literacy and mass education

• Twitter Channel
• Facebook Profile
• YouTube Channel
• Instagram Profile
• Linkedin Profile
• Pinterest Profile

Literacy Matters: Addressing the Crisis in Massachusetts Education

Reading and writing are foundational skills that are crucial to a student’s academic success. These skills not only facilitate academic success but also serve as vehicles for self-expression, empowering students to navigate information and explore the world outside their classrooms.

Yet, in Massachusetts, many students lack access to high-quality and culturally responsive reading instruction and materials, which has led to a literacy crisis that disproportionately impacts students from underserved communities. The stark reality is that less than half of students in third grade are meeting ELA reading benchmarks, and outcomes are even more alarming for students of color, students from low-income backgrounds, multilingual learners, and students with disabilities. These sobering statistics not only reflect a significant hurdle for individual student outcomes but also pose broader societal implications.

As advocates for educational equity and justice, we at EdTrust-MA are committed to addressing the urgent issue of literacy. That is why we are actively working alongside other education advocates, practitioners, partners, and community leaders to raise awareness and push for meaningful policy changes at both the state and local levels to ensure all students have equitable access to high-quality, evidence-based reading instruction aligned with the science of reading.

Below is an infographic that explains five crucial points about the concerning state of literacy within the Commonwealth, with a specific emphasis on the equity implications of the current literacy crisis:

• Despite Massachusetts’ high overall ranking in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), more than half of fourth-graders can’t read proficiently. What’s more, reading proficiency rates for Black and Latino students in MA are more similar to that of the average student in the lowest-performing states.
• While more than half of students in Massachusetts are not meeting third-grade English Language Arts (ELA) benchmarks, outcomes are especially concerning for Black and Latino students, English learners, students from low-income backgrounds, and students with disabilities. The Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) scores show persistent gaps in literacy outcomes among student subgroups and demonstrate how deeply the pandemic has interrupted student learning.
• Nearly half of Massachusetts public schools use low-quality* literacy curricula in teaching students how to read. More than 100,000 students in grades K-3 attend classes in districts using discredited literacy strategies and materials. Of these 123 districts, only 17 plan to change their curriculum this school year. Switching to a more effective curriculum can be a cost-effective lever for districts seeking to improve academic achievement.
• In Massachusetts, only 16% of teacher preparation programs adequately prepare teachers for effective reading instruction. To be effective, educators must understand how to teach all five components of scientifically based reading instruction (phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension). Without well-trained and supported educators who know how to teach each literacy component, students in MA will continue to fall behind in reading.
• In the past five years, 27 states have passed laws requiring the use of scientifically backed methods of literacy instruction. The new laws apply to 17 areas, including school curriculum, professional development for teachers, requirements for testing, and screenings for dyslexic students. Unlike many other states, Massachusetts does not have a comprehensive literacy law in place.

Download the Infographic (PDF)

Shanker Blog

Massachusetts: a systems approach to improving reading.

Guest author Heather Peske, the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education Senior Associate Commissioner for Instructional Support and the incoming President of the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ), discusses Massachusetts’ new systems approach to improving reading outcomes for students across the state.

In Massachusetts today, despite our status as the highest performing state on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, only about half (45%) of our fourth grade students demonstrated proficiency on the 2019 NAEP reading assessment. Disparities persist in achievement among racial groups, with only about a quarter of Black (24%) and Latino (25%) fourth graders reaching proficient levels on NAEP Reading, compared to 54% of white fourth graders. These gaps represent opportunity gaps where we as a system have failed to provide students with access to the instruction and support they need to learn to read. And the data could lead to excruciating consequences, both for our students and for us as a democratic society that depends on engaged and informed citizens to thrive.

The Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) has embarked on a systems approach to change reading instruction across our state and to change outcomes for students. It is our responsibility and privilege to serve more than 900,000 students and to partner with 75,000 educators and 70 educator preparation programs to impact reading instruction from Boston to the Berkshires, and every city and town in between. [1]  Individuals cannot do this alone. We must approach this as a system to create the conditions within districts, schools and higher education so students successfully learn to read.

In the past, the system has acted in incoherent ways that inadequately set up support for strong instruction. For example, we have not previously been clear about our expectations for early literacy instruction in pre- and in-service teaching; we have not aligned our standards for students with our standards for educators; we have previously been silent in signaling quality of curriculum materials; and we have left it to districts to build the knowledge base with in-service teachers. In the past four years, we set out to promote coherence in service of systemic, high-quality reading instruction and positive outcomes for students.

As a state agency, we have many levers for change available to us: standards, incentives, mandates, accountability, capacity-building, the bully pulpit, match-making, data collection and transparency, and sharing stories.  [2]   In our work at DESE, we seek to use these levers to make systemwide change in early literacy instruction.

Using Policy Levers to Build a System for Evidence-Based Early Literacy

In 2020, we launched Mass Literacy: Empowering Educators and Students in Massachusetts Through Evidence-Based Early Literacy to set a vision for early literacy instruction across the state: Every student in Massachusetts will develop the language comprehension, fluent word reading, and writing skills needed by the end of grade 1 and will continue to increase literacy proficiency through the end of grade 3. Reaching these critical milestones will place all students on track for long-term academic success. In addition, students in grades preK-3 will have affirming and enriching experiences with literacy. This will all be possible as a result of educators’ knowledge of literacy development and their skillful implementation of evidence-based, inclusive, culturally responsive literacy practices.

To bring this vision to fruition, we adopted the following mission: DESE will support pre-service and in-service educators in grades preK-3 to gain deep knowledge of literacy development and to skillfully implement evidence-based, inclusive, culturally responsive practices using high-quality instructional materials and assessments. To approach this as a system, we:

• aligned standards for students and educators,
• provided access to curriculum and increased capacity-building through professional learning,
• collected and published data,
• built networks and highlighted stories of success and learning, and
• prioritized our highest-needs students.

Aligned expectations for what students should know and be able to do with expectations for what teachers and administrators should know and be able to do, both in-service and pre-service. We revised our ELA-Literacy Curriculum Frameworks in 2017. We then revised our content expectations for pre-service teachers to align with both the standards for students and with the rich evidence base on early literacy captured in Mass Literacy. We codified these standards for pre-service teachers in the Subject Matter Knowledge requirements (SMKs). Educator preparation programs in our state use these SMKs to build their programs. Next, we aligned the Foundations of Reading teacher licensure exam—a requirement for all elementary teachers to the SMKs.

