By Jessika Harkay, CTMirror.org / Additional information by the Westport Journal

With more than half of Connecticut’s third-graders failing to meet reading benchmarks, education stakeholders across the state agree that existing strategies must change in order to boost student scores.

How to go about that change is where the consensus ends.

State education officials are doubling down on their support of “Right to Read” legislation they believe will provide equal opportunity for all children learning how to read, despite local school leaders’ misgivings about the implementation of the law.

One of those critics is Westport Supt. of Schools Thomas Scarice, who after state officials refused to grant the town a waiver from the new program, expressed “disappointment as a result of the endless hours our faculty and leaders have spent on this waiver process.” He was responding to a request for comment from the Westport Journal in December.

In Westport, 73.8 percent of third graders achieved reading proficiency last year — 10 percentage points lower than the year before — but still among the highest in the state.

The state Department of Education “moved the goal posts throughout the process, and we continued to flex to meet those expectations,” Scarice contended.

“Programs do not teach kids. Materials do not teach kids. Highly skilled professional educators teach kids, and that is what we have in Westport,” he said.

State: Local critics of “Right to Read” are wrong

In reaction to criticism from Scarice and other local education administrators around the state, officials at the state Department of Education have embarked on a “myth”-busting tour recently, arguing that school superintendents’ public complaints about the process created to carry out the Right to Read law are rife with misinformation.

According to data from the department, more than 19,500 students in the third grade are not reading on grade level. That figure represents about 54.5 percent of third graders statewide — even in Connecticut’s highest-performing districts, about 25 percent of students trail benchmark goals.

“The bottom line is this is something that we have to work on consistently across the state and across all school districts,” Education Commissioner Charlene Russell-Tucker told the state Board of Education meeting earlier this month. 

“If we do nothing different, these are the numbers we’re [going to continue] producing year after year, and that is not acceptable. We’ve got to do something about it.”

During the 2023 legislative session, lawmakers passed the Right to Read bill, which will require that all Connecticut school districts shift to a reading program aligned with the Science of Reading — a body of research that shows the best way to teach reading is through five pillars of skill development: phonemic awareness, phonics, oral reading fluency, vocabulary and comprehension.

The legislation requires the state Department of Education to choose a number of programs that adhere to the Science of Reading for districts to choose from and fully implement by 2025. Eighty-five districts and charter schools around the state applied for a waiver, arguing that their existing curriculum met state standards or that they want to try a different program.

Only 17 of the 85 school systems fully met the state’s standards, which prompted a vocal reproach from many district leaders who were denied waivers.

In addition to Scarice, superintendents from other communities such as Greenwich and Southington — which requested but did not receive waivers and have some of the highest reading scores in the state, between 64 and 74 percent proficiency — said they do not oppose evidence-based reading models, but are critical of the department’s mandates and processes.

They and other superintendents said the waiver requirements changed midway through the process and that the application was confusing.

While teachers appear supportive of the legislation’s intent to improve reading scores for all students, they’ve also voiced frustration about being left out of the conversation.

“Where’s the emphasis on developing plans that can be modified to meet the kids? Where is the conversation about building our capacity around literacy, making sure that our teachers have the opportunity to build really dynamic lessons, and that they have the opportunity to learn from one another?” said Kate Dias, president of the Connecticut Education Association, the largest teacher union in the state. 

“We’re not having those conversations, [instead] we’re talking about which workbooks are the children using.”

Critics promoting “myths” about new program

Mainly in response to some superintendents who had spoken to news outlets following the waiver decisions in December, representatives from the Department of Education held a “Myth versus Fact” presentation at the recent state Board of Education meeting. 

They emphasized the implementation process was unbiased, unchanged and aligned with legislation. The state also held a three-hour panel Jan. 25 with national, statewide and local stakeholders about the importance of aligning evidence-based reading programs and curriculum.

“This is a basic civil right, and we’re going to make sure that regardless of background, everybody has that skill,” Gov. Ned Lamont said at the panel. “I think [reading] gives every one of our kids a little bit more of a head start in life. I think that’s what we’re trying to do here with this legislation and trying to get that implemented … 

“This is best practices, what Charlene is trying to do is say, ‘Look, these are the very best ideas, this is what seems to be working in other jurisdictions. Try this out in your community,’ ” the governor added.

Lawmakers and other representatives from the education department continue to argue that narrowly focused criticisms about the implementation of the law has distracted from its true purpose, and instead, the focus should be on celebrating the shift in curriculum as “a win for the entire state of Connecticut.”

