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
Don't cut Pell grants for part-time students
Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up The House-passed bill would only give the maximum Pell grant to students taking 15 credits a semester (generally five classes). Students attending school less than half-time, who are earning less than 7.5 credits, would not be eligible for any Pell money. Advertisement The change would disproportionately affect students at community colleges and other two-year institutions. According to the Advertisement At Northern Essex Community College, President Lane Glenn said two-thirds of students attend part-time and the most common number of credits taken in a semester is six. 'Students tend to be older, not just out of high school, and they're balancing jobs and families with going to school,' Glenn said. The What the shift would mean practically for Massachusetts' community college students would be up to state policy makers. Massachusetts this year started offering universal free community college. But the state has a 'last-dollar' program, which means students must first apply for federal financial aid, then the state covers any remaining cost. If the federal government cuts aid amounts, the Legislature and governor will have to decide whether to replace the federal funding with state money — a large expense for state taxpayers — or to change the eligibility for free community college by aligning it with federal funding standards. If they choose the latter route, students currently taking just two courses a semester would have to either push themselves to take more credits, pay for school themselves, or drop out. 'A change in a law isn't going to change their ability to spend more hours studying,' said David Baime, senior vice president for government relations at the American Association of Community Colleges. 'We think this would force many [students] to stop attending our institutions.' Advertisement This isn't just a Massachusetts or a blue state issue. Around According to the Changing the threshold for the maximum grant from 12 credits a semester to 15 credits a semester would result in about half of current Pell enrollees receiving smaller grants, according to the CBO. Those two provisions combined are In a separate budget bill, Trump One rationale for the policy shift is that But there's no evidence that cutting aid for a student who is working or caring for a child or aging parent will get them to take more classes, rather than force them to drop out altogether. If they do drop out, that has long-term implications for both the student and the workforce. Advertisement The main motivation for the Pell changes appears to simply be cost-cutting, at the expense of those students who need the money the most. The Senate should reject these proposals. Editorials represent the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us
Boston Globe
3 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Being a progressive activist made me miserable
Advertisement My anxiety, depression, and PTSD symptoms were at their worst when I was most invested in the left-wing ideology I'd built my professional and social life around. That all changed in late 2020, when I quit my job after months of growing disillusionment. I 'graduated' from therapy at that point, and over the following years, my mental health kept improving, despite fluctuating income and the eventual loss of formerly close connections. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up As my political views and social networks shifted, my emotional trajectory tracked with longstanding research showing that the further left a person's political views lean, the more likely they are to be diagnosed with certain kinds of mental or emotional distress. Researchers have documented a happiness gap between conservatives and liberals for decades. This pattern holds across Advertisement Such uncharitable assumptions about conservatives reflect a cultural problem that I believe at least partially drives this happiness gap: leftists' unwillingness to fairly consider other viewpoints or question their own. Though they are often well-intentioned, their culture subverts those intentions. Leftists often embrace negative beliefs and are often unwilling to rethink those beliefs — even when those beliefs distort or contradict reality. Sabrina Joy Stevens is a communications consultant. Sam Cruz For example, the belief that racism, sexism, and other forms of bigotry are the root cause of inequalities and disparate outcomes ignores countless other macroeconomic, cultural, and natural conditions that affect people's choices and circumstances. This causes people on the left to misinterpret reality in divisive, anxiety-inducing ways that undermine their social and emotional well-being. Leftists' tendency toward self-segregation not only weakens the social support necessary for mental health, it makes it harder for them to encounter information that could help them abandon unhealthy ideas and thought patterns. It also increases the likelihood that they will spend more of their time surrounded by people who share their psychological struggles. By denigrating and dismissing perspectives they disagree with, many leftists forfeit opportunities to cultivate relationships and habits of mind that promote mental health. Advertisement My political evolution If there is anyone who should be a lifer in the lefty political camp, it's me. I am a college-educated Black woman raised by lifelong Democrats. I am an advocate by nature, with a lifelong passion for civil and human rights. I actually ran my first campaign in elementary school, unseating our safety patrol captain for abusing his power. After my dad survived the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center, where he worked, I became an antiwar activist in the hope that peace activism could prevent more terrorism. In college, I joined multiple causes promoting environmentalism and fighting against animal cruelty, human rights abuses, sweatshop labor, mass incarceration, educational injustice, racial injustice, and gender inequality. I added union organizing to the list of my causes after being mistreated as a public school teacher in my early 20s, and eventually I