Using phonics when teaching ELL (English Language Learning) children to read: A new front in the reading wars
Like whack-a-mole, the anti-phonics battles never seem to end.
In California, there is a new bill – AB 1121 – being discussed in the legislature that would require all public schools in the state to use a phonics-based curriculum for the teaching of reading to early elementary-school-age children. Astonishingly, given the strength of the evidence in support of phonics instruction and against non-phonics pedagogical approaches (like the “three cueing” system that was long championed by, and sold by, the now disgraced Lucy Calkins of the Columbia School of Education), a very similar version of the bill (AB 2222) failed to pass a year or so ago, in large part because of opposition from two groups: the California Teachers Association (the union that represents 310,000 of the state’s K-12 educators), and the California Association of Bilingual Education. An excellent article discussing the controversy can be accessed at the link below (it really is a good article, so I’d encourage anyone with an interest in this topic to read it):
Why would these two groups oppose a bill designed to ensure that California children be taught reading using what is known to be the most effective reading instruction system? I was particularly intrigued to read about the opposition from the Association of Bilingual Education, so I tried to bring myself up to speed on any research on the use of phonics in teaching children to read who are at the same time learning to speak English as a second language.
Not surprisingly, there has not been a lot of high quality research on the topic, but based on what I found, Google’s AI summary seems to capture very accurately what is known: “Research consistently shows that explicit phonics instruction is beneficial for English as a Second Language (ESL) learners, aiding in decoding skills, though its impact on overall reading comprehension may be smaller than for native speakers, requiring a focus on both phonics and oral language development.”
Interestingly, that summary seems not to be disputed by groups representing English Language Learning children – even by those groups who have opposed the bill. What these groups have argued is that the major impediment to high level reading comprehension of English materials by these children is their limited command of English, and they are fearful that a focus on phonics instruction will take time away from the more general English language instruction that these children need.
To say that this is a poorly thought through argument would be an understatement. Obviously, for someone to be able to comprehend written English at a high level, that person must be fluent in English AND BE ABLE TO READ WELL. What the groups who opposed the previous and current versions of the phonics instruction bill do not make clear is how switching from a less effective method for teaching reading to a more effective method would necessarily harm ELL children’s learning of English. Indeed, the idea of using a non-phonics-based method for teaching early reading skills to children who do not know much English would seem, on purely logical grounds, to be an exercise in frustration and probably futility. For example, the use of Calkins’ discredited (but very widely used) three-cueing system with ELL children simply makes no sense at all, because a child with limited English language skills would not have the language knowledge required to apply the cueing method. On the other hand, if such children develop efficient phonics-based decoding skills, then as their general English comprehension knowledge increases, so should their English reading comprehension ability.
The article linked above makes reference to some cases supportive of the view that phonics is the best method to use when teaching ELL children to read. Quoting now from the article:
Some districts that use phonics-based programs have seen good results with English learners and low-income Latino students generally.
At Kings Canyon Joint Unified, for example, English learners scored almost twice as high on reading tests last year as their counterparts statewide, according to the Smarter Balanced assessments. Almost half of low-income Latino students met the state reading standard, compared to 33% statewide. Kings Canyon, located in Fresno County, uses a curriculum called Wit & Wisdom, which is phonics-based.
Last year at Bonita Unified, near Pomona in Los Angeles County, which uses a phonics-based program called Benchmark, English learners scored nearly three times higher than their peers statewide. Almost 60% of low-income Latino students met the state reading standard, nearly double the percentage of their peers statewide.
At Oakland International High School, a public school for recent immigrants, nearly all students are English learners and a majority read at a kindergarten level when they enroll. That’s because they’ve had little formal education in their home countries or their schooling has been disrupted, in some cases for years.
The school primarily serves students who are newly arrived immigrants and offers foundational literacy and English language development for its multilingual learners. But teachers there use a phonics-based approach that’s tailored to English learners, with good results. A student will learn to sound out the word “hop,” for example, while seeing a picture of a person hopping, then spell “hop” and read “hop” in a passage. They learn to connect the sound of a word with its meaning.
“When they start to see the patterns and rules, it starts to make sense and they get excited,” said Aly Kronick, a literacy teacher at Oakland International High for the past 10 years. “It’s like they’re unlocking something. They feel successful.”
She said the process can be slow, but within two years students go from minimal literacy skills to reading whole passages with high levels of comprehension. Some students have even gone on to four-year colleges. One student went on to become a bilingual teacher. Others have returned to the school after they graduated to lead phonics instruction in the classroom.
Anecdotal evidence? Yes. Impressive results that are supportive of the passing of bill AB1121 – also yes.
And what about the California Association of Teachers? Why on earth would a teachers union not be supportive of a bill mandating the use of the best method for teaching reading? The union’s argument, when opposing the previous version of the bill, was that teachers need flexibility in the classroom.
That is — an inane argument. What does it mean that teachers NEED FLEXIBILITY? The union seems to be arguing that teachers should be permitted to use ineffective teaching methods if that’s what teachers want to do – because otherwise, the teachers would not have the “flexibility” that they “need” in order to be effective teachers. But how does having the power to use ineffective teaching methods make teachers more effective? Obviously — it doesn’t. Again – THE UNION’S ARGUMENT MAKES NO SENSE.
It’s almost as if the teachers union has as its main goal to be supportive of letting teachers do whatever they want – to be supportive of teachers’ interests even at the expense of student needs. But of course – that’s what teachers unions (like all unions) do; they serve the interests of their members. Teachers unions may speak about serving the interests and needs of students – but they actually do that only when the interests of students and teachers align. When those two sets of interests are not in alignment, it will be the interests of the teachers that the teachers unions will advocate for. Remember – it was teachers unions that in some states, during the pandemic, fought tooth and nail against the re-opening of schools, long after it was known the schools could be re-opened safely and long after it was known that keeping schools closed was exacting a terrible toll on children’s learning.
It will be interesting to see if the current version of the bill passes — and whether or not it does, what the next battlefield will be in the seemingly never-ending war against phonics.
I hate these people. Why do they go out of their way to make learning so difficult?