Readers have words over renewed push to overhaul literacy
Equally troubling is the growing drive toward programs that rely heavily on screens, rigid workbooks, and scripted lessons. Many are not differentiated, lack a logical scope and sequence, and even promote practices, such as repetitive, skill-based worksheets and
Get The Gavel
A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr.
Enter Email
Sign Up
No program can succeed without time, support, and high-quality professional development. Teachers need space and support to respond to student needs, not top-down mandates that reduce complex work to checklists.
Advertisement
Literacy reform should focus on equipping teachers, not blaming them. Let's build a path forward that centers professional learning, student needs, and instructional flexibility, rather than scapegoating and standardization.
Becca Burk
Leeds, Maine
State risks discarding a valuable resource
I was concerned to read about
Advertisement
The Units of Study series, with its reading workshop approach, was an excellent resource for teaching literacy in my fourth-grade classroom in New York in the mid-2010s. This program brought wonderful children's literature, book clubs, and thoughtful approaches to teaching to my students. The authors of this curriculum have since taken pains to address the critiques of previous versions, including increasing phonics instruction. I worry about the effect of mandating a curriculum for students, teachers, schools, and districts for whom Units of Study, with targeted adaptations, has been working well.
In education, and especially in literacy, we tend to look for silver bullets and quick fixes. Many literacy curriculums currently in vogue rely on common textbooks even at the elementary level, which I fear would be far less interesting or challenging to many students. If we mandate new curriculums and all districts purchase these materials, and then things swing the other way in 10 years, will we simply toss those materials, at great expense?
Our state should resist the urge to mandate a literacy curriculum, no matter how tempting.
Peter Cipparone
Roslindale
The writer is the head of school at The Croft School in Jamaica Plain, a private school that currently educates students in preschool through grade four.
Any reform should address children's crucial first years
Reading depends on knowing spoken words in one language or multiple languages.
When babies hear songs, lullabies, stories, and conversations every day, they can start to understand words and phrases. When babies start to talk, they can listen to stories read to them from books. They can follow simple and complex sentences (for example, 'You are my sunshine ... you make me happy when skies are gray').
Advertisement
Toddlers can learn to spot the initials of their family members from an alphabet page (M is for Mama). By the time they are in preschool, children can understand the link between the spoken and written word.
Children who both have a basic vocabulary and know the connection between written letters and the spoken word will be able to learn to read in school.
Parents and day-care and preschool teachers may need help to present very young children with many hours of face-to-face talk. I hope the new literacy reform will include effective programs for helping new parents and caregivers build basic vocabulary during the precious first two years of life.
Greta Lee Splansky
Framingham
Phonics made all the difference
I taught my son to read 25 years ago when I purchased Hooked on Phonics. He would have much preferred to be watching TV or playing games after dinner, but I continued to follow the program with him for the year until he mastered all of the material. In addition to the study of the printed phonics flash cards, we listened to recordings of the correct pronunciation of letters and phonics. This program was very effective in teaching my son to read, spell, and pronounce words correctly. This simple and basic curriculum solved a big problem for my son, who was not learning in the classroom.
Posted to BostonGlobe.com by Veritas 2
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
2 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Trump's latest manufactured crisis has Los Angeles in its grip
Advertisement And it's hard to imagine them voting to trample local local enforcement. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up But then this administration has been just spoiling for a confrontation — especially in Los Angeles, with presidential advisers like And the president threw gasoline on the fire. Even as more demonstrators took to the streets, Advertisement Now there is no excuse for violence on the streets of any American city — and burning Waymo robot-driven cabs is hardly a good image for those with legitimate concerns about tactics used by immigration forces. The initial demonstrations were touched off by immigration raids at a garment factory and But throughout the weekend there was also no evidence that state and local police were incapable of dealing with the situation without the unasked-for federal intervention. In fact, some These are not the LA riots of 1992 in the wake of the verdict acquitting police officers of beating a Black man, Rodney King. Some Trump has long been the master of the manufactured crisis — the kind he has repeatedly used to justify broad use of executive powers. The president had barely finished taking the oath of office, when he declared a crisis at the border, requiring an Then there was the declaration of an equally nonexistent In April, with the Advertisement But by calling out the National Guard in California, on his own initiative and under false pretenses, Trump has entered new and more dangerous territory. 'The people who are causing the problems are bad people, they are insurrectionists,' Trump The president has not yet invoked the Insurrection Act but instead is using a section of the US Code on Armed Services ( That certainly explains Trump's escalating rhetoric and that of his administration, but it is an allegation that at the end of the day would have to be proven in court. 'Federal law enforcement officers were attacked by violent radicals and illegal criminals waving foreign flags because Governor Newsom was too weak to protect the city,' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt Those 'foreign flags' were evidence not of an 'invasion' but for many Mexican-Americans in LA, But for this administration there is no detail that can't be used to distort the truth. 'Let me be clear: There is no invasion. There is no rebellion,' Advertisement Sure, Trump has long had it in for California, threatening to But the truly horrifying thing about Trump's current move is that it could happen to each and every state in the nation — or, more likely, to each and every Democratic state, especially when truth is so irrelevant to the Trump administration and facts are so fungible. The other danger is that having normalized the deployment of troops during manufactured crises, Trump will feel empowered to use them in even more forceful or aggressive ways if and when the nation faces actual crises. California's political leaders will not be fighting this battle on behalf of the rule of law alone. It's our fight too, and it won't be the last. Editorials represent the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us
Boston Globe
3 hours ago
- Boston Globe
What would the world be like with three superpowers?
Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up It's an idea that could lead to greater stability. Three stern bosses would govern their own regions, slapping down challengers and troublemakers. They would make major decisions together, or at least with respect for one another's security. Advertisement Their rule would also sharply limit the sovereignty of lesser powers that are near one of the three big ones. Canada, Ukraine, and Taiwan would have to follow orders from Washington, Moscow, and Beijing. Advertisement Orwell did not invent the idea of dividing vast regions into 'spheres of influence' for great powers. It emerged from the Berlin Conference of 1884, at which European powers divided Africa among themselves. Underlying it is the age-old principle that the strong do what they can while the weak suffer what they must. Trump might relish the vision of sitting down to divide the world with two other autocrats, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping. It would be a global version of the 1945 Yalta Conference, at which World War II victors decided the fate of European nations. In the modern age, though, it may not be practical. Nationalism and decolonization have shaped the current generation of leaders in much of the world. That makes it unlikely that smaller countries would now accept guidance from larger ones. Upstarts like Eritrea and Burkina Faso, not to mention middle powers like South Africa and Saudi Arabia, have already shown their willingness to challenge the global titans. Attempts to control them more tightly could lead them to rebel even more forcefully. Then there is the question of which countries would be the Big Three. In the 1980s, when Russia was tottering and China had not yet reached great-power status, the three forces that came closest to ruling the world were the United States, Japan, and Europe. Today it is clear that the United States and China belong in the top tier. Russia would be the most likely third member. All three of these countries, however, face serious domestic and foreign challenges. They may be top dogs today, but their positions are hardly unassailable. Upheaval in today's world is in part a result of their inability to control unruly disruptors. Advertisement An Asia ruled by India might someday be an alternative to the ruthlessness of the Russian and Chinese regimes. North and South America under Brazilian oversight might be more peaceful and socially just than they are under the wing of the United States. As for Europe, it is in the throes of an epochal identity crisis and no longer projects power as it did in past centuries. The greatest benefit of a tripartite division of the world is that it might lessen the threat of global destruction through nuclear war. Agreement among powerful nations could calm fears that might propel them toward apocalyptic decisions. Given the urgent reality of this threat, anything that lessens it is instantly appealing. Obstacles to the three-great-powers vision, though, are easy to identify. Today the United States considers most of the world to be its 'sphere of influence.' Drawing new lines would inevitably mean a shrinking of the American domain, something Washington is unlikely to accept. Then there is the question of where those lines would be. Imagining a new world map may be an amusing fantasy project. In real life establishing one would be all but impossible. Perhaps the greatest obstacle to a new division of the world is the highly developed sensitivity of countries that have been victims of imperialism. The United States, Russia, and China were created by seizing land from others. All three have expanded their power at the expense of weaker countries. Those countries, some of them gathered in the BRICS bloc, sense a common threat. Persuading them to accept a return to obedient servitude would require a far better deal than the United States, Russia, or China is prepared to offer. Advertisement Stephen Kinzer is a senior fellow at the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University.
