Dear Parents, Teachers, and Leaders,
The topic of reading and literacy instruction is a difficult one, and it feels a bit like an “emperor has no clothes” scenario. It is both surprising and distressing to realize that reading instruction isn’t always based on evidence, and that no one wants to openly acknowledge it. This unwillingness to talk about the issue harms our students, families, and teachers, and ultimately negatively impacts our district.
We cannot let concerns about perception hold us back from doing the right thing for our kids. Many teachers and administrators know our curriculum isn’t fully aligned with reading science. If we know better, we must do better. Continuing to use materials and methods that are known to be ineffective and may even harm some kids is simply not acceptable.
How These Materials Harm Kids
We know there’s a wide range in how children learn to read. There is the small number of kids who will learn no matter what, and another small percentage who may struggle even with the best instruction. But there is also a significant group of children—often called “curriculum casualties”—who need more structure and would not have struggled with proper instruction from the start.
These are children who have no learning impairment but become poor readers because of the wrong kind of instruction. Methods like three-cueing (guessing words and relying on pictures) and memorizing sight words may seem effective in kindergarten and first grade, but they can quickly fall apart as words and text become more complex. Starting with a weak foundation requires a costly and time-consuming process of unlearning bad habits later on. Furthermore, this issue disproportionately impacts less-resourced children who do not have access to the resources to solve for a lack of direct, explicit reading instruction, highlighting a profound equity issue.
Some people might shrug their shoulders at this complaint, thinking it doesn’t really matter how we teach reading and writing. But it does. If you have ever talked with a student, parent, or family member of a child struggling to read, you know how profoundly it impacts them.
The ability to read is a critical foundational skill, and we cannot afford to get it wrong. Every child gets only one chance in their early grades. The stakes are incredibly high: a student who is not reading proficiently by the end of third grade is four times more likely to drop out of high school.
A Call to Action
Many parents have sought individual solutions—supplementing instruction at home, paying for tutoring, or even removing their child from school. Yet these options are not available to kids who are less-resourced. Those kids need strong, structured literacy at school. And when parents quietly navigate these systemic issues, we inadvertently perpetuate the problem.
That is why I am speaking out. I have spoken to enough parents across multiple schools to know this is a widespread issue. I have not gotten adequate answers at the district level for why we are not changing course more quickly. Why are we not questioning and replacing this curriculum, books, and assessment that were all built around three-cueing? There needs to be a greater sense of urgency. I am not here to point fingers; I am here to ask: who is willing to step up and lead?
For teachers, I realize this issue is more fraught. There are good reasons why teachers may not feel empowered or able to speak out against these outdated practices and materials. Many teachers received insufficient training on reading instruction. And even then, raising concerns can be perceived as being critical of the school or even the district. I can fully relate to this dilemma.
However, we need literacy advocates at all levels. We need parents and teachers advocating for evidence-based programs and materials. And most importantly, we need leaders who are willing to do the hard work to implement change.
The first step is simple acknowledgment: we can no longer pretend this isn’t an issue. District leaders must be educated on and cognizant of evidence-based practices; they should not be perpetuating disproven concepts that can harm our students. We need knowledgeable dual-language leaders who can provide credible guidance and who recognize that the science of reading also applies to our multilingual learners.
We cannot continue with this idea that we must choose between structured literacy and supporting our multilingual learners. We must move both forward together; we cannot support our English language learners without also applying the science of reading. I want to be very clear: I am a strong advocate for our dual language program in Highline. However, we need to strengthen our approach to English literacy in order to also strengthen our dual language program.
Next Steps
Once we start this conversation, there needs to be a clear action plan. This plan should have specific, measurable outcomes for improving literacy instruction and should be shared with the community. If work is already being done—such as piloting a new foundational skills program or training teachers in programs like LETRS or UFLI—that progress must be communicated to us as well.
Parents and families are equal partners in supporting our schools and our kids. We should know when and if changes are being implemented. And if only some schools are getting improved materials or programs, then we deserve to know why that is. We will need some transparency around this issue to restore trust.
We should not let politics distract us on this issue; we need pragmatism, not dogmatism. Early literacy is the low-hanging fruit for improving education and literacy outcomes for our kids. I remain hopeful that through open conversation and collective action, we can ensure that every child in our district receives strong, evidence-based literacy instruction.
If you would like to submit a statement in support of this complaint, please fill out this form.
For anyone looking to learn more about the issue of reading instruction, here are a few resources:
- Hard Words – Why Aren’t Kids Being Taught to Read? – an overview of the issue and a precursor to the podcast Sold a Story.
- Also check out At a Loss for Words, authored by Emily Hanford.
- Is My Kid Learning to Read? The Purple Challenge – a video of a Raz Kids leveled reader, demonstrating how ineffective leveled readers are at building decoding and foundational skills.
- ARC Core – Ridley Reads Wolves (3Y) – a video demonstrating one of my complaints with ARC Core: kindergarten reading materials that encourage three-cueing (guessing words based on pictures, first letter, and context).
– Lauren Schmidt
School District Responds
We reached out to Highline Public Schools for a statement about this letter, and here’s what they said:
“Ms. Schmidt submitted a complaint to our Instructional Materials Committee regarding the ARC Core literacy curriculum used in our elementary schools.
Reading and writing are foundational to student success in every subject and grade. Highline’s literacy approach is grounded in decades of research, known as the science of reading, on how children learn to read and write. We look forward to better understanding the concerns shared through the complaint and to continuing to refine and strengthen literacy instruction across Highline.
“The Instructional Materials Committee will review the complaint in detail over the next several weeks and issue a decision in line with board policy 2020 and procedure 2020. More information about the curriculum and how we teach literacy in elementary school is available on our website: How We Teach Reading in Highline.”
EDITOR’S NOTE: Do you have an opinion you’d like to share with our highly engaged local Readers? If so, please email your Letter to the Editor to scott@southkingmedia.com and, pending review and verification that you’re a real human being, we may publish it. Letter writers must use their full name, as well as provide an address and phone number (NOT for publication but for verification purposes). Read our full Letter to the Editor policy here.