We are now working with stakeholders from preK-12 and educator preparation programs to build educator preparation program review criteria in early literacy for our pre-service teacher licensure programs in Early Childhood, Elementary, and Moderate Disabilities. We will offer an opt-in opportunity for educator preparation programs to participate in a formative feedback review of their program and the new standards.

Provided Access to High-Quality Curriculum. Massachusetts has had strong standards and assessments since the Ed Reform Act of 1993. We were clear about the standards to teach and what we assessed, but we left to local schools and districts the materials and methods to use. The result is that many teachers felt “lost at sea.” [3]    The research base is clear about the critical importance of curriculum. The Department now provides districts with stronger signals of curriculum quality through our Curriculum Ratings by Teachers (CURATE) reports; access to the materials and aligned professional learning; and support for adoption and skillful, culturally-responsive implementation. We have invested federal ESSER funds in providing districts across the state with access to high-quality curriculum through the Accelerating Literacy program.

Increased Capacity of Educators. High quality curriculum matters—yet curriculum doesn’t teach students; teachers teach students. And principals set the conditions within their schools for teachers and student to learn. To overcome the gaps in student literacy learning, we depend on our educator workforce. Thus, we must build their knowledge and capacity to teach students to read. Teachers enter the classroom seeking a sense of success with their students. [4]   Now that we know much more about how to best teach reading using evidence-based strategies that work (as we have described in Mass Literacy), we support our teachers and administrators to know and skillfully use these strategies and to continuously learn and grow as professionals. For example, we recently launched Open Access Professional Learning (OAPL) to offer a curated selection of professional learning opportunities for teachers and educator preparation faculty focused on early literacy. Massachusetts educators who qualify can enroll in these courses for free and will receive a stipend upon completing the course(s) they choose. Within the first five days of opening up these courses—prioritizing teachers in our highest-needs districts for early enrollment—the courses were oversubscribed. Now districts are turning to us and asking if we can support them to access high-quality courses for teachers in their own districts.

Research tells us sustained, job-embedded coaching over time can have a positive impact on teachers and students. [5]   We built this finding into two major investments: Growing Literacy Equity Across Massachusetts (GLEAM) and the Early Grades Literacy grant . Using federal and state funding, we are providing districts and schools with access to job-embedded coaches who work with teachers and administrators over the duration of the grant to support their instructional change and the implementation of high-quality literacy curriculum. The GLEAM literacy consultants also work with district leaders to support sustainable continuous improvement surrounding ELA/literacy multi-tiered system of support structures.

Collect and Publish Data. A state can collect and marshal data to promote change, and we can encourage districts to use the right tools to attain good data. The Department collects data from early literacy screening assessments to better understand early literacy attainment across the state.  We launched this spring the Curriculum in Use Data Collection , the first statewide mandatory data collection of all districts’ K-8 ELA/literacy, K-12 math, and 6-8 science curricula. We will publish these data on our publicly available district profiles to support transitions to high-quality materials and measure progress.

Build Networks.

The state has a matchmaker, networking function. We regularly bring districts together through our networks: role-alike, dilemma-alike, content-alike networks that provide space for districts to problem-solve and learn together to advance reading instruction. During the pandemic, we saw a significant increase in attendance at these network meetings, as virtual meetings increased accessibility and as teachers and administrators were keen to connect with one another.

Tell stories: Highlight improvements and build a culture of learning and growing. We have found power in telling stories of districts: Stories about their shifts from low- to high-quality curriculum, stories about their efforts to invest teachers and administrators in selection of materials, stories about why they are undertaking change, stories about what went wrong and what we learned.  We are trying to create space that allows for learning without judgment (e.g., a “no-shame zone”) while also holding ourselves accountable for student results.

Prioritize the highest needs in the system . Finally, although our work has impact statewide, our grants, technical support, and capacity-building prioritize districts and students who have the highest needs, such as students living in poverty, students with disabilities, and multilingual students.

Systems must be better than the sum of their parts: Systems can promote coherence, and in so doing, they can promote instruction that helps students to thrive. Systems recognize that instructional shifts are not dependent on individuals alone. State systems must use the levers available to us to support students and educators to change the trajectory of students’ lives by ensuring that all students learn to read using the best evidence available to us. In the words of Koichiro Matsuura, former Director General of UNESCO: “Literacy is inseparable from opportunity, and opportunity is inseparable from freedom. The freedom promised by literacy is both freedom from — from ignorance, oppression, poverty — and freedom to — to do new things, to make choices, to learn.”

Acknowledgement: Thanks to Katherine Tarca, Director of the Office of Literacy and Humanities, and the Department’s literacy specialists for their stellar work in advancing this systemic approach to early literacy in Massachusetts: Donna Goldstein, Susan Kazeroid, Allison Pickens, Tracey Martineau, Woodly Pierre-Louis.

[1] Source: Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, district profiles: https://profiles.doe.mass.edu/general/generalstate.aspx?topNavID=1&leftNavId=100&orgcode=00000000&orgtypecode=0 ; workforce profiles: https://profiles.doe.mass.edu/profiles/teacher.aspx?orgcode=00000000&orgtypecode=0& and educator preparation profiles: https://profiles.doe.mass.edu/statereport/epppcandidateenrollment.aspx

[2] “Getting the Job Done: Alternative Policy Instruments” by Lorraine M. McDonnell and Richard F. Elmore, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis . Vol. 9, No. 2 (Summer, 1987) , pp. 133-152 (20 pages).

[3] “Lost at Sea: Without a Curriculum, Navigating Instruction Can be Tough—Especially for New Teachers” by David Kauffman, Susan Moore Johnson, Susan M. Kardos, Edward Liu, Heather Peske, 2002. AFT American Educator. Retrieved 3/12/22 from https://www.aft.org/periodical/american-educator/summer-2002/lost-sea

[4] "Pursuing a ‘Sense of Success’: New Teachers Explain Their Career Decisions” by Susan Moore Johnson and Sarah E. Birkeland . First Published January 1, 2003 Research Article. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312040003581

[5] "The Effect of Teacher Coaching on Instruction and Achievement: A Meta-Analysis of the Causal Evidence ,” by Matthew Kraft, David Blazar, Dylan Hogan. Review of Educational Research . 2018;88 (4) :547-588.

