A popular reading organization has sued the state of Ohio in an attempt to block changes Gov. Mike DeWine鈥檚 administration recently made to how early reading is taught in the state.
The Reading Recovery Council of North America filed a lawsuit against the state and DeWine earlier this month, prompted largely by the bill鈥檚 attempt to stamp out a teaching practice that it has used in its own teacher-training program.
It鈥檚 one of the first major legal challenges to a wave of recent state legislation aiming to align classroom instruction to the 鈥渟cience of reading鈥濃�攖he broad base of research on how children learn to read.
The concerns an overhaul to reading instruction passed in the July 2023 budget bill. The budget provided funding for evidence-based educator professional development, literacy coaches, and curriculum.
The budget bill also stipulates that by the 2024-25 school year, all schools must use reading programs that have been approved by the state, and no district can adopt any materials that use a method known as three-cueing.
The three-cuing approach instructs students to rely on many sources of information, rather than just the letters on the page, to figure out how to read words. Researchers have said that this method can discourage children from applying their phonics knowledge, hampering their ability to become strong readers.
It鈥檚 those provisions that the Reading Recovery Council of North America is challenging. In the lawsuit, the organization argues that the budget bill sets education policy, something that鈥檚 outside of the scope of the bill鈥檚 intended purpose to appropriate money.
The lawsuit alleges that the budget bill violates the Ohio Constitution, which says that a bill can only be about one subject鈥攁nd that it infringes on the Ohio Board of Education鈥檚 power to set education policy. It also argues that the law doesn鈥檛 鈥渁rticulate a clear standard for assessing what teaching models or methods might be categorized under the 鈥榯hree-cueing鈥� approach,鈥� rendering it 鈥渦nconstitutionally vague.鈥�
In a statement, RRCNA Executive Director Billy Molasso argues that banning cueing is government overreach.
鈥淓ducators have long debated how best to reach students, but when an educational practice has scientific evidence supporting it, a legislative enactment that prohibits the practice suggests motives entirely outside of educational best practices,鈥� he said.
RRCNA argues that the bill鈥檚 literacy provisions should be declared void.
The governor鈥檚 office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
What is 鈥榯hree-cueing鈥�?
Cueing has long been a staple of early elementary school classrooms.
Curriculum programs often offer it as an option for prompting students when they come to a word they can鈥檛 decipher. Students are encouraged to look at the picture and think about what word might make sense, or to guess at what word would fit in the context of the sentence.
Recently, some big-name figures in the early reading space have removed the strategy from their programs, acknowledging that it can encourage ineffective methods of word-reading. A few states鈥攊ncluding Indiana, Arkansas, and Louisiana鈥攈ave also banned the strategy as part of initiatives to improve early reading instruction. (Many more states have passed reading legislation that is less prescriptive on curriculum and teaching.)
Reading Recovery, though, has defended its use of the cueing methods.
The program is an intervention for 1st graders who struggle with reading. The method, in which teachers provide 30-minute, one-on-one lessons, was developed by New Zealand researcher Marie Clay in the 1970s. Children read both familiar and unfamiliar texts, which a teacher observes, recording mistakes and helping children when they stumble. Cueing prompts are part of this support, and are embedded in Reading Recovery sample lessons and training materials.
The program has been found to improve students鈥� reading ability in the short term, but not in the long term. A federally funded study found that by 3rd and 4th grades, former Reading Recovery students performed significantly worse than peers who did not participate in the program, but who had similar 1st grade reading scores.
Reading Recovery鈥檚 lawsuit states that the ban on cueing in Ohio鈥檚 law 鈥渨ould prohibit the teaching methods employed by RRCNA.鈥�
The lawsuit acknowledges that Ohio, where the organization is based, is a key market for Reading Recovery, and underscores how the state鈥檚 new ban would hurt the organization鈥檚 bottom line.
RRCNA 鈥渄erives a significant portion of its operating revenues from annual membership fees paid by members in Ohio,鈥� the lawsuit reads. Because of the ban, it alleges, 鈥淩RCNA has experienced a decline in membership of Ohio school districts, and also expects a decline in registrations of Ohio school districts for the annual conference.鈥�
What鈥檚 next?
Like Ohio, more than 40 states include 鈥渟ingle subject鈥� requirements for legislation in their constitutions, though that courts have been unable to determine clear and consistent rules for what constitutes a 鈥渟ingle鈥� subject.
Ohio advocates have used the law to strike down education policy initiatives in the past. In 1999, the because it had been passed as part of a state budget bill. The court determined that the voucher program鈥檚 inclusion violated the single-subject provision of the state constitution.
Other groups have also spoken out against Ohio鈥檚 cueing ban. The president of the Ohio Education Association and the president of the Ohio Federation of Teachers both told 澳门跑狗论坛 earlier this year that bans on specific teaching practices would unduly increase scrutiny on educators鈥� day-to-day work.
Still, advocates for the ban have said that it鈥檚 a necessary step to ensure harmful teaching practices aren鈥檛 perpetuated.
鈥淲e would not encourage medical doctors to continue practicing approaches that are wrong,鈥� Chanda Rhodes Coblentz, an assistant professor of education at the University of Mount Union in Alliance, Ohio, told 澳门跑狗论坛 in March.
