Copyright The Boston Globe
Needs of multilingual learners ignored As longtime educators of multilingual students, we were disheartened that the Massachusetts House of Representatives passed a “Science of Reading” bill that ignores the needs of the Commonwealth’s multilingual learners (“Mass. House OK’s disputed reading bill,” Metro, Oct. 30). The bill under consideration is reported to replace “outdated methods” with what it lists as “five research-based areas” in reading instruction. However, these five areas come from a National Reading Panel report from 2000 that excluded children learning English. A quarter of a century later, we are relying, ironically, on a report that also reflects outdated methods. English learners tend to score lowest on state and national reading assessments, and more recent research (from the 21st century) reveals that they require a broader array of supports in monolingual and bilingual education classrooms. Advertisement If we are serious about improving reading for all students, this law needs to attend to teaching children to read in English and other languages. Sadly, current “Science of Reading” laws rarely address these needs. This creates undifferentiated curriculums that overlook the very students the law is supposed to support. As legislators work to reconcile the House and Senate versions of this bill, we strongly recommend designing a law that takes multilingual learners’ needs into account. Patrick Proctor Newton Phyllis Hardy Ashland Proctor is a professor at the Boston College Lynch School of Education and Human Development. Hardy is executive director of the Multistate Association for Bilingual Education-Northeast. There’s a reason teachers unions oppose ‘Science of Reading’ It is both baffling and tragic that Massachusetts appears on the verge of abandoning literacy programs that have consistently placed it at the top of the National Assessment of Educational Progress. The “science” that supports this change is predominantly a 25-year-old survey of research that was never intended to provide a full foundation of instruction. The “high-quality” programs that the legislation will require are tightly controlled and often scripted, giving little choice to teachers — or students. It’s little wonder that teachers unions oppose them. Why in the world would state lawmakers take this step? Advertisement Thomas Newkirk Durham, N.H. The writer is the author of “The Broken Logic of ‘Sold a Story’: A Personal Response to ‘The Science of Reading’ ” (Literacy Research Commons).
