The Lexington Problem
Should literacy laws apply equally to everyone, or just the lowest performers?
With Massachusetts passing its version of a science of reading bill this week, I took to The 74 to write about what I dubbed The Lexington Problem:
If a district has low reading scores and uses instructional practices that are inconsistent with what has been well documented about how children learn to read, the case is clear for switching to an evidence-based science of reading approach.
But Lexington’s young readers are not struggling. They have relatively strong test scores. So, perhaps not surprisingly, the prospect of being forced to change their literacy practices hasn’t sat well with Lexington’s leaders.
What should a state do with respect to districts like this? Lexington is a wealthy district, and it’s reading scores are… fine? On one hand, you could note that only 44% of the district’s low-income 3rd grade students scored proficient in reading last year, and only 25% of its students with disabilities did so. On the other hand, it’s also worth noting that each of these subgroups outperformed their peers statewide by a fair margin.
Could the district be doing even better? Probably, especially if it did a better job of teaching foundational skills in reading.
But should the state micro-manage a district like Lexington? That’s where I’m less convinced. As Rachel Schechter pointed out on LinkedIn, this district happens to have a knowledge-rich social studies curriculum in grades K-5, which may be helping to boost its reading scores. Other readers have noted that it’s quite possible the district’s wealth is contributing to its reading outcomes, not necessarily anything the district is doing instructionally. Regardless, I’d personally rather the state use carrots and financial incentives and tools like a phonics check for 6-year-olds as a way to ensure that all kids were learning how to decode, rather than the state imposing a list of reading programs. To my mind, it’s the student outcomes that matter, not the inputs.
I can see arguments either way here. So go read my full piece, and then weigh in in the comments!
Reading List
Learning Science Design: It’s the Instructional Design, Stupid
InsideHigherEd: Brown Professor Suspects Majority of His Class Used AI to Cheat
Bill DeBaun: Class of 2026 Sets FAFSA Completion Record
Samantha Musacchia: The edtech lesson hiding in Toy Story 5