Advertisement

Healey administration lays out the logic behind its 5-year push to reinvent literacy learning

Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey is aiming to redouble the state’s efforts to teach reading to children between ages 3 and 8.

In last night’s State of the Commonwealth address , Healey announced “Literacy Launch,” a five-year program that she hopes will make Massachusetts “first in literacy” nationwide.

“Every child in this state needs to be able to read and read well – and we’re going to give them the tools to do just that,” she said in her remarks.

The program will kick off with a $30 million investment in the upcoming budget for the 2025 fiscal year and expand on promising programs run by the state’s K-12 education department.

Healey’s announcement comes at a moment of alarm about how Massachusetts students are learning to read, sparked in large part by the critical reappraisal of an approach to reading instruction that was once nearly ubiquitous nationwide.

In short, “balanced literacy” emphasizes using contextual information, like images, over phonics while helping people learn to read. Over decades, cognitive scientists have cast doubt on balanced literacy’s effectiveness, and education officials in Massachusetts have deemed curricula that use it to be low-quality.

“With unanimity, research identifies a phonics approach [and other evidence-based approaches] as the most effective,” Patrick Tutwiler, the state’s education secretary, said in an interview Thursday. “The problem is that a multitude of literacy curricula out there still use the debunked approach.”

Recent reporting in the Boston Globe found that low-quality reading curricula were in use in nearly half of Massachusetts school districts last year.

The problem is exacerbated at the state’s colleges of education, Tutwiler said, some of which “have not been training early-elementary teachers in evidence-based strategies.”

As a result, Tutwiler argued, roughly half of students don’t get a passing score on the English Language Arts section of Massachusetts’ standardized MCAS exam. On balance, Black and Latino students and multilingual learners earned even lower marks.

He also noted that Massachusetts’ scores on a national assessment of reading have stagnated over the same period.

The Healey administration’s new proposal is a multipronged effort to change that, Tutwiler said: by retraining teachers, funding the acquisition of better curricula and — starting in the fall — reworking licensure requirements for future educators and  colleges of education.

If approved by lawmakers, “Literacy Launch” would build on steps taken by the state’s Department of Elementary and Secondary Education since it revamped its literacy strategy five years ago.

Starting in 2020, DESE has issued annual grants to districts seeking to implement evidence-based literacy training for teachers and regular literacy screenings for students. Two years ago, the department also launched “Appleseeds,” a free phonics-centered curriculum running from kindergarten to second grade.

In short order, both of those programs have shown considerable promise, according to Tutwiler.

Elementary schools that received one of DESE’s grants saw a 22% decrease in students categorized “at risk of reading difficulty.” Meanwhile, kindergarten classrooms using “Appleseeds” saw 85% of students reach reading benchmarks, compared to 28% before the curriculum was introduced.

Over three-quarters of the support for those programs came out of federal funds. So Healey’s new proposal, with $30 million promised in its first year, would represent a roughly fivefold increase in Massachusetts’ annual spending on the literacy push, including a separate stream of funds for teacher training.

Despite the effectiveness of DESE’s prior interventions, Tutwiler stressed that “change is a process, not an event.”

He said the administration foresees a long-term effort to rework reading education that would start next year and carry through at least until 2029, with the legislature’s approval.

• As literacy screening becomes a requirement in Mass., a look at what impact it makes in schools
• On Point: How children are taught to read faces a reckoning

Max Larkin Reporter, Education Max Larkin was an education reporter for WBUR.

More from WBUR

Popular Education and Mass Literacy Campaigns

Beyond ‘New Literacy Studies’

Cite this chapter

• Bob Boughton 4  

Part of the book series: International Issues in Adult Education ((ADUL))

443 Accesses

3 Citations

In Australia and internationally, politicians and policy makers continue to believe in a direct and unproblematic relationship between literacy on the one hand and a wide range of social benefits on the other. As literacy advocates and practitioners, we are reluctant to argue with this, because it helps our case for more funding and support.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Unable to display preview.  Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Researching the Impact of the South African Kha Ri Gude Mass Literacy Campaign: Considering the Support for Those Otherwise Marginalized in Economic, Social, and Political Life

Literacy in My Language? Principles, Practices, Prospects

Cuba’s “Yes, I Can” mass adult literacy campaign model in Timor-Leste and Aboriginal Australia: A comparative study

Abadzi, H. (1994). What we know about the acquisition of adult literacy: Is there hope? (World Bank Discussion Papers, No. 245). Washington, DC: World Bank.

Google Scholar  

Abadzi, H. (2004). Strategies and policies for literacy (Paper commissioned for the EFA Global Monitoring Report 2006, Literacy for Life). Paris: UNESCO.

Abendroth, M. (2009). Rebel literacy: Cuba’s national literacy campaign and critical global citizenship . Duluth, MN: Litwin Books.

Allman, P. (2010). Critical education against global capitalism: Karl Marx and revolutionary critical education (Paperback ed.). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Arnove, R. (1986). Education and revolution in Nicaragua . New York, Westport & London: Praeger.

Arnove, R. F., & Graff, H. J. (Eds.). (1987). National literacy campaigns. Historical and comparative perspectives . New York, NY & London: Plenum Press.

Arnove, R. F., & Graff, H. J. (Eds.). (2008). National literacy campaigns and movements. Historical and comparative perspectives . New Brunswick, NJ & London: Transaction Publishers.

Artaraz, K. (2012). Cuba’s internationalism revisited: Exporting literacy, ALBA, and a new paradigm for south–south collaboration. Bulletin of Latin American Research, 31 , 22–37.

Article   Google Scholar  

Au, W. (2007). Epistemology of the oppressed: The dialectics of Paulo Freire’s theory of knowledge. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 5 (2). Retrieved from http://www.jceps.com/?pageID=article&articleID=100

Bartlett, L. (2005). Identity work and cultural artifacts in literacy learning and use: A sociocultural analysis. Language and Education , 19 (1), 1–9.

Bartlett, L. (2007). Human capital or human connections? The cultural meanings of education in Brazil. Teachers College Record , 109 (7), 1613–1636.

Bhola, H. S. (1984). Campaigns for literacy: Eight national experiences of the twentieth century, with a memorandum to decision-makers . Paris: UNESCO.