Yahoo
13 hours ago
- Yahoo
The Criminal Case Against Kilmar Abrego Garcia Is Highly Suspect
On Friday, the Trump administration finally complied with multiple court orders to bring Kilmar Abrego Garcia back to the United States, securing his release from a prison in El Salvador. The catch: Federal officials promptly placed Abrego Garcia in criminal custody, unveiling an indictment alleging that he unlawfully smuggled migrants across the U.S. He will now be detained in Tennessee—far from his home and family in Maryland—awaiting trial on these charges. The indictment is, quite obviously, an effort by the White House to save face after losing its legal battle to keep Abrego Garcia imprisoned overseas. It has been nearly three months since the government deported him, due to its own 'administrative error,' in clear violation of a court order. And it has been almost two months since the Supreme Court ordered the government to 'facilitate' his return from the Salvadoran prison where he has been held. Although Abrego Garcia lacks permanent legal status in the U.S., he was protected against removal to his home country of El Salvador and denied due process during his expulsion, along with hundreds of other migrants to the notorious CECOT prison complex. (After his case garnered international attention, he was moved by Salvadoran authorities to a different prison.) Now, after repeatedly suggesting that it would defy SCOTUS, the Trump administration has finally complied, begrudgingly, by bringing Abrego Garcia back to the United States to face criminal prosecution. The charges against him may be valid. They may be exaggerated. Or they may be fabricated. It is far too soon to tell, and an indictment—which is notoriously easy to obtain—sheds little light on the matter. But already, there are at least five reasons to be skeptical that the government is acting in good faith and telling the truth about Abrego Garcia. First, it is unclear why the Trump administration waited so long to bring this indictment if the facts are as damning and undeniable as it claims. The White House has been desperately searching for ways to smear Abrego Garcia since it first deported him in March. It incessantly alleged that he was a known gang member without proffering any credible evidence; the White House's alleged 'proof' rested on the word of a disgraced former cop who later pleaded guilty to providing confidential information to a sex worker he had hired. The administration also accused Abrego Garcia of human trafficking because, in late 2022, he was pulled over while driving in a car with eight other Hispanic men. That episode now forms the basis of his indictment. But if that's true, why did federal prosecutors wait two and a half years to charge him? Second, and relatedly, the federal government took a very different view of the 2022 incident when it occurred. There was no overt evidence that Abrego Garcia was smuggling immigrants across the country, as prosecutors now claim. At the time, any inference of human trafficking rested entirely on circumstantial evidence and racial profiling. (A known construction worker, Abrego Garcia reported that he and his passengers were on their way to a construction site.) After pulling him over, Tennessee police reported Abrego Garcia and his passengers to federal law enforcement—but federal officers directed local police to let them continue along their way. The federal government did not see fit to even detain or investigate him then. Now it has brought felony charges against him. What changed—other than the president and his suddenly urgent desire to find a justification for his blatantly unlawful rendition program? Third, as Just Security's Ryan Goodman has noted, the government's account of the 2022 traffic stop has shifted as well. In their indictment and motion for pretrial detention, prosecutors claim that Abrego Garcia lied to officers during the encounter, concealing that he was driving his passengers up from Texas. That allegation lies at the heart of the case: It ostensibly confirms that Abrego Garcia was dishonest about his actions and intentions, giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that he was covering up criminal activity. The allegation, though, appears to be false. According to a 2022 Department of Homeland Security referral report, he was driving his passengers from Texas to Maryland for construction work. This report thus contradicts the government's new assertion that Abrego Garcia deceptively omitted the fact that his journey began in the Lone Star State. Fourth, prosecutors have now brought forth a raft of disturbing allegations about Abrego Garcia's behavior, accusing him of regularly smuggling guns, transporting migrants for cash, and attempting to solicit child pornography. But it has provided literally no supporting evidence for its claims about child pornography, or even the scantest details about this eye-popping accusation. Meanwhile, its allegations about human smuggling rest entirely on Abrego Garcia's alleged co-conspirators, who have since been imprisoned or deported. This kind of evidence is notoriously unreliable, in part because the government frequently offers deals—including payments, sentence reductions, or early release—to informants in exchange for inculpatory evidence. This practice incentivizes hyperbolic or made-up claims and disproportionately leads to wrongful conviction. Indeed, the Supreme Court recently took the rare step of overturning a capital conviction that rested on the dubious testimony of the defendant's alleged co-conspirator. The Trump administration's accusations should therefore be regarded with healthy suspicion. Finally, ABC News has reported that Ben Schrader, a high-ranking federal prosecutor in Tennessee, has resigned over his office's conduct in this case, fearing that Abrego Garcia was targeted for political reasons. Schrader's unusual move is a flashing red warning sign that something has gone terribly wrong in this case. There could be no clearer indication that the Trump administration is, indeed, persecuting Abrego Garcia as punishment for his efforts to fight his illegal deportation—a perverse attempt to ensure that, although he may have succeeded in returning to the U.S., his remaining time here will be spent behind bars. In 1940, shortly before his elevation to the Supreme Court, Robert Jackson issued a warning about the sweeping discretion of federal prosecutors. 'With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes,' Jackson explained, 'a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone. In such a case, it is not a question of discovering the commission of a crime and then looking for the man who has committed it, it is a question of picking the man and then searching the law books, or putting investigators to work, to pin some offense on him.' This approach, Jackson warned, represents the 'greatest danger of abuse,' especially for those who happen to be 'unpopular' with the government. It is abundantly clear that in Abrego Garcia's case, the Trump administration started by 'picking the man,' then looking for the crime. That alone is cause for concern that this indictment represents a grievous abuse of the criminal justice system. The facts that come out at trial may or may not substantiate the charges. But at this point, the case bears so many hallmarks of a political prosecution that no one should assume that the government is speaking a word of truth.
