a need for literacy in discussing literacy

The Boston Globe has an enormous, fearmongering article today on early literacy; I've posted it here as a PDF if you don't have an account. 

The reporters--there are two, Mandy McLaren and Naomi Martin--have as their thesis that Massachusetts is falling behind other states in students' abilities to read, particularly for students who are low income, and that the solution to that is to have our Legislature pass laws requiring particular kinds of curriculum.

They are basing the first part of their thesis, first, on third grade ELA MCAS scores. This is to fundamentally misunderstand what MCAS evaluates. ELA MCAS is not a reading test; it is not a literacy test. MCAS evaluates students based on the state standards in ELA, in math, and in science. In English Language Arts, those state standards can be found online here; the cover three realms of knowledge:

• reading
• writing
• speaking and listening

Even within the realm of reading, ELA MCAS isn't evaluating simply decoding written texts, but whole realms of students' interacting with written texts in more sophisticated ways. Unless, then, you have broken apart the pieces of those MCAS scores (something which is done at the student level), you don't have any idea which part students are doing well or not on. 
Anyone who talks about "third grade reading" and cites MCAS scores hasn't done their own homework.

They represent the "falling behind" by using the 4th grade NAEP scores for low income students in Massachusetts, Florida, and Mississippi. Note that they had to use the low income students, because Massachusetts came in number one in the nation in 4th grade reading overall.
They offer this chart as evidence: 

Looks a little scary, right? Well, maybe if you don't know that NAEP is scored on 500. A chart that starts at zero and goes to the actual point scale of the test looks like this (colors are the same):

Not only not as scary: barely visible. 
We should, of course, note how all our students are doing, but when you have to zoom in quite this far to see the issue, perhaps there isn't as much of an issue as presented. 

Oh, and they re-run that poorly sourced NCTQ bit on the education of teachers, too, how teachers aren't even getting the training that they need. Note what was said when this was last presented:

ok, good to see it only takes a handful of paragraphs in to get to this:
“Hundreds of universities refuse to collaborate with NCTQ because they have little credibility within higher education,” said Patrick Proctor, Boston College’s chairman of teaching, curriculum, and society.

— Tracy O'Connell Novick (@TracyNovick) June 13, 2023

 They don't do thorough and thoughtful evaluations of their course work they profess to be evaluating. And note that Martin should know this as the above is from an article she actually wrote! 

And speaking of prior pieces, Aislinn Doyle notes that she wrote a very similar piece when she was still working in Kentucky last year.

I made the mistake of reading this right before bed last night. The journalist wrote basically the same thing last year when she worked in Kentucky (which I found when she was asking around for Worcester parents to talk to.)

— Aislinn (@itmeansdream) October 7, 2023

The solution presented, to have legislation passed as some states have done, makes the classic error of substituting correlation for causation. As Matt Barnum noted in discussing Mississippi's results:

Some research supports the prevailing explanation that Mississippi’s early literacy policies contributed to better test scores. But other states have implemented similar policies and not seen gains nearly as large. It’s not clear what explains the Magnolia State’s outsized improvements. 

Call it the Mississippi mystery.

This conclusion also entirely ignores which states have a history of strong central state control over curriculum, why, and what impact that actually has on education. Texas, for example, is notorious for their strict control over what curriculum is used in their schools, leading to an outsized impact on the textbook market. They are not alone among those in the southeastern United States for that centralized control; that came about alongside a requirement of the federal government that readmitted states who had rebelled include language in their state constitutions on education. The states responded by tightly and strictly controlling much about how children are taught in those schools.

Not so Massachusetts, which doesn't have that history, which sets out standards under which districts in consultation with educators select the curriculum (or -a) that are used. I am not arguing that this is a perfect answer, but it largely has served Massachusetts and states like Massachusetts well, combined with a host of other policies and financial priorities that have led to strong public education systems.

The reporters initially were looking to include Worcester, by the way, but because Worcester has now changed its curriculum, we are relegated to a subordinate clause. After all, i the story isn't nearly as scary and one doesn't need the state to force those clueless districts to do something if they in fact already are.

We have a non-solution in search of an actual proved problem. 

Let me add here that this article isn't presented in a vacuum; it has as its backdrop not only the latest episode of the reading wars, but also the recent embrace of it by Moms for Liberty, leading to this tweet yesterday;

And let's definitely not accidentally ally ourselves with fascists.

— Eeeeeklizabeth (@eisraeldavis) October 7, 2023

Should we be concerned if our kids can read? Yes. 

Has there been not-recent research that should lead districts to ensure students are being taught thoroughly? Yes.  

Do we deserve non-fearmongering coverage, based on actual data honestly presented, without solutions that aren't? Yes.