Boughton, B. (1997). Does popular education have a past? In B. Boughton, T. Brown, & G. Foley (Eds.), New directions in Australian adult education (pp. 1–27). Sydney: University of Technology Sydney (UTS), Centre for Popular Education.

Boughton, B. (2009). Challenging donor agendas in adult & workplace education in Timor-Leste. In L. Cooper & S. Walters (Eds.), Learning/Work. Turning work and lifelong learning inside out (pp. 74–87). Capetown, South Africa: Human Science Research Council Press.

Boughton, B. (2010). Back to the future? Timor-Leste, Cuba and the return of the mass literacy campaign. Literacy and Numeracy Studies, 18 (2), 23–40.

Boughton, B., & Durnan, D. (2014). Cuba’s yo, sí puedo. A global literacy movement? Postcolonial directions in education. Special Issue: Adult Literacy and Adult Education , 3 (2), 325–359.

Boughton, B., Ah Chee, D., Beetson, J., Durnan, D., & Leblanch, J. C. (2013). An aboriginal adult literacy campaign in Australia using Yes I Can. Literacy and Numeracy Studies, 21 (1), 5–32.

Brandt, D., & Clinton, K. (2002). Limits of the local: Expanding perspectives on literacy as a social practice. Journal of Literacy Research, 34 (3), 337–356.

Cabral, A. (1973). National liberation & culture. In African Information Service (Ed.), Return to the source: Speeches of Amilcar Cabral (pp. 39–56). New York, NY & London: Monthly Review Press.

Cardenal, F., & Miller, V. (1981). Nicaragua 1980: The battle of the ABCs. Harvard Educational Review, 51 (1), 1–26.

Carpenter, S., & Mojab, S. (Eds.). (2011). Educating from Marx: Race, gender and learning . New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Choudry, A. (2009). Learning in social action: Knowledge production in social movements. McGill Journal of Education (Online), 44 (1), 5–17.

Choudry, A., & Kapoor, D. (Eds.). (2013). NGOization: Complicity, contradictions and prospects . London & New York, NY: Zed Books.

Connell, R. (2007). Southern theory: The global dynamics of knowledge in social science . Sydney: Allen & Unwin.

Da Silva, A. B. (2011). Fretlin popular education 1973–78 and its relevance to Timor-Leste today (Unpublished Ph.D Thesis). University of New England, Armidale Australia.

Fischman, G. (1998). Donkeys and superteachers: Structural adjustment and popular education in Latin America. International Review of Education, 44 (2–3), 191–213.

Franke, R. W., & Chasin, B. H. (1995). Kerala State: A social justice model. The Multinational Monitor, 16 (7–8), 25–28. Retrieved from http://multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/mm0795.08.html

Freire, P. (1996). An incredible conversation (Paulo Freire’s last public interview, given to Literacy.org in 1996.) [Video file]. Retrieved from http://youtu.be/aFWjnkFypFA

Freire, P., & Macedo, D. (1987). Literacy: Reading the word and the world . South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey.

Hager, P. (2005). Philosophical accounts of learning. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 37 (5), 649–666.

Harnecker, M. (2010). Latin America and twenty-c socialism: Inventing to avoid mistakes. Monthly Review, 62 (3), I–XVIII.

Herman, R. (2012). An army of educators: Gender, revolution and the Cuban literacy campaign of 1961. Gender & History, 24 (1), 93–111.

Holst, J. (2002). Social movements, civil society and radical adult education . Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.

Jones, P. W. (1990). UNESCO and the politics of global literacy. Comparative Education Review, 34 (1), Special Issue on Adult Literacy (Feb., 1990), 41–60.

Jones, P. W. (1997). The World Bank and the literacy question: Orthodoxy, heresy and ideology. International Review of Education , 43 (4), 367–375.

Kozol, J. (1978). A new look at the literacy campaign in Cuba. Harvard Educational Review, 48 (3), 341–377.

Lambirth, A. (2011). Literacy on the Left: Reform and revolution . London, UK: Continuum International Publishing Group.

Lind, A. (1988). Adult literacy lessons and promises: Mozambican literacy campaigns 1978–1982 . Stockholm: University of Stockholm Institute of International Education.

Lind, A. (2008). Literacy for all: Making a difference (Vol. 89). Paris: UNESCO.

Loomba, S., & Mathew, A. (2007). India’s national adult education programme. In M. Singh & L. M. Castro Mussot (Eds.), Literacy, knowledge and development: South-south policy dialogue on quality education for adults and young people (pp. 91–115). Mexico City: UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning & Mexican National Institute for Adult Education.

Lorenzetto, A., & Neys, K. (1965). Report on the method and means utilised in Cuba to eliminate illiteracy . Retrieved from unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0008/000874/087420eb.pdf

Luke, A. (2004). On the material consequences of literacy. Language and Education , 18 (4), 331–335.

Luke, A. (2012). Critical literacy: Foundational notes. Theory into Practice, 51 (1), 4–11.

Maddox, B. (2007). What can ethnographic studies tell us about the consequences of literacy? Comparative Education , 43 (2), 253–271.

Muhr, T. (2013). Optimism reborn: Nicaragua’s participative education revolution, the citizen power development model and the construction of ‘21st century socialism’. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 11 (2), 276–295.

Papen, U. (2001). ‘Literacy your key to a better future’? Literacy, reconciliation and development in the National Literacy Programme in Namibia. In B. Street (Ed.), Literacy and development: Ethnographic perspectives (pp. 40–60). London: Routledge.

Pérez Cruz, F. (n.d.). Paulo Freire and the Cuban revolution: Reflections on the urgency of praxis . (Unpublished paper. Original in Spanish. Copy provided by the author, Havana May 2010. Translated by Marlene Obeid).

Robinson-Pant, A. (2000). Why eat green cucumbers at the time of dying? Women’s literacy and development in Nepal . Hamburg: UNESCO Institute of Education.

Robinson-Pant, A. (2008). Why literacy matters: Exploring a policy perspective on literacies, identities and social change. The Journal of Development Studies , 44 (6), 779–796.

Rogers, A. (2011). Why literacy matters: Understanding the effects of literacy education for adults. International Review of Education, 57 (5–6), 757–760.

Rogers, A., & Street, B. (2012). Adult literacy and development: Stories from the field . Leicester: NIACE.