became a professional communications strategist, working at several progressive advocacy organizations. I should note, though, that there is nothing inherently or exclusively 'progressive' about these causes. Any well-meaning person could take an interest in promoting issues like workers' rights and environmental protection, because there are multiple ways to pursue cultural and policy shifts that support those goals. But after years of learning from left-leaning professors, and especially after enduring ideological purity conflicts where more militant left-wing partisans convert, silence, or push out peers who are less committed to leftist ideology, I conformed. To fully advance civil and human rights, I believed, being a leftist was required. Advertisement My disenchantment with left-wing ideology began during the spring of 2020, when the disconnect between progressives' alarming rhetoric — such as the assertion that racism constituted a deadly pandemic of its own — and our unserious actions became too frustrating for me to ignore. Then, as now, professional progressives and left-leaning politicians claimed that our country was all but collapsing under the weight of bigotry and fascism. Yet we continued the same performative protests, petitions, and social media stunts as ever. Meanwhile, more-militant leftists responded to the perceived urgency of the moment by rioting. Hearing our narratives echoed by those destroying ordinary people's livelihoods and property disturbed me. This began a process of investigating whether the ideas I'd been steeped in were actually based in reality. That prompted me to reexamine and eventually abandon the 'systemic injustice' worldview I learned in college and subsequent activist spaces, along with the accompanying 'oppressors versus victims' narrative. Though I would never want to relive 2020's public health, political, or economic crises, I am grateful for the way they disrupted the echo chambers I used to inhabit. That enabled me to engage with contradictory evidence and spot logical fallacies in my political beliefs that were harder to notice when I was constantly surrounded by like-minded people. The enforcers of ideological conformity Lefty partisans' dominance of many influential professions and institutions makes rethinking harder to do. Though the 'progressive left' and 'establishment liberals' are estimated to account for just Advertisement It's important to note, however, that this dominance didn't happen by chance. It's the result of leftist pressure campaigns in various professions, institutions, and organizations. For example, left-wing activists in academia agitate to change curriculum, admissions, and hiring decisions in ways that promote their ideology in the classroom and beyond. They protest to get certain ideas taught and other ideas and speakers suppressed, and they use practices like Even spaces like online knitting communities and breastfeeding support groups have been beset by leftists Advertisement One field where left-wing activism has distorted public knowledge is climate science. Many climate activists believe that carbon emissions are the biggest threat to our future and that government interventions are the most important solution. Accordingly, the activist-approved narrative on climate focuses on dramatic information they hope will scare people into supporting such interventions. Longtime climate scientist how members of his field are incentivized to oversimplify and overemphasize climate change at the expense of other relevant information: 'I sacrificed contributing the most valuable knowledge for society in order for the research to be compatible with the confirmation bias of the editors and reviewers of the journals I was targeting.' Neither Pielke nor Brown ever denied the existence or significance of climate change. Nonetheless, left-wing climate activists and academics slandered both men as 'climate deniers,' 'unhinged,' 'irresponsible,' and so on. By discouraging scientists and journalists from sharing nuanced and practical explanations of our environmental challenges, militant climate activists have fostered an alarmist conversation that causes millions of people unnecessary anxiety. Thankfully, some researchers are finding the courage to stop self-censoring. But hardline activists and academics continue to label those who deviate even slightly from their approved narrative 'climate deniers,' which functions as a thought-stopping tactic. A more extreme example of this dynamic exists in the field promoting gender drugs and surgeries for youth. Gender activists within academia and prominent medical organizations built the alleged 'expert consensus' on these interventions with deceptive practices like In the communications training sessions I lead, I regularly warn clients against manipulating audiences through fear and anger — for example, by mislabeling reasonable objections as 'bigotry.' Not only does this poison public discourse, it sabotages campaigners' own mental health. I speak from experience here. The belief that entrenched, identity-based socioeconomic systems dictate most of our life outcomes fosters what psychologists call an external locus of control, Reflecting on my journals and medical history during my last few months of therapy, I noticed that my PTSD symptoms, from an experience I had suffered years before, had gotten considerably worse once I started working in progressive organizations. They peaked in 2018 and 2019 while I was working at a feminist legal organization. I spent my days there generating and consuming alarmist rhetoric for our internal and external campaigns, and my free time in a social media bubble full of people mirroring my then-obsessive Trump hatred. I spent multiple hours a day catastrophizing with my friends and colleagues, doing the exact opposite of what I was trying to learn in therapy. Around that same time, attorney Greg Lukianoff and psychologist Jonathan Haidt published 'The Coddling of the American Mind.' In that book, they share Lukianoff's hypothesis that by reinforcing politically induced cognitive distortions (for example, promoting the idea that controversial speech 'harms' marginalized people), colleges and universities were inadvertently performing reverse cognitive behavioral