The Science of Reading refers to decades of research in education, psychology and neuroscience and its findings on how children best learn reading skills.

Most states have shifted toward or implemented some type of legislation regarding evidence-based reading instruction, most notably in the south, including Mississippi, which has garnered national attention for significant reading scores improvement in the last decade.

Of the 19,500 Connecticut third-grade students who are reading below proficiency, 12,900 are students of color and over 14,500 are high-need students — meaning they qualify for free or reduced lunch, are English language learners or are students with a disability.

“A child learning to read is a civil-rights issue,” said state Sen. Patricia Billie Miller, D-Stamford, the chair of the legislature’s Black and Puerto Rican Caucus. “We have a responsibility … to make sure that children in this state can read. Frederick Douglass said that when you can read, you’re forever free.”

State: Teach reading via evidence and science-based models

“An Act Concerning the Implementation of Reading Models or Programs” passed as part of omnibus education bill Senate Bill 1 and lays out that local boards of education must partially transition to a state-approved reading program by 2024 and fully by 2025.

The approved programs were required to be evidence- and scientifically based and “focused on competency in the following areas of reading: Oral language, phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, rapid automatic name or letter name fluency and reading comprehension,” according to the legislation. The department ultimately provided over a handful of programs for districts to choose from.

Westport, other districts raise criticisms

Much dialogue in local school districts has been centered on the waiver process rather than the Science of Reading, which most districts agree is a successful way to teach early literacy skills.

Districts including Hartford, Waterbury and New London public schools were approved for waivers, despite only reporting 14.5, 19.1 and 26.1 percent of their respective third graders were able to read proficiently.

The majority of districts that applied for waivers were rejected, and the decisions triggered confusion for superintendents in towns that have a higher percentage of students meeting reading proficiency scores.

However, Charles Hewes, the state deputy commissioner for academics and innovation, said that reading scores were not considered in the waiver process and that some districts — such as Hartford — plan to implement new and innovative reading programs that are different from what they’ve been using.

Among the critiques by superintendents who weren’t successful in the waiver process was that the state’s process was confusing and inconsistent. Some superintendents also consider the new legislation overbearing.

Scarice said he felt the process was “ill-defined from the beginning.”

“Whether districts were approved for the waiver had little to nothing to do with their actual program, alignment to the research or outcomes for students,” he said. 

“The implementation by the state Department of Education was convoluted, inconsistent and, most importantly, not aligned to the actual statute, leaving our district, and perhaps a number of other districts, confused,” Scarice said. 

“The response provided by the CSDE to our waiver was incomplete, portions were left blank and the narrative responses were difficult if not impossible to comprehend,” he added.

“My concern has less to do with shifts to our programs or curriculum to purposefully align with the Science of Reading and more to do with the state mandating curriculum and programs from the top down,” said Southington Supt. Steven Madancy. “Connecticut has always been a local control state, and recent actions fly in the face of that.”

In Greenwich, the superintendent called the evaluation rubric “frustrating and minimalistic.”

“The waiver was a very confusing process, with many moving finish lines,” said Supt. Toni Jones, adding that the state’s evaluation team changed during the process, and they implemented a new evaluation criteria that “nobody knew about.” 

Jones also said that the rubric commented on old materials from 2018 that were not relevant to the practices the district has currently been using.

Critics’ “myths” debunked by state

Representatives from the state Department of Education called several superintendents’ criticisms “myths” at a recent state Board of Education meeting and presented a slideshow that countered the allegations.

“A myth: the waiver review tool changed throughout the process. We heard this multiple times, please know that the actual fact is it did not change… 

“The waiver tool remained the same. The waiver tool aligned to the legislation and the guidance that was provided to districts aligned to legislation,” said Melissa Hickey, the director of literacy research and reading success at the state Department of Education. 

“Another myth: the process was biased. Please, know again … it was double blind. It was conducted by experts in literacy with no ties to Connecticut or to any districts in Connecticut.”

Hewes added that some claims “can be harmful,” to both the people “trying to execute the legislation but also education as a whole and what we try to do for our kids.”

“If we know the Science of Reading research tells us how to instruct students, wouldn’t we all want to be finding a way to make sure that we’re as closely aligned to that research in the materials and curricula that we use?” Hewes told the CT Mirror.

Scarice and Jones both said that their reading curriculums are aligned with Science of Reading, and that they’ve requested the department reconsider their waiver applications.