Rostow, W. W. (1960). The stages of economic growth: A non-communist manifesto . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sandiford, P., Cassel, J., Montenegro, M., & Sanchez, G. (1995). The impact of women’s literacy on child health and its interaction with access to health services. Population Studies, 49 , 5–17.

Schugurensky, D. (2011). Paulo Freire . London: Continuum.

Street, B. (1984). Literacy in theory and practice . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Street, B. (2001). Literacy and development: Ethnographic perspectives . London: Routledge.

Book   Google Scholar  

Street, B. (2005). Recent applications of new literacy studies in educational contexts. Research in the Teaching of English, 39 (4), 417–423.

Street, B. (2011). Literacy inequalities in theory and practice: The power to name and define. International Journal of Educational Development, 31 (6), 580–586.

Torres, R. M. (2005). Illiteracy and literacy education in Ecuador: Options for policy and practice (Case study prepared at the request of UNESCO for inclusion in the 2006 Education for All Global Monitoring Report), Quito, Ecuador: Fronesis Institute.

Wickens, C. M., & Sandlin, J. A. (2007). Literacy for what? Literacy for whom? The politics of literacy education and neocolonialism in UNESCO and World Bank-Sponsored literacy programs. Adult Education Quarterly, 57 (4), 275–292.

Youngman, F. (1986). Adult education and socialist pedagogy . London: Croom Helm.

Youngman, F. (2000). The political economy of adult education and development . London & New York, NY: Zed Books.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of New England, Australia

Bob Boughton

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

University of Technology Sydney, Australia

Keiko Yasukawa

Stephen Black

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Sense Publishers

About this chapter

Boughton, B. (2016). Popular Education and Mass Literacy Campaigns. In: Yasukawa, K., Black, S. (eds) Beyond Economic Interests. International Issues in Adult Education. SensePublishers, Rotterdam. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-444-2_10

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-444-2_10

Publisher Name : SensePublishers, Rotterdam

Online ISBN : 978-94-6300-444-2

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Official websites use .mass.gov

Secure websites use HTTPS certificate

A lock icon ( ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the official website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• search    across the entire site
• search  in Executive Office of Education

Education Standards & Curriculum

• Early Education Learning Standards and Curriculum Guidelines 
• Find higher education academic program approval information  
• Learn about elementary and secondary school curriculum standards 

Related Information

Organizations.

• Executive Office of Education 
• School Funding & Grants 
• Professional Development for Educators 
• Early Education & Care Providers 

Help Us Improve Mass.gov   with your feedback

The feedback will only be used for improving the website.

Thank you for your website feedback! We will use this information to improve this page.

If you would like to continue helping us improve Mass.gov, join our user panel to test new features for the site.

New state Literacy Launch hopes to have more children reading well by 3rd grade

• Updated: May. 22, 2024, 7:22 p.m. |
• Published: May. 22, 2024, 7:22 p.m.

Katherine Tarca, of the state Department of Elementary and Secondary Education and Massachusetts Education Secretary Patrick Tutwiler speak at Springfield's Boland School about a new initiative to improve literacy for young children. (Jeanette DeForge/Republican staff) republican

• Jeanette DeForge | [email protected]

SPRINGFIELD — The state would like to see at least 80% of all third graders reading proficiently every year, but now that idea is mostly a pipe dream.

Educators are now hoping that a new state Literacy Launch will give schools of all sizes and income levels a better chance to increase the number of children who are reading and reading well by the time they reach the third grade.

If you purchase a product or register for an account through a link on our site, we may receive compensation. By using this site, you consent to our User Agreement and agree that your clicks, interactions, and personal information may be collected, recorded, and/or stored by us and social media and other third-party partners in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

Mass Offerings

Home » Mass Offerings

Mass Literacy OAPL Approved Courses

Keys to Literacy is offering several courses that are approved for Mass Literacy Summer Open Access Professional Development (OAPL). Eligible Massachusetts educators may take these courses at no cost and will receive a stipend upon completing the course(s) by August 31, 2022. Click here to learn more. *NOTE: Registration for the spring OAPL courses are closed and all slots are filled. Summer registrations will be posted soon.* 

Mass Literacy Guide Online Course

Coming soon! Keys to Literacy is developing an asynchronous online course that will be offered by the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. The course will be available at no cost  to any educator who works in a Massachusetts education organization (e.g., public or private school/school district; institute of higher education; local, regional, or state educational organization).

The purpose of this online course is to help Massachusetts PreK-3 educators understand and implement evidence-based early literacy practices in their culturally responsive classrooms. The course is program neutral, i.e., the instructional suggestions are not specific to any reading program. The course is expected to launch in the Fall of 2022. A link to an information page will be posted before the course begins.

ACCESSING KEYS TO LITERACY PD DURING SCHOOL CLOSURES

We are closely monitoring the covid-19 situation and the impact on our employees and the schools where we provide professional development., during this time period when onsite, face-to-face training and coaching is not possible, we offer multiple options for accessing our literacy pd content and instructional practices., if you are a current or new partner, explore our website or contact us to learn more about:.

• Live virtual training, coaching
• Facilitated and asynchronous online courses
• Free webinars and resources

[email protected] 978-948-8511

Massachusetts to overhaul key educator licensing exam, in an effort to better serve students of color and their families

Massachusetts education officials are embarking on the first overhaul of the state’s licensing exam for educators in 15 years, in an effort to ensure they can effectively teach a more diverse student population and communicate with their families.

Since the communications and literacy skills test began in the 1990s, it has narrowly focused on measuring reading and writing skills. But now state education officials want to expand it to include whether applicants possess the ability to communicate in ways that are culturally and linguistically in tune with the students and families they serve.

The state expects it will assess such areas as an educator’s understanding of the importance of communicating clearly with students and families from different cultures, engaging families in decision-making, giving students feedback for improvement, and welcoming families into the classroom and school community.

Advertisement

For instance, the draft frameworks recommend that when educators share written communication with families, “it is helpful to be concise by providing information clearly and in few words, using bullets, headings, and other strategies for concision and clarity” and they should rely on families’ preferred methods of communication, which could include text messages or apps, like WhatsApp.

The changes to the communication and literacy skills tests could also yield another significant benefit, potentially reducing the racial and ethnic disparities in pass rates on the exam, which often keep Black and Latino educators out of public school classrooms. State law requires educators to pass the communications and literacy skills test in order to gain their licenses.

