Deadly words, part 1

They kill communication, maybe even thought.

The reading world has a problem that is insufficiently recognized: Words with muddled meanings that bring communication, and sometimes even thought, to a crashing halt. These are DEADLY WORDS.

This is the first of a several-part series where I hope to encourage us to clean up our language. Or at least clarify what we mean with words we use.

BALANCED. Who could possibly be against “balanced”? We try for balanced diets, seek home-life balance, and worry about a life out of balance. “Balance” is a great concept.

The National Literacy Panel (NRP) helped enshrine it in our reading education discourse when it wrote:

[I]t is important to emphasize that systematic phonics instruction should be integrated with other reading instruction to create a balanced reading program. Phonics instruction is never a total reading program. In 1st grade, teachers can provide controlled vocabulary texts that allow students to practice decoding, and they can also read quality literature to students to build a sense of story and to develop vocabulary and comprehension. Phonics should not become the dominant component in a reading program, neither in the amount of time devoted to it nor in the significance attached.

Unfortunately, when paired with “literacy”, “balanced” has been transmogrified into something vague, ill-defined, and never intended by the NRP. In the phrase “balanced literacy,” balanced is now associated with an approach to teaching word recognition where students are taught to use different sources of information, or “cues” when coming across a word in print they don’t recognize. (“Cues” or “cueing,” when paired with “three” and about which I’ve written before, is next on the list.)

I believe the most accurate description of the contemporary meaning-in-use of “balanced literacy” comes from the best assessment of the reading research literature published over the past half-decade, “Ending the Reading Wars: Reading Acquisition From Novice to Expert.” (Ok, maybe I’m partial to this article because of the title; but it really is a great and super informative article. Very balanced.):

The term balanced literacy is in widespread use, often to describe programs with “a bit of everything” and typically involving limited and nonsystematic phonics instruction.

Along with widespread use of the term there is also a widespread consensus among those who actually know and understand the reading research (I know that sounds presumptuous, so apologies), which is that while a balanced diet and home-life balance are good, balanced literacy, as per the quote above, is not. Specifically, it is not the best option for helping a large majority of students become proficient readers. The reason is precisely what the authors of the quoted article say: It’s a bit of everything with limited and nonsystematic phonics instruction.

But because the word balanced is itself suggests something so reasonable and sensible, arguing against “balanced literacy” seems unreasonable, even grumpy and ill-natured. You have to admire the brilliant branding by whoever co-opted “balanced” in this way.

The term has become a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Or better yet, a Trojan horse. I was reminded of this when I read the response of a university administrator whose teacher education program was challenged because it was not using “evidence-based” practices. (“Evidence,” paired with “-based,” will be coming soon.) “Balanced literacy” was among approaches that were challenged.

The administrator defended his program’s evidence-baseness (Google AI says that’s a word) by claiming that “Castles and colleagues stress the importance of balanced literacy approaches.” Turns out that “Castles and colleagues” are the same folks who wrote the article cited above that called balanced literacy ”a bit of everything” and providing limited, nonsystematic phonics. Castles et al. were not endorsing “balanced literacy approaches.”

Apparently this administrator, or whoever prepared the response for him, had not read the article. In fact, and precisely to the point I am trying to make, Castles and colleagues say

it would be valuable to reclaim a term such as balanced instruction and recast it in a more nuanced way that is informed by a deep understanding of how reading develops.

“A deep understanding of how reading develops” is what we must strive for. A helpful step in this direction is to get our terms (and facts) straight. And for that to happen we have to be very clear about what is meant when a term like “balanced” is used. Reading the articles where the term appears and asking what exactly is meant would be a great start.

Next up: CUEING (preceded by THREE-).

Then as efficiently as I can muster: GUIDED (followed by READING), LEVELED (followed by TEXTS), DECODABLES (wherever it appears), RUNNING and RECORDS (paired together), and EVIDENCE (followed by -BASED).

Then the uber-deadly, SCIENCE, whenever READING is anywhere in the vicinity. If you just can’t wait for this one, I urge you to take a look at a blog I very recently discovered, “Has the Science of Reading become a rampant thought-terminating cliché?” I swear I had the idea for my series on “DEADLY WORDS” before coming across this blog, so I’m not trying to horn in on someone else’s insight. In any event, this obviously brilliant and insightful Australian educator, Emina McLean, is really onto something. I’m not sure I’ll have anything to add. But I might. Regardless, please read her blog.

Would love your thoughts.