Myth: “The NYC Reads programs (HMH Into Reading, Wit & Wisdom, EL Learning) that DOE school districts can choose from incorporate instruction in phonics and thus address the needs of students with dyslexia and other reading disorders.”
Reality: The three literacy programs selected for NYC Reads have no mandated phonics component. In the year prior to rolling out these programs, the DOE had already required that schools adopt standalone phonics-specific programs (including PAF Reading Program, Ready for Reading, and Fundations). HMH, Wit and Wisdom, and EL are designated for use in addition to those phonics programs. While some of these programs may have phonics add-ons, they are not part of the purchased mandated curricula. EL and Wit and Wisdom do not provide foundational knowledge (such as phonics, or phonemic awareness) or materials to support decoding/practicing early reading (like making words or decodable books). HMH does have some phonics components, however they are only available online and difficult for teachers to find and use. While HMH promotes that the curriculum provides explicit and systematic instruction, the program has been critiqued by teachers within the Science of Reading movement for not fully aligning with the principles of structured literacy. There are no components of these curricula that directly address the needs of dyslexic students. To further address the issues of students who may have dyslexia or related issues with decoding text, schools also must implement additional screening. These three curricula fail to fulfill the requirements of a robust foundational skills program and as such must be supplemented.
Myth: “The three literacy programs chosen for NYC Reads have been carefully vetted and proven to be effective. ”
Reality: Only one of the three NYCReads programs have been shown to work through peer-reviewed studies. Instead, these programs were rated as acceptable by a company called Ed Reports which ranks curriculums according to how closely they align with the Common Core standards, not because of any proven results in actual classrooms. The Common Core standards themselves are not research-based and after much criticism, were revised by New York State since their introduction in 2009. Literacy researchers have critiqued Ed Reports for its’ misleading information.
Myth: “These curricula were created on the principles of the “Science of Reading” so they will help all students succeed as readers.”
Reality: These programs were designed to meet Common Core standards but have been rebranded to reflect the current interest in the science of reading. They rely on worksheets, excerpts from various texts, and excessive multiple-choice testing. Students have little, if any, time to read and write about actual works of literature, which, research has suggested, makes it less likely that they will become engaged and accomplished readers and writers.
In addition, because of the time demands these curricula require, teachers have difficulty fitting in other important and motivating areas of study, including social studies and science. The publishers claim these ELA curricula address science and social studies within their ELA curriculum, however, they do not align with state standards and have been criticized for their inaccuracies and misinformation.
Myth: “We need these curricula because most NYC children are not reading at grade level.”
Reality: Reading scores among NYC 4th graders are now about the same as they were twenty years ago, according to the NAEPs, the most reliable national exams. While 4th grade NAEP reading scores in NYC have dropped since 2009, they remain on average slightly above the scores of students in other large cities. About 54% of NYC 4th graders score at “basic” or above. The level of “basic” or above roughly aligns with grade level. In general, much of the negative reporting nationally on reading inaccurately conflates the NAEP level of “proficiency” with “grade level”.
Myth: “Mandating specific reading programs will help equalize the playing field and ensure that all students, especially those who are disadvantaged, can achieve at grade level.”
Reality: Each student has different needs and rigidly imposing any scripted curriculum, no matter how well-designed, will prevent teachers from responding to those needs. Moreover, there is no research to show that these particular curricula work for any students, including those who are disadvantaged. (See above).
Myth: “These curricula are culturally responsive and reflective of the diversity of NYC public schools”
Reality: Researchers found all three of the mandated ELA curricula to be culturally inadequate and to reinforce negative stereotypes. Curricula aligned with students' backgrounds and interests have been shown to have a positive impact on their learning and attitudes towards reading. Students excel in school when they see themselves reflected in the classroom.
