Bridging the Assumption Gap in Literacy Conversations
I regularly listen to the John Maxwell Leadership podcast. In a recent episode, he said something that resonated with my literacy teacher soul. He made a mic-drop statement, “Assumption is the mother of all mess-ups.”
Isn’t that the truth?
It’s why the adage assume make an a$$ out of “u” and “me” exists.
Assumption is the root of binary thinking. Binary thinking leads to arguing. Not conversation. Not collaboration. Just arguing.
When there’s arguing, there’s a shutting out of others’ viewpoints. There’s a need to be right.
Trouble with that is, in any argument, both sides feel this way. Both feel like they’re right and the other view is wrong. Both shut out the other. More often than not, this black or white back and forth means no progress can be made.
Arguing based on assumption is happening constantly in the world of literacy right now.
But here’s the thing that Maxwell goes on to say about assumption. He says there’s an “assumption gap”–the difference between “what I think is true and what is true.”
Again, he is so right, and this is key. Just because we believe (or want) something to be true doesn’t mean it actually is the truth. The truth lies in reality. Not your perception of reality, but actual reality. And here’s where Maxwell brings up an excellent question: “Does what I think match reality?”
It’s a very big question. A hard one.
To know what reality really is, it requires an open mind. Acceptance that what you think and believe, no matter how hard you might think or believe it, might not be the truth.
And there is sooooo much assumption-gap making–going on in literacy lately.
One of the biggest examples of assumption-making? That anyone who believes in a balanced approach to literacy is a total idiot.
It’s all over social media. It’s talked about on news shows. It’s written about in online news reports. And it’s the topic of many podcasts.
The problem with all of this negativity is that there is a lot of spread of assumption–but not reality–about what balanced literacy even means. I’ve written about this before, and I share more about it in a conversation with Dr. Andy Johnson here. It’s also happening, for the record, about the term “science of reading,” too.
When I see comments like “balanced literacy teaches guessing,” “balanced literacy neglects phonics,” “balanced literacy isn’t explicit,” and balanced literacy is whole language,” I just have to shake my head. Because balanced literacy is none of these things, it’s unbelievably frustrating–and exhausting–to hear these statements.
Balanced literacy is just a framework. What the teacher does within that framework is the key.
By definition, to be truly balanced, there must be phonics. Without that crucial piece, it cannot be called “balanced.”
The only thing that can “teach guessing” is poor teacher prompting. If there were (or are) teachers teaching kids to guess, that’s a teacher training issue, not a balanced literacy issue.
Or a resource issue. Many, many ineffective products are sold on TPT every day, including posters, bookmarks, and the like that tell kids to “think what makes sense” before considering the print on the page or to “skip the word” entirely. When there’s both lack of training and poor resources at play, there are bound to be problems. Again, this has nothing to do with balanced literacy and everything to do with the choices the teacher makes.
The assumption that balanced literacy instruction isn’t explicit? I have no idea where that’s coming from. Lessons should always be direct and to the point with a clear model, no matter what the lesson is. That’s just good teaching. Inquiry might be one way to pique interest or introduce a new topic before the explicit lesson, or it might be employed to put all the pieces together after something has been explicitly taught. But here again, the approach that’s taken with actual lesson delivery is up to the teacher.
It has nothing to do with a balanced literacy approach.
As for the statement that balanced literacy is the same thing as whole language?? This one is just so far off the mark. Balanced literacy came about precisely because neither only phonics nor only whole language was working. Let’s remember that the National Reading Panel report, written more than 20 years ago and heavily referenced today, advised us that “it is important to emphasize that systematic phonics instruction should be integrated with other reading instruction to create a balanced reading program.”
The assumption-making in literacy isn’t new.
When Michael Pressley wrote about the need for balanced instruction in the 90’s, he found, through much research, that “excellent elementary literacy instruction balances skills instruction (phonics, comprehension strategies teaching) and holistic literacy opportunities (reading of authentic literature, composing in response to text).” Pressley and his colleagues wrote a follow up article in 2002 in Focus on Exceptional Children aimed to try to end the misguided and ill-informed way people were characterizing balanced literacy instruction at the time–exactly what’s happening now, over 20 years later.