therapy on students. I ultimately found it very insightful, but only after ignoring it for years simply because my tribe hated Lukianoff and Haidt. Back when 'Coddling' debuted, Lukianoff and the organization he leads, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, or FIRE, held villain status in my circles because they opposed cancel culture and weren't aligned with our stance on Title IX regulations. and those accused of it' (emphasis added), was reasonable. But in our communications, we accused groups like this of demanding ' If leftists honestly examined the shortcomings of their beliefs, they could improve their mental and political prospects. But their pride often gets in their way. When you spend years vilifying anyone who disagrees with you, it's difficult to notice (much less concede) when they have a point. Particularly for those in academia and professional advocacy — whose incomes are tied up in their faulty beliefs — there's also a strong financial disincentive against rethinking. Academics whose work offends their most dogmatic colleagues risk not only their reputations but funding and career opportunities. Likewise, activist organizations that attempt to course-correct risk being financially and socially punished by the very supporters they helped to radicalize. That perverse incentive against self-correction is one of the many risks of building a supporter base on exaggerated, emotionally manipulative communications. Yet failing to adjust their approach is costing them credibility, while exacerbating burnout and mental illness among staff and supporters. I understand that dilemma. It cost me a lot to rethink my beliefs, but those losses hardly compare to the freedom I've gained by divesting from left-wing ideology and culture. Leaving the left allowed me to relax and reclaim the energy I previously spent feeling unjustifiably threatened by disagreement or stressing over how everything I think or do might be perceived by judgmental peers. Losing fake friends freed up space for real ones. Dropping unethical clients freed up space to pursue other passions and work with principled people who care more about solving problems than enforcing ideological conformity. Instead of vetting clients based on which 'side' they represent on an arbitrary political spectrum, I now consider whether they can show that their ideas and approaches would protect our inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property. Rejecting demands for ideological purity freed me to deepen my Christian faith, follow evidence instead of emotional appeals, and develop an outlook on life that doesn't make me anxious or depressed. I've chosen political independence now. Doing this in a partisan environment is challenging, but reclaiming my reasoning and emotional well-being from unhealthy tribal dynamics has been well worth it. Doing good in the world doesn't have to feel terrible. Being 'part of the solution' doesn't require being part of a political tribe. It simply requires us to have the humility and curiosity to prioritize truth over personal validation, acknowledging that we're not always right and that those we consider opponents aren't always wrong.
Boston Globe
15 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Is Trump's troop deployment in LA a prelude to martial law?
Neither did Hegseth announced that National Guard members and the Marines will stay in Los Angeles for Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up At a Advertisement This is a Trump made-for-TV spectacle of authoritarianism disguised as law and order. It's likely a prelude to martial law. Rob Bonta, California's attorney general, is Advertisement Protests were sparked last week after Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials conducted several workplace raids in Los Angeles, including a But what began as boisterous but peaceful protests against Trump's anti-immigrant scheme which now demands 'If I didn't ''SEND IN THE TROOPS,'" Trump said Tuesday on social media, Los Angeles 'would be burning to the ground right now,' before he disparaged Bass and Newsom. Yes, there has been looting, and some cars have been burned and vandalized. But Trump is lying about the extent of lawlessness. Trump is following his bad policies with even worse provocations that could portend a modern-day Kent State tragedy with soldiers firing live bullets at protesters. But for Trump, the more chaos, the better. As a White House official said, 'We're happy to have this fight.' To some extent this fight to suppress dissent has been boiling in Trump for five years. During nationwide demonstrations after the police murder of George Floyd in 2020, Trump, then in his first term, asked members of his Cabinet whether protesters could be shot. 'He thought that the protests made the country look weak, made us look weak, and 'us' meant him,' Mark Esper, Trump's former defense secretary, Advertisement Esper recalled Trump saying to now-retired General Mark Milley, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, ''Can't you just shoot them, just shoot them in the legs or something?' … It was a suggestion and a formal question. And we were just all taken aback at that moment as this issue just hung very heavily in the air.' Ultimately, Trump was talked out of it. That won't happen this time, with an administration packed with people whose only loyalty is to him, not to the Constitution or rule of law. After Tom Homan, Trump's bloviating border czar, If not for the ICE arrest of But not now. Everything in Trump's second administration is designed to codify his authoritarianism. If Trump can convince enough people, especially among his white base, that he alone represents the thin orange line between civilization — as Advertisement Right now, the administration claims the military is in Los Angeles to protect federal buildings and assets — theoretically. Trump has not invoked the Insurrection Act, but neither has he ruled out unleashing US troops on protesters. With his draconian policies, Trump has lit the fuse for what could be a long and difficult summer of protests. With an occupying military force in this nation's second largest city, he has declared war against America itself. Renée Graham is a Globe columnist. She can be reached at
