Earlier this week, the Hochul administration circulated a press release announcing the Governor’s “Back to Basics” education plan, a major proposal in her upcoming 2024 State of the State address. This news is likely to send ripples through the education community, particularly among elementary school teachers who utilize the kind of workshop-based instruction that is or similar to Heinemann’s Units of Study. While the focus on reading proficiency is welcome, the proposed emphasis on “Science of Reading” best practices raises questions about how this might impact the way we teach reading in middle and high school.

To be clear, we do not utilize Units of Study in my district, though some in our region do. Units of Study, which was designed by Lucy Calkins and colleagues from the (now defunct) Teachers College Reading and Writing Project, is a curriculum product that includes four reading and writing units per grade level that includes minilessons, texts, and assessments. It taps into the core philosophy of what makes a “workshop” classroom different from a more traditional classroom (which I’ve detailed below), but it has also come under scrutiny by experts who cited its lack of phonics instruction as its tragic flaw. In October of 2023, Teachers College formally withdrew its endorsement of Calkins’ work, leaving many school districts throughout the country wondering if they might have wasted millions of dollars on “ineffective” literacy curricula (and many teachers questioning their near hero-worship of Lucy Calkins herself). 

Traditional English classrooms and workshop-based English classrooms have distinct approaches to learning, each with its own strengths and weaknesses. Here’s a breakdown of their key differences:

Traditional English Classroom:

• Teacher-centered: The teacher acts as the main source of information and instruction, delivering lectures and leading discussions.
• Text-focused: The curriculum revolves around analyzing literary texts, with close reading and comprehension as primary goals.
• Whole-class instruction: Students learn together as a group, with limited opportunities for individual exploration or differentiation.
• Passive learning: Students tend to be relatively passive recipients of knowledge, with less emphasis on active participation and engagement.

Workshop-Based English Classroom:

• Student-centered: The teacher acts as a facilitator and coach, guiding students in their own learning and exploration.
• Process-focused: The curriculum emphasizes the writing process, with activities like brainstorming, drafting, revising, and publishing.
• Independent learning: Students work on individualized projects and activities, choosing their own books and exploring their interests.
• Active learning: Students are actively involved in discussion, collaboration, and critique, taking ownership of their learning.

A large body of research, including research conducted locally by my team in Bellmore-Merrick, validates the use of both models for secondary students. Our 2019-2020 action research project implemented a modified model of the reader/writer workshop that makes room for instruction utilizing some teacher-selected whole-class texts. This model, described in detail in Kelly Gallagher and Penny Kittle’s 2018 text 180 Days: Two Teachers and the Quest to Engage and Empower Adolescents is rooted in the philosophy that we need to do whatever we can to equip students to become lifelong readers, writers, and critical thinkers. We need to do this in the face of many challenges: globalization, social media & the attention economy, Artificial Intelligence and the coinciding conundrum of disinformation, misinformation and malinformation, and perhaps most importantly, a general lack of interest in reading for pleasure among younger generations. If we believe that choice drives engagement, then student choice is vitally important in a secondary English classroom. 

What is the “Science of Reading” and does it align with our use of “workshop” approaches in ELA classrooms?

The Science of Reading refers to a set of evidence-based instructional methods that prioritize explicit instruction in foundational skills like phonemic awareness, phonics, decoding, and vocabulary. This contrasts with workshop models at the elementary level, which often emphasize student choice, independent reading, and social learning in a less structured environment. While this may work for children with a well-established background in early literacy, it does not work for children who need more direct instruction on the process of decoding and making sense of words on a page. Therefore, Governor Hochul’s plan calls for the use of curricular materials and teacher training that supports the development of phonemic awareness, phonics, decoding, vocabulary, and comprehension. While most children typically learn how to read in the early elementary grades, a child’s literacy development actually begins at birth. While we can credit Calkins’ understanding of how children come to school with different cultural backgrounds, language development, and literacy capacity, what her work lacked was a method to meet each child where he is with necessary core skill instruction to facilitate more confident, fluent reading. 

While there are undoubtedly weak readers at the secondary level, with some students reading far below grade-level norms, it would be highly uncommon for a child to reach middle school without literacy interventions already in place.  For some, this may include work with a reading specialist trained in teaching methods to support children with poor skill development or learning differences such as Dyslexia. 

So the Science of Reading isn’t merely a passing trend? 

No. While it may seem “trendy” based on how often the phrase has come up in the last few years, the so-called “Science” is one side of a seesaw that includes what we’ve come to know as “Whole-Language Instruction.” We run into problems when that seesaw is out of proverbial balance. 

This initiative may (and probably should) change the way we support struggling readers at the secondary level, which could mean leveraging the knowledge of our literacy specialists to provide students with necessary scaffolds to make reading more accessible for all students, not just those with Dyslexia or other learning differences. 