More than three-quarters of white and Asian-American applicants who took the communication and literacy skills test during the last school year passed, compared to only 51 percent of Latino test-takers and only 44 percent of Black test-takers.

Suleika Soto, a parent organizer with Boston Education Justice Alliance, said the revamped exam sounds like a positive step toward improving communications between school districts and parents and other caregivers.

“It’s good for educators to have those skills, given that most our students are Black and Latino and most of our educators are white, and we also have more immigrants arriving,” said Soto, who has two daughters enrolled in Boston Public Schools. “There can be a lot of miscommunication that happens because of the cultural differences.”

For instance, she said, many people think looking someone in the eye when talking is a sign of respect, but in some cultures it is not.

The overhaul comes as enrollment in the state’s public schools has been growing more diverse for more than a decade. Students of color now make up almost half of the 915,000 students in Massachusetts public schools. But the gap between them and the diversity of the educator workforce has widened to 35 percentage points over the last decade, according to a recent report by Wheelock Educational Policy Center at Boston University .

Meanwhile, Massachusetts is grappling with some of the widest gaps in achievement among students of different racial, ethnic, and linguistic backgrounds in the nation, and has been embarking on several different initiatives to increase the diversity of the educator workforce.

“We are working to promote teaching and learning that is antiracist, inclusive, multilingual, and multicultural,” said Russell Johnston, acting education commissioner, in a May 15 memo to the state Board of Elementary and Secondary Education. “One key component is to continue to foster a diverse and effective educator workforce.”

A draft framework for the changes will be officially released this summer for public comment and a final version is expected to be ready by the end of the year. From there, the revamped test could take between 18 and 24 months to develop and implement.

The changes do not require approval from the state Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, which received a presentation on the potential changes at its monthly meeting Tuesday.

The literacy and communications skills test is part of the broader Massachusetts Tests for Educator Licensure, which also provides other exams so educators can gain licenses to teach specific subjects or work as a superintendent or other administrator.

Leaders for many education organizations welcomed the changes.

“To have educators communicate with students using language that honors their cultures, values, and interests is imperative to closing longstanding ethnic and cultural gaps in our education system,” said Amanda Fernandez, chief executive officer and founder of Latinos for Education. “We hope this reinforces the importance of Latino educators, bilingual educators, and all educators of color as many already possess the important cultural competencies and skills that we need in the classroom.”

Teachers unions also were encouraged by the changes, but said they do not go far enough.

“Every aspect of our education system should reflect the rich cultural and linguistic diversity of our state,” said Jessica Tang, president of the American Federation of Teachers Massachusetts. “However, the MTEL currently serves as a major obstacle to the racially diverse educator workforce our students deserve, and additional changes to the licensure process are sorely needed.”

Teachers unions support further development of pathways into teaching that do not rely on passing a licensing exam.

The Pioneer Institute, a right-leaning think tank in Boston, however, said it believed the changes were a move in the wrong direction.

“The MTEL teacher test has been a national model that’s helped Massachusetts to be an international leader in K-12 education,” said Jamie Gass, director of Pioneer’s Center for School Reform. “Given that our state has experienced a decade of declining student performance on the [National Assessment of Educational Progress exams], it’s perplexing that the DESE would continue to pursue policymaking which ultimately waters down academic expectations for teachers and students alike.”

James Vaznis can be reached at [email protected] . Follow him @globevaznis .

6 ways we boosted literacy platform usage and engaged students

Our literacy platform has helped our students advance academically--and it also builds their independence and self-esteem.

Key points:

• An innovative approach to literacy yields encouraging results for students
• 6 tips to help educators support young readers
• How we can improve literacy through student engagement
• For more news on literacy, visit eSN’s Innovative Teaching hub

I became a reading specialist in 2015, at which point our school’s previous reading specialist was already using an online literacy platform. This was right about the time a leading literacy vendor was rolling out its new literacy program for struggling adolescent readers, so the following year I decided to integrate that program into our English curriculum.

As soon as we did the training for our new program, Lexia PowerUp Literacy, the teachers loved that they could see which students were and weren’t working in the program. Plus, they had the resource hub with everything in it, including all of the lessons. At that point, teachers really began to understand the value of using the literacy tool.

Our county funded our literacy program purchase, and because our elementary schools were already using another program from our literacy partner, they were able to transition to the former as soon as they entered sixth grade. That’s a big plus, because it’s basically a “grown up version” of a literacy platform that they were already used to.

6 ways to boost literacy platform usage

We have almost 1,000 students here in grades 6-8, and they use the program every other day in their PACK class as part of our new “Wit and Wisdom” 5-day/90-minute curriculum program. Everyone is enrolled in it and the students split their time between math and reading.

Here are six ways we’ve been working to increase usage of our literacy platform:

1. Train every teacher. Like many school systems, Stafford County is struggling with teacher staffing and retention. We have so many long-term substitute teachers this year that we’re requiring them to take training for the literacy program as well. We also have PLCs where grade-level teachers meet to discuss student progress. We had regular meetings with our representative and we talked a lot about goal setting for both teachers and students. We had full staff meetings with our software vendor to make sure all our teachers were well-versed in the program. 

2. Focus on more than minutes. We really pushed the minutes in the beginning. Then when we had another meeting, we realized that we also needed to see progress in the units, and not just have the minutes. We started to see the minutes accumulating, and we had kids with 383 minutes in “other,” which meant they were watching videos or just letting the time roll through. To solve the problem, we started putting together weekly morning announcements that revealed the top 10 winners in the grade level, in both minutes and units. That really helped, because kids just wanted to see their names up there. They wanted to be in that top 10.  

3. Give students autonomy. Having an online literacy platform helps with students’ self-esteem and independence, knowing that they have the power to make changes. They have the power to get in there and fill the gaps they may have that are impeding their reading comprehension. It seems like they know someone’s looking, and they want to do more. I love that about our platform. During the COVID-19 years—when the teachers were looking and making comments because everything was virtual—students would actually try to log in and do more when they knew someone was looking.

4. Use the program as an intervention tool. Last year, our county’s eight middle schools all had a reading skills and strategies class where everyone used our literacy platform. As the class kicked off, people kept coming back to me asking why our students were doing better than some of the other schools. Some principals thought they could put a sub in there every day and that it would be great, and as long as they just logged in there, everything would happen. They didn’t realize all the resources that we have at our fingertips in the platform, including skill builders. When the kids are working, their teachers can see their progress (or lack thereof) and intervene as needed.