I’m not sure exactly how people making the sorts of sweeping claims shared above have landed on these claims. I’m not sure how they’ve come to the conclusion that “balanced literacy teachers don’t teach phonics” or that “balanced literacy teachers don’t teach anything explicitly,” or any other such claim being made.
Here’s the rub.
There’s so much nuance that happens from classroom to classroom, even within a single grade level in a single school, that it’s nearly impossible for even researchers to research the effects of true balanced instruction. There isn’t even much research to draw from since Pressley’s work was published. Not opinion pieces (those are ubiquitous), but actual, valid research.
As a teacher, interventionist, and now literacy coach, I’m in a lot of classrooms every year. Because of my role, I’ve seen more teachers teach than the average teacher gets to see. While I’ve certainly seen some not-so-hot examples of teaching over the years, I’ve also seen far more phenomenal teaching. And most of the teachers I’ve seen do use a balanced approach. I’ve seen and experienced for myself tremendous success with a balanced literacy approach.
Yet I have not been in anywhere near the amount of classrooms I’d need to be in where I could feel confident in making any sweeping generalizations about teaching–even about balanced literacy. That would require being in thousands of classrooms for the entire literacy block over a number of years. It’s just not possible.
Just as the people making these sorts of sweeping generalizations most likely also have not been inside thousands of classrooms across years to be able to say their claims are everyone’s reality.
These people, just like me, are most likely basing their claims off of their own experience. And that experience has led to opinions….and assumption.
Given how little opportunity there is for teachers to see each other teach, it’s more likely that they have seen a few classrooms at most.. It’s entirely possible that they did in fact experience a very imbalanced and even erroneous approach to literacy instruction. And that has formed their assumption–that what they experienced in their own bubble is what was happening everywhere.
Just as I’ve been fortunate enough to see true balanced instruction being highly successfully implemented, it might lead to my assumption that that’s how it was everywhere. (That’s never been my assumption, for the record. I know it’s not successfully implemented everywhere. This has just been my experience.)
Which goes completely against the prevailing bold assumptions out there.
Why?
Because it’s not about the program or the framework. It’s about what the teacher brings, including the resources that teacher is drawing upon. It’s about the teacher’s knowledge. The teacher’s training. The support that teacher has had in developing their craft.
“Informed teachers are our best insurance against reading failure. While programs are very helpful tools, programs don’t teach; teachers do.”
Louisa Moats, LETRS Volume 1
And it’s about really understanding what we’re saying when we throw terms around. Just as reading itself is defined very differently by different people, and the term “science of reading” is mischaracterized every single day, the term “balanced literacy” has been grossly misinterpreted.
Instead of continuing to narrowly define things, let’s move forward.
Let’s listen to each other. Let’s learn what others have experienced that works to help us deepen our understanding of strong literacy instruction. What we’re going to find, if we’d just let go of assumptions, is that a lot of teachers are and were doing a lot of things right. A lot of teachers did benefit from solid college preparation. A lot of teachers have continued to learn and refine their practice, decades into their career. We’re also going to find that we all (myself included!) have lots of room to grow.
Most importantly, we’re going to find that literacy instruction is not black or white. There’s an interplay of many, many things, because we’re dealing with human children. Reading instruction and learning to read is a highly complex thing. None of us has it perfectly “right.”
Let’s have an open mind, and learn from each other. Find out what has worked for both ourselves and others (and what hasn’t) and consider it for our own context. Let’s heed all of the research, not just parts of it or only certain researchers. Let’s end the finger-pointing and condescending back and forth. Let’s drop the assumption making.
Because it’s not about who’s “right.” It’s about doing the best we can, together.
Looking for an online community that isn’t about blaming, shaming, and finger-pointing? I created my own Facebook group where none of this is allowed. It’s a place where questions can be asked without judgement. Where you can share your successes and frustrations with literacy instruction without feeling embarrassed or nervous. If this is what you’re looking for, join the community here!
Who is Coach from the Couch? I’m Michelle, a 25-year veteran educator, currently a K-5 literacy coach. I continue to learn alongside teachers in classrooms each and every day, and it’s my mission to support as many teachers just like you as I can. I’ve got more details about who I am and what I’m all about here.
Add A Comment