, there is a significant issue at hand—Marie Clay’s theory was incorrect.
Moreover, the United States is grappling with a significant reading challenge. Recent assessments indicate that over one-third of the country’s fourth-grade students are unable to read at a fundamental level. This is particularly troubling given the extensive research scientists have conducted on brain-based learning and the essential components of reading instruction. This issue has been notably prevalent in the Morgan Hill Unified School District (MHUSD) over the past three years, where there has been a noticeable decline in test scores, specifically in reading proficiency. Question remains what has Dr Garcia done thus far to address this very specific problem?
According to the science of reading, for students to succeed, they need explicit instruction with a systematic way of teaching, focusing on the following main components of reading:
- Phonics
- Phonemic Awareness
- Fluency
- Vocabulary
- Reading comprehension
California adopted the Balanced Literacy approach as part of California Common Core Standards. This approach uses a variety of teaching methods such as read-alouds, independent reading and writing, and small group instruction to address above pillars of reading. Its worth noting there have been some failed legislative attempts to bring a more Structured Literacy approach to the curriculum with emphasis on science of reading.
In 2023, just 43% of California third-graders met the academic standards on the state’s standardized test in 2023. Only 27.2% of Black students, 32% of Latino students and 35% of low-income children were reading at grade level, compared with 57.5% of white, 69% of Asian and 66% of non-low-income students.
This issue certainly goes beyond MHUSD. But here is how Dr Garcia’s leadership of MHUSD last three years has potentially exacerbated the issue with leveraging debunked reading intervention methods such as “Leveled Literacy Intervention (LLI) by Fountas & Pinnell that has not worked.
2- How does this potentially exacerbate MHUSD’s declining test scores issue.
In a previous update I mentioned how in my one-on-one with Dr Garcia I became aware of her strong admiration for Dr John Hattie, an Australian researcher behind the “Visible Learning” theory. Also, another research that critics have pointed out areas of concerns, and more importantly, in my view, it lacks relevancy to our specific local issues: declining reading and math proficiency.
It is my belief, that Dr Garcia arrived to MHUSD with a preconceived notion of what the problem is: lack of emphasis on the factors with largest effect size based on Visible Learning research. Consequently, substantial funds were allocated to address these issues through workshops, retreats, contracts, motivation speakers, training sessions, and conferences.
Amidst projected budget crisis, some of these contracts continue into 2024! Dr Garcia continues to extend 3rd party contracts with LCFF funds to implement her vision with vendors such as, Educational Consulting Services Inc (ECS) who have previously been in lawsuits with other districts due to lack of integrity and accountability. April 16, 2024 agenda under item J.1.e. shows the contract duration is 4 months (Feb - June) at a cost of $87,500.
Dr. Garcia’s unwavering commitment to realizing her vision, regardless of the costs, appears to have neglected the essential root issues. Teachers, on the other hand, may have envisioned a grassroots solution that tackled larger class sizes (Visible Learning considers this as low effect factor), increased classroom support, and employed effective reading intervention methods grounded in the science of reading, as opposed to the Leveled Literacy Intervention approach advocated by Fountas & Pinnell.
Last three years MHUSD reading, and math proficiency has been declining. And just this year Dr Garcia has decided to also implement i-Ready program. A tool to monitor student growth and the overall diagnostic assessment feature that determines students’ needs. However it is important to note the critics of this tool have mentioned the following areas of concern. And given Dr Garcia’s track record of over reliance on un-proven research theories, I am personally suspicious of i-Ready efficacy.
A. Lack of Peer-Reviewed Research: There is a scarcity of peer-reviewed academic studies on the effectiveness of i-Ready. Studies commissioned by Curriculum Associates suggest that i-Ready outcomes can predict student performance on standardized tests, but the absence of independent research raises questions about the program’s objectivity.
B. Concerns Over Screen Time: Critics argue that i-Ready could lead to an education system overly reliant on technology, where learning is reduced to staring at screens rather than engaging with teachers.
C. Negative Student Experiences: Some findings indicate that students may have more negative experiences and off-task behaviors than positive ones when using i-Ready. The program is also said to lack opportunities for student choice and does not support the development of 21st-century skills.
D. Implementation Issues: There are concerns about how i-Ready is implemented, particularly regarding its integration with subjects like phonics and word problems in language arts, as well as fractions and calculations in math.
Could the persistence of Dr. Garcia’s strategy potentially worsen the declining math and reading proficiency within MHUSD? It appears to be a reasoned conclusion to draw. The question remains whether this risk is justifiable. Considering that each year spent waiting for results from yet another research theory equates to another year in our children’s education, the stakes are undeniably high.
3- What you can do.
Maintaining engagement, being proactive, and vocalizing the issues you encounter is an excellent beginning. Present your concerns and observations at the board meeting, including the one on April 16, 2024. Furthermore, establish a connection with your child’s school and their teachers. Inquire about the reading curriculum being utilized. Monitor your child’s reading habits and strategies closely. Warning signs of a struggling reader include the addition, omission, or substitution of words, as well as a reluctance to read a book aloud unless it has been repeatedly read to them. Ultimately, and perhaps most crucially, ensure that your child’s reading education is not solely entrusted to the district.