It is important to note that this initiative does NOT signal the end of workshop-based instruction in secondary English classrooms. The Science of Reading and workshop-based instruction aren’t mutually exclusive. In fact, many experts and seasoned educators would argue they can be complementary approaches. Here are some potential ways to bridge the gap:

• Integrate Science of Reading principles into your mini-lessons: Use short, focused lessons to explicitly teach foundational skills relevant to the chosen texts or student reading goals.
  • Include direct instruction of academic language. In addition to teaching literary devices and techniques, expose students to a wide variety of grade-level Tier II (general academic) and Tier III (content specific) vocabulary words.
  • Provide students with masterful read-alouds of complex texts so they can make audio/visual connections between letters and sounds in unfamiliar words. 
  • Consider to what extent there may be opportunities to incorporate phonics instruction into secondary ELA classes. There are some ideas here. 

• Differentiate instruction based on student needs: Assess individual reading levels and provide targeted support for students who struggle with decoding or fluency.
  • If you have a co-teacher or occasional push-in support, seek opportunities to differentiate instruction through parallel teaching. 
  • Focus on depth rather than breadth of content, making time for students to read and write in the classroom rather than at home. 
• Use workshop time to practice and apply skills: Encourage students to apply newly acquired skills during independent reading and small-group discussions. Create time to conduct frequent 1:1 teacher/student conferences to learn more about each student’s unique abilities, interests, and needs. 
• Focus on building a love of reading: While the “Back to Basics” plan emphasizes skills, remember that fostering a passion for reading remains crucial. Choose engaging texts, create opportunities for student choice with teacher-curated Book Clubs or free-choice/independent reading units, and celebrate the joy of reading by modeling “the reading life” with students. 

So what are the most important takeaways for my secondary school English department?

The “Back to Basics” plan presents an opportunity to strengthen reading instruction in New York, but it doesn’t necessitate abandoning workshop models – especially at the secondary level when most students would benefit from subject matter and texts that fuel intrinsic motivation. Therefore, implementing these changes will not likely require significant adjustments to our curriculum and teaching practices. 

Integrating Science of Reading principles CAN enhance the effectiveness of workshops and support student reading development. This includes direct, meaningful vocabulary instruction and the use of content rich unit plans to help students build context about important topics spanning various subjects.

Continuous professional development and collaboration will be crucial in navigating this shift, even for secondary educators. Most of us will have never had formal “literacy” training beyond one or two required classes in our pre-service teacher programs, and for those of us in the profession for 10 years or more, some of what we learned may not be functionally obsolete! The $10 million investment in teacher training is a promising step towards equipping educators with the knowledge and skills needed to effectively blend the Science of Reading with their existing teaching styles. While we may see some benefits from this, I imagine the most urgent and pressing work will focus on early-childhood and elementary education. 

Remember, the ultimate goal is to empower all students to become confident and proficient readers for life!  By embracing evidence-based practices while staying true to the core values of workshop-based instruction, we can create a dynamic learning environment that fosters a love of reading and equips students with the critical thinking and discourse analysis skills they need to succeed in college and beyond. 

One more parting thought…

Maya Angelou is often credited with a version of the following statement: “Do the best you can until you know better. Then when you know better, do better.”

Whether or not Angelou actually said this is uncertain, but the wisdom behind the statement is worth considering.  

Several years ago, while attending NYSED’s EngageNY training during New York’s John King “era,” I had an opportunity to attend a meeting with David Liben, an unusually well-rounded educator who has earned accolades for his research about and consulting on literacy acquisition and achievement. He and his wife Meredith presently run Reading Done Right, but they have also done significant work with other literacy-based consulting groups and organizations. 

I attended several of these NYSED “Network Training Institutes” in Albany, where I had become one of my school district’s designated “experts” in the use of the Common Core ELA modules. 

Yes, they were unpopular. They were controversial, and they were occasionally problematic. 

[Two full weeks of close reading & analysis of Letter from a Birmingham Jail? No, Thank You.]

They [the Modules] were promoted by outspoken people who didn’t try to tiptoe around teachers’ feelings. There was federal money involved, and political rhetoric made things… messy.

From firsthand experience, I can say that the Modules weren’t perfect, but they weren’t wholly bad either. With the benefit of hindsight and a healthy dose of the learning that comes from leadership experience, I’ve since come to see the EngageNY Modules as – at least – a decent effort to bring consistent content-rich curricula to secondary ELA classrooms. But that’s another topic for another day…

I know that many of my colleagues, especially those of us who have been around two decades or more, tend to be skeptical of educational initiatives, shifts and trends. Many of us have seen this pendulum swing back and forth over the years. Just like popular fashion, what’s old is new again, until it’s not. Then the next “old” thing is “new.” And so on. 

But we need to consider that learning about education does not occur in a vacuum. Research about best practices is ongoing, and some new research puts old research into question. This is how we innovate nearly everything from medical advancements to technology. 

The Libens’ 2019 book, aptly titled Know Better, Do Better, addressed the Science of Reading before it became the buzzworthy topic that it is today. I haven’t yet read it, but it is on my list of books to get to at some point early this year.