5. Recognition is key. We have our own certificates and our platform awards certificates and badges as students achieve their goals. If they’ve finished one strand, they earn one badge. And if they finish two, they earn the second badge. If they finish the whole program, they’re inducted into the Lightning Club. They get a little crown with a wolf (our mascot) and a lightning bolt. We always offer a big prize, which this year was sunglasses with lightning bolts on them. We encourage the kids who have finished to continue working, but we also give students a lot of recognition because they’ve worked so hard. Students who have finished even give others advice on how to excel in the program, which is cute. It’s part of the culture.

6. Get parents involved. It’s really important to make sure all teachers tell the students that “this is part of their instruction,” and that you can’t just leave it out. Students have to know that their teachers are going to see what they’re doing, make comments on their work, and help them when they struggle. We do share the reports with parents, and I think that’s really powerful when we have a child who is struggling. We call their parents and I email the report to them so that they can see where the student is working. We tell them the more time your child spends in this program, the better it will be, and you’ll see them grow.

Success by the numbers

The students who are using PowerUp are also scoring better on their NWEA® MAP Skills®, which even further proves the value of augmenting literacy instruction with a robust, science-backed literacy platform. In fact, over 70 percent of our students using the literacy program finished the 2022-2023 year in intermediate or advanced zones in each of the three strands. Ninety percent of students using it finished the year in intermediate or advanced zones for comprehension.

Other notable stats:

• Over 80 percent of the students who met usage targets reached the advanced zone in each of the strands by the end of the year.
• Of all 926 middle school students, 55 percent, or 507 students, moved up at least one zone throughout the year and 269 students moved up 2+ zones.

Not only has our literacy platform helped our students advance academically, but it has also helped to build their independence and self-esteem as they fill in the gaps that are impeding their reading comprehension.

Sign up for our K-12 newsletter

• Recent Posts

Nancy P. Sindle is a reading specialist at Shirley Heim Middle School, which is part of Stafford County Public Schools in Virginia.

• Equitable learning with small-group instruction and student-tracking - May 24, 2024
• CoSN IT Leader Spotlight: David Jarboe - May 23, 2024
• CoSN IT Leader Spotlight: Kley Todd - May 23, 2024

Want to share a great resource? Let us know at [email protected] .

Username or Email Address

Remember Me

eSchool News uses cookies to improve your experience. Visit our Privacy Policy  for more information.

What Michigan parents need to know about the ‘science of reading’

W hen Michele Maleszyk’s daughter came home from kindergarten last year, Maleszyk noticed she brought home reading material with letter patterns she hadn’t been taught yet.

“I thought it was odd she was expected to read books with patterns she didn’t know,” Maleszyk said. “I thought, ‘How can a kid sound out what they don’t know?’ The only way would be by looking at the pictures.”

The mother and former elementary school teacher said she found out her daughter’s Troy School District class was using the Lucy Calkins approach to literacy, which includes short lessons and aims to have students practice reading skills on their own by getting them excited about literature. The once widely popular learning model has been criticized by many parents and educators in recent years as ineffective.

Since then, Maleszyk has learned about and become an advocate for the science of reading , a term generally used to describe early literacy learning instruction that emphasizes phonics along with helping students build vocabulary and background knowledge. The approach applies findings from a body of neuroscience research and the study of cognitive psychology.

With more states switching to these curricula — in the last five years, at least 30 states have passed laws requiring reading instruction to be based on the science of reading — here’s an overview of the reading curricula in use in Michigan and what parents can do to advocate for their child’s literacy learning.

How is literacy instruction evolving?

Early literacy skills are important for students’ future success.

“If we think about reading, writing, speaking, and listening, we do those in all subject matters of school,” said Tanya Wright, an associate professor of Language and Literacy in the Department of Teacher Education at Michigan State University. “It is really critical to develop those skills in the early childhood years.”

Science on the best ways to teach kids to read is constantly evolving. Current research suggests effective reading instruction should include five core pillars: phonemic awareness, phonics and word recognition, fluency, oral vocabulary, and text comprehension.

Literacy interventions that emphasize phonics have won out over other approaches in the so-called “ Reading Wars ” over the years.

The whole language approach, which typically doesn’t include much phonics instruction and was based on the belief that learning to read is an innate process, came first. It included the three-cueing method, which means students are given three cues to decode text: semantic cues that give meaning from context, syntactic cues that give meaning through letters, and grapho-phonic cues that give meaning through spelling patterns.

Then came balanced literacy , which combined the whole language approach with some phonics instruction.

Curricula that are well-regarded by science of reading advocates include Core Knowledge Language Arts (sometimes called CKLA), EL Education , Wit and Wisdom , and Superkids Reading Program .

Curricula that have been evaluated by some education experts as not meeting expectations include Fountas & Pinnell Classroom and Units of Study for Teaching Reading , also known as Lucy Calkins, named for the literacy expert who created the curriculum.

But even for widely respected and popular programs that claim to use methods derived from the science of reading research, there is not much available peer-reviewed research on how effective specific curriculum materials are. And available efficacy studies have yielded mixed results .

Tara Kilbride, the interim associate director of the Education Policy Innovation Collaborative at Michigan State University, said it’s important to remember the science of reading is still changing.

“It will continue to evolve as more research happens and we learn more,” she said.

Which literacy curricula does Michigan use?

Michigan, which ranks 43rd in the country for reading, is one of the 26 states that lay out clear standards for reading instruction in teacher preparation programs that include the five core pillars, according to a report released by the National Council on Teacher Quality last month. The state also has standards for how educators should learn to support English learners.

But Michigan is among the states that do not verify these policies are being met. The state does not maintain full authority to review teacher preparation programs and does not audit them to ensure they align with the science of reading, the report says.

Though the state does provide guidance on using reading programs that align with research-based best practices, there is no one set reading curriculum for Michigan students. The state’s schools operate under local control, and districts decide their own curricula, making it impossible to discern how many districts use outdated or poorly rated core curricula.

Reading instruction materials can vary widely within districts and sometimes even within the same elementary schools, according to a 2022 policy brief by EPIC.

“What that really tells us is that across Michigan classrooms, kids are getting inconsistent instruction,” said Wright.

