Kids can’t read. At least that’s what we’ve been told to believe by folks trying to dismantle public education. Proponents of this refrain use frivolous things like standardized test scores with no reflection on what they’re conveying.

It’s a prickly discussion to have given our current educational environment, happening in the midst of a censorship movement against books perceived to be more racially and/or LGBTQIA+ inclusive, a critical eye on what’s been dubbed “the science of reading“, and the influx of asylum seekers across the country. As these battles persist, housing insecurity remains pernicious and perhaps exacerbated by the lack of a real plan for our most vulnerable youth. The nation is still under the aura of No Child Left Behind / technocratic solutions to the education field’s worst challenges.

Oh, and the advent of AI has only complicated the “reading” part of this because why read when a computer can do that for you, too?

In New York City, this also provides context for other dynamics at play. In the beginning of the school year, Chancellor David Banks mandated schools to choose between three reading curricula that focus on the “science of reading.” Mayor Eric Adams prioritized phonics over the controversial “balanced literacy,” a theory developed by Lucy Calkins and implemented across the city and the country in thousands of classrooms over the last three decades. On a basic level, balanced literacy prompts students to take a macro-level view of reading and writing that pushes them to write with a whole language approach. Critics point out how, in order for children to succeed within balanced literacy, they would need background knowledge to sound out words that they otherwise wouldn’t understand on their own.

But my question for everyone is: when was the last time you listened to the educators who believed in cultural responsiveness?

As a math teacher, I’ve been to and spoken to dozens of English and ENL teachers and what I’ve gathered – and I agree with – is that none of the folks who actually listen to children and communities do any boxed curriculum to fidelity. If anything, in more restrictive environments, they would subvert whatever their administrator would say and get the kids the knowledge they need. They’ll sample different texts and carefully cobble together a curriculum that both meets the demands of higher-ups and the different ways the students in their classes are processing the information. Teachers of any subject would also tell you that the energy we put behind our lessons and the encouragement we engender also matter in our pedagogy.

Disclaimer: no two classes are alike so adaptiveness is also a factor in this thing we call expertise.

What we mean by literacy might be the most glaring hole in how we discuss reading. We have different definitions of reading, but generally, reading is the ability to decode text and make meaning of the text. Reading, however, is not the same as literacy. Literacy, by comparison, is a more expansive set of acts related to how one decodes, interprets, and communicates through a medium. Literacy includes writing, listening, speaking, and making meaning of a whole communicative experience. For example, you can read an article and understand the words, but depending on the medium (book, blog, article), the author, and your experiences, you might have different interpretations of the same text. In the way of another example, a teacher might be trying to teach a student the English language, but the student might associate “English” with negative experiences they’ve had with authority figures before they get to the classroom.

Literacy, then, is as much about what “text” we produce and consume and how we produce and consume it.

The “reading” problem isn’t new, either. The idea of the fictional “Johnny” not being able to read has been around since the 1950s, but history suggests that this country would rather place the onus on the “other” rather than take inventory of the environments and situations we’re placing students in to help them accelerate their reading. While I agree that we need to do as much as possible to uplift learning experiences for students across the board, I also think society is doing a poor job of ensuring that students have equitable environments and resources for learning.

More succinctly, maybe our students can’t read, but they can read us. They can read us all.

But for decades, schools that work with children, particularly children in poverty, have been forced to do more with less. In New York City, this means the mayor has proposed another devastating round of budget cuts to places where students would have more opportunities to develop their reading skills, like schools and libraries. In fact, our libraries, already struggling from consistent cuts over the years, are now closed on Sundays across the city. In addition, the infamous Moms for Liberty has sought to elevate its profile here as well, a boon that’s already disrupted schools across the city from teaching children to learn from one another.

And that’s the thing, right? Society wrongly assumes that children who can’t read according to a standardized test given in March can’t read how society treats them and their aspirations. But they can read what’s happening around them. They can read when the mayor and those who’ve joined that chorus blame them for all the city’s problems. They can read people’s faces as they seek asylum. They can read what society believes about them, perhaps as early as when they start getting tested for reading.

Conversely, they can faithfully read when we believe in them and back it up structurally. That’s a literacy I can get behind.

Jose

p.s. – Please read and share. Thank you!