A troubling reading issue

but important to address ... and grateful to those willing

The same day this commentary in EdSource appeared, arguing that we should support the latest reading bill introduced in the CA legislature (AB 1121), I received a very thoughtful email from Dan Plonsey.

A former math teacher, Mr. Plonsey felt that by only addressing poor reading instruction as a source of achievement disparities, I obscured the role of economic inequality as “the primary factor” creating and perpetuating achievement disparities.

Mr. Plonsey raised a very important point. I’ve pondered and even sometimes struggled with it for years.

Below, with his permission, is our brief correspondence. I would have been glad to respond to his reply to me and continue our email exchange, but I’m more interested in bringing others into the discussion and hearing what they have to say. So please….

I suspect maybe Mr. Plonsey will have additional thoughts. I will forward this to him in case he wants to share them.

I want to take this opportunity to thank Mr. Plonsey and everyone else who disagrees with me (not just with me) and does so directly, forthrightly, and is open to a substantive exchange.

We have many difficult and troubling issues in the reading world—as we do in the larger world. Sadly, not everyone is willing to engage as Mr. Plonsey did. On the day my commentary appeared in EdSource and Mr. Plonsey’s email appeared in my inbox, I also received from a colleague a letter opposing AB 1121 from something called the "Literacy Concerns Coalition." (See here.) I tried to engage members of this coalition in discussing reading policy before we once again lined up on opposite sides of a bill. Sadly, to no avail, and here we are.

I keep wondering, “What are they afraid of?”

In any case, here goes my exchange with Mr. Plonsey. Comments would be most welcomed:

On Apr 15, 2025, at 9:12 PM, Dan Plonsey <dplonsey@yahoo.com> wrote:

Dear Professor Goldenberg,

You write: "Today, only one-third of economically disadvantaged Latino students and one-fourth of economically disadvantaged African American students meet or exceed grade-level standards in English language arts. This is not because they are incapable of learning, but largely because they are not taught using effective practices supported by a broad consensus of reading researchers and experts."

Not "largely because,"as you implicitly acknowledge. The primary factor is that they are economically disadvantaged. Why don't you suggest we do something about economic inequality -- which gets to the root of the problem, and has other benefits, e.g., access to decent healthcare, housing, safety, etc.? In Berkeley, there is a 16 year gap in life expectancy between wealthiest and poorest. How about we address the root cause?

By promoting the notion that we can somehow, by passing a law, force teachers to "teach better" enough to compensate for massive economic inequality excuses the growing inequality, and makes addressing it seem less urgent. That's what you're doing.

Why would anyone want to do that?

Best,

Dan Plonsey

retired public school math teacher

El Cerrito, CA

On Tuesday, April 15, 2025 at 11:04:06 PM PDT, Claude N. Goldenberg <claudeg@stanford.edu> wrote:

Dear Mr. Plonsey, I appreciate your letter and fully agree with you about how fundamental economic disparities are to our chronic educational crises--the inexcusable opportunity gaps and downstream achievement gaps. No one needs to convince me.

That said, there is also no question that schools could do a much better job of teaching reading (and much else), thereby ameliorating to some extent at least the achievement gaps, which, downstream, will mitigate the opportunity gaps.

The two are not mutually exclusive—fighting for economic justice/equality and fighting for improvement in reading instruction, particularly for those who suffer most when schools teach poorly. In fact, fighting for improvement in instruction, reading and otherwise, is part of the fight for economic justice/equality.

Your inference—surprising coming from a math teacher—that by pushing for better teaching I make addressing economic inequality less urgent is simply incorrect. If someone takes that inference, it’s not from anything I’ve said. It’s just a flawed inference.

You also seem to assume that economically disadvantaged children are not able to achieve at a greatly higher level than they currently do—if, that is, they receive competent and effective teaching. Advocates for economically disenfranchised students from Marva Collins to Ron Edmonds to Kareem Weaver would take exception and, frankly, find this offensive. I agree.

I won’t bore you by reciting my activities in the political domain and railing against our depraved government. I will continue that struggle. But I know my impact will be negligible; that’s just a fact.

In contrast, there’s a decent chance I can have a positive, even if modest, impact on reading education and reading policy. So far I have little to show for it. But I will keep up that struggle as well.

We have evidence that improving reading instruction can make significant and meaningful improvements in reading outcomes for all students. If you’re interested in seeing some research, I’d be glad to share it. Then maybe you’ll join me and others in trying to get CA on a stronger footing to help virtually all students to become literate. This will benefit their, and our, economic and social prospects. As will defeating our current federal government’s reckless inhumanity.

Claude Goldenberg

On Apr 16, 2025, at 6:15 PM, Dan Plonsey <dplonsey@yahoo.com> wrote:

Dear Professor Goldenberg,

Thanks for your reply!

In today's EdSource, "No Compromise on Literacy Bill," John Fensterwald reports: "a third of low-income students were proficient, compared with 63% of non-low income students." Eliminating poverty would thereby have a huge impact, dwarfing the supposed miracle in Mississippi.

Your pessimism w/r/t addressing economic inequality in CA is self-fulfilling: if everyone in the education community decides that nothing can be done, and therefore no one mentions the possibility of eradicating poverty as a solution -- then most certainly nothing will change. And that is what has happened!

For example, take CalCare (Medicare for all in CA). 2/3 of Californians support it, so it's eminently doable. Lack of healthcare, and lack of mental healthcare, is a huge factor in my students' struggles. I regularly had kids with untreated anxiety, depression, and PTSD; along with other students kept home for periods to care for relatives. You would think that CalCare would be mentioned as having the potential for having a tremendous positive impact on low-income student achievement. And yet if you google calcare edsource, the only mention you will find, going back several years, will be in the comments -- by me.

Surely you could at least suggest that poverty be addressed directly? Or healthcare specifically, given that it is very popular? But no one has even mentioned it in EdSource for years -- it's not just you.

By the mid-60's Martin Luther King Jr. had prioritized fighting poverty directly, rather than trusting in indirect means, including education. But now, 60 years later, the entire educational establishment has decided "it's a losing cause, so let's not even bring it up as a possibility." That doesn't seem a little strange to you?

So it's not just you: nearly every article/essay/paper about low achievement mentions the impact of poverty -- and yet they all refrain from suggesting that we therefore might address the root cause and prioritize eradicating poverty. That collective omission can only be -- and is -- justified and maintained byall of you experts proposing alternatives. So yes, it's not just your push for "better teaching," it's you andall of your colleagues collectively blaming curricula, pedagogies, teachers, parents, kids, unions, districts -- everything, in fact, but the wealthy people who want to pay ever less in taxes, and the politicians in CA who are afraid to upset them. You are indeed collectively assuring that inequality will persist, by collectively neglecting to suggest addressing it directly. (Maybe you have written other papers and opinion pieces in which you did call for policies to end poverty -- please send references, if any.)

As it happens, I am much more skeptical than you about the supposed MS Miracle. There are many unanswered questions about what factors were most responsible for a rise in test scores -- but discussion would be to stray from the issue. Discussions of curriculum and pedagogy are easy and comfortable for us educators, and that's part of why we far prefer them than to reporting on the reality that we observe, and responding to MLK's challenge, and actually making a positive change.

Best,

Dan