In a survey of more than 9,000 Michigan K-5 teachers and 192 superintendents, educators reported using more than 450 different English language arts curricula. Many teachers said they used multiple curricula and supplemental materials in their lessons.

The researchers found all participating districts provided guidance on curriculum selection. Despite guidance, teachers within the same district did not all use the same curriculum, and many were using curricula that were poorly rated or unrated.

For example, 31% of teachers in the survey said they used Fountas & Pinell, which did not meet expectations according to EdReports, a website that reviews instructional material.

Kristine Griffor, assistant superintendent for elementary instruction in the Troy School District, said Lucy Calkins has been used by all of the school system’s elementary school teachers for around 15 years, with an updated curriculum adopted nine years ago. A phonics component was to the reading and writing units of study five years ago, she said. A literacy leadership team that included teachers selected the curriculum, said Griffor.

Parents can check whether their school’s curriculum is considered high quality on the EdReports website.

While curricula is a key component that influences instruction, Wright said it’s not the only component. Teachers can use additional materials and their own knowledge to guide lessons.

What about students with dyslexia?

As has been the case nationally , Michigan dyslexia advocates have helped lead the push to adopt science of reading strategies. Though more research is needed , there is evidence the interventions used to identify and help struggling readers in curricula that claim to use the science of reading may hold promise for students with dyslexia, according to a 2021 study .

Some say aspects of a set of Michigan dyslexia bills proposed in October would benefit the overall student population.

One bill would tighten state standards for literacy screeners schools use to identify kids having trouble reading. Another would require school districts to have at least one teacher trained in the Orton-Gillingham method, a highly structured multisensory approach to reading instruction.

On Tuesday, the Senate Education Committee is set to discuss the dyslexia bill that would tighten screeners and another that would set standards for teacher preparation programs to ensure future educators have the tools they need to support students with dyslexia.

What can parents do to set their kids up for success in learning to read?

Wright suggests parents who want to better understand the best practices for teaching kids to read review the Literacy Essentials resource guide she helped compile with other researchers. The guide includes essential practices for kids in all grade levels, professional learning resources for educators, coaching modules, and more.

“We want kids to learn to look at the symbols and be able to figure out how they translate into words and sentences,” said Wright. “We also want kids, at the same time, to be building knowledge and vocabulary and comprehension skills, so that once they are independent decoders, they have the knowledge they need to comprehend the text.”

For example, Wright said that if her child was not receiving science or social studies instruction in the early grades, she would be concerned.

Parents may also want to get an understanding of how their child is learning literacy by asking teachers about how they approach carving out time for reading and writing during the school day.

They may also ask how teachers screen students for reading difficulties and what interventions are used, said Maleszyk, the parent in Troy.

“Ask them, ‘If my child is falling behind, what steps are you taking to support them?’” she said.

Parents might also ask teachers if they’ve received training in the Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling (or LETRS ), which has been recommended by the state .

Experts and educators suggest taking a collaborative approach to talking with teachers and administrators about concerns with your child’s reading instruction. Everyone’s goal should be achieving student literacy, regardless of the approach.

Maleszyk said if a teacher is not able to answer your questions or address your concerns, you may want to talk with the school’s principal and then the district’s director of curriculum. She has also spoken about her concerns with her daughter’s curriculum at school board meetings.

“We are always learning different ways and practices and we feel the curriculum we selected centers on children,” said Griffor, the Troy School District administrator.

Inequities in Michigan’s literacy proficiency

Maleszyk said she knows her daughter will learn to read – she’s able to pay up to $80 an hour for tutoring. But she worries about students whose families can’t afford the extra support.

Michigan students have long struggled with literacy competency, and experts say inequitable school funding is among the many reasons students from low-income families and students of color have suffered the most from inadequate reading instruction.

A 2016 lawsuit alleged that the state denied students in the Detroit Public Schools Community District a basic education by failing to teach them to read. It was settled for $94.4 million.

In 2022, Michigan ranked 43rd compared to the rest of the nation for 4th grade reading, according to a report by Education Trust-Midwest that used data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress . The scores from that assessment were seven points lower than they were 20 years prior.

While the rest of the country’s reading scores dropped during the pandemic, Michigan’s plummeted at a faster rate than the national average due to a longtime underinvestment in public education, according to the 2023 State of Michigan Education report.

In an effort to improve early literacy, Michigan’s Republican-led Legislature and then-Gov. Rick Snyder approved the 2016 third-grade reading law, which included a retention rule.

The retention rule took effect in 2021 and other aspects of the law went into effect much earlier. Before the retention rule was repealed in March , Black students and kids from low-income families were more than twice as likely to have to repeat the third grade compared to their white peers and students from wealthier families.

Most districts pushed back against retaining more students, especially during the early stages of the pandemic, when learning loss was widespread and when the rule took effect.

The other aspects of the reading law remain, including the requirement that schools identify struggling readers and provide extra help.

Hannah Dellinger covers K-12 education and state education policy for Chalkbeat Detroit. You can reach her at [email protected] .

• Resource Collection
• State Resources

Community for Adult Educators

We've updated LINCS Courses.   Please see the Course Guide for updated information on using the site.

• Public Groups
• Micro Groups
• Recent Activity
• Math and Numeracy
• Discussions

It's summertime

.... and maybe lots of folks are out of offices and stuff?   I will be next week!   So I've got 52 minutes to go... 

I was inspired once again by the different ZOOM gatherings -- including the side comment by Patricia Helmuth about if there were another lifetime, creating their own adult ed curriculum materials.  It made me curious because from the Midwest, it seems   the folks in Massachusetts have a good setup with SABES.   

.... but ... right now the assorted trends towards simply eliminating most basic math from community colleges (I have discovered my college is an exception in hanging on to our Transitions and Pre-Algebra courses as long as we have) means at least some of those people won't just give up on learning math.   Wouldn't it be great to figure out some good sharable (open source even) adaptable materials, that could be adapted to distance or face-to-face or different contexts?   Yes, it's a big project but the reason folks want to just put everybody in college level is because we haven't done the basic stuff for adults right ( ask me about the data:   college placement works well for the little slice of folks right on the margins, not the rest of the world). 

... well, I also need to tidy my space since that's what I do when I'm going on vacation, but ... I'll have more "down time" and I'm going to continue exploring ... 

• Log in or register to post comments