By Deb Sayer
As an educator, writer and literacy advocate, I take issue with a recent letter to the editor, 鈥淪top excusing Maine鈥檚 dismal test scores鈥 (June 23), which suggested that Maine鈥檚 scores are the sole result of certain curricula.
Solely blaming effective programs like Lucy Calkins鈥 Units of Study overlooks crucial factors like teacher training, support and professional development, all of which are part of creating a well-rounded approach to teaching literacy. Unfortunately, many districts lack the resources for these factors. For instance, in districts that maintained strong training and coaching, outcomes are excellent. In my own classroom, I have seen that the Units of Study support both growth aligned with standards and the development of students鈥 literacy identities 鈥 nurturing joy, confidence and independence.
I support an emphasis on evidence-based reading practices, but the push to overhaul instruction oversimplifies a complex issue by vilifying balanced literacy and scapegoating individuals like Lucy Calkins. Balanced literacy, when done well, includes explicit phonics (contrary to what critics say), vocabulary development, comprehension strategies and authentic, joyful reading experiences.
Shifting toward programs that rely on screens, rigid workbooks and scripted lessons is not the solution. These options lack differentiation and contradict research. This isn鈥檛 the science of reading 鈥 it鈥檚 a narrowing of instruction that sidelines teachers鈥 expertise.
No curriculum can succeed without adequate time, support and professional learning. If we truly want to improve outcomes, we must stop blaming teachers and start investing in them. Let鈥檚 trust educators, build their capacity and focus on what students truly need to thrive.