Read on Twitter
Many people will have seen this article. It looks at a recently published piece of work by a couple of Australian academics who write on inclusion and disability, and has comments from several other academics who work in the inclusion and literacy space https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/phonics-teaching-row-erupts/news-story/3e5ebb09054252973d2b7db1afc38f5c
The article itself is Duke J., Whitburn B. (2020) Neoliberal-Ableism and Inclusive Literacy Education, Paradox of. In: Peters M. (eds) Encyclopedia of Teacher Education. Springer, Singapore and can be found here: DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1179-6_395-1
It's a curious thing to read.
It's a curious thing to read.
I am not an academic. My background is very much focused on the practical application of ideas around learning, and working with children, teachers, leaders and the local community to make good things happen for kids. If I am misunderstanding the work, I apologise to the authors.
If (like me) you hadn't heard of neoliberal-ablelism, the article explains. I am totally down with pushing back against the idea that "normal"/"able"/neurotypical is "better." The marketplace shouldn't rule our world, and diverse perspectives and experiences make us all stronger
This is where we get to the "what the...??" If neoliberal-ableism is an unmitigated risk to equity, are they saying that these goals are bad? As educators, do we not want progression, advancement, independence and growth for everyone? If you don't, you might be in the wrong job.
They then illustrate the risks with a vignette about "John" which, in my opinion, reads like a parody of poor practice and misinformation about the Phonics Screening Check and how schools respond to their motivation to ensure that all children can read.
The argument is that the PSC (which apparently some people call the Phonics Health Check) is used to deem John as either able or not able, and this binary view bewilders me. It just isn't how schools use the information that we get. (For more info, see https://www.education.sa.gov.au/teaching/curriculum-and-teaching/literacy-and-numeracy/phonics-screening-check)
The PSC isn't something that you pass or fail. Kids aren't stressed by it, or worried about it, and all of the teachers who I worked with when my school implemented it valued the professional learning program that was provided around it. The check gives teachers progress info.
A teacher who said "this child needs this intervention because they missed the benchmark by a point" would - in most schools - probably be advised to differentiate their teaching practice. No school has the resources to arbitrarily withdraw children for unnecessary interventions
We aren't monsters! We know that if the child isn't accessing the learning in the class then they are at risk of falling further behind. It's why we want to catch gaps in skills before they get too large. The longer it is left, the harder that is to do.
The entire vignette uses weasel words like "allegedly scientifically evidenced skills" to imply that what we know about the brain and language acquisition is contentious, and that using this knowledge to teach privileges some children over others. I prefer this to illiterate kids
I don't want kids to be literate because I think they are flawed. I want them to be literate because the only people who think that the ability to turn squiggles into meaning is over-rated are people who can already do it, and probably never had to work at it.
Unless you have sat in a room with a father in tears begging his child to attempt the work "because you don't want to end up like me" I am uninterested in your abstract theories about market forces, or your undermining of the approaches that are most likely to work for most kids.
The article argues the PSC presents "an opposing binary between able and not able" but it involves the child attempting to read 40 words, so how could that possibly be binary? Is the argument that getting 28 right means you are ignored and 27 is autowithdrawal? Who does that?
If John can't read, and with adjustments to his instruction he might learn more effectively, then don't the Disability Standards in Education demand that we make those adjustments? If the PSC helps us understand the needs of our learners, isn't that a good thing?
The piece goes on to say that because John was deemed not able he is excluded to an ability group where his personal needs aren't considered, which - once again - doesn't align with my experience or with any policy that I'm aware of. The straw man is strong in this piece!
The more I have looked at this, the more depressed and confused I get. They describe practices that are objectively poor, present them as an "unmitigated risk" but don't acknowledge that this is not how the PSC works, or how professional interventions in reading operate. Why?
I should add that all of my experiences of the PSC are based on its implementation in SA, where a bipartisan approach meant that it survived a change of government, and where there has been a major investment providing teachers with time to learn, do the check and plan next steps
