{"id":2268,"date":"2025-10-03T07:54:45","date_gmt":"2025-10-03T15:54:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/backseatlinguist.com\/blog\/?p=2268"},"modified":"2025-10-03T07:57:30","modified_gmt":"2025-10-03T15:57:30","slug":"schooling-the-wsj-and-the-mississippi-miracle","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/backseatlinguist.com\/blog\/schooling-the-wsj-and-the-mississippi-miracle\/","title":{"rendered":"Schooling the WSJ and the “Mississippi Miracle”"},"content":{"rendered":"

I schooled the Wall Street Journal<\/em> editorial page writers in a letter published in today\u2019s (Oct. 3, 2025) edition (see image, link, & text below). The Journal had applauded California’s recent adoption of (more) phonics teaching (see link below). The writers were apparently unaware that California went all in on phonics back in the 1990s, with predictably disappointing results. This is not our first phonics rodeo.<\/p>\n

The current poster child for phonics is the state of Mississippi, which has seen a significant bump in its 4th-grade reading scores since 2013. Left unsaid in this \u201cMississippi miracle\u201d story is that the state also adopted a number of other changes, any one of which could be responsible for their success.<\/p>\n

The only way to know what causes reading scores to rise is to conduct an actual experiment. And, as I point out in my letter, when you properly test the effects of phonics vs. other methods, there is no clear advantage for the former (see Jeffrey Bowers\u2019s article here:
\nhttps:\/\/link.springer.com\/article\/10.1007\/s10648-019-09515-y).<\/p>\n

Another interesting fact left out of the Mississippi story: by the time the kids are in 8th grade, their scores are no better than they were before the 2013 reforms! In other words, the children catch up (sort of) in 4th grade, only to slip back four years later.<\/p>\n

If that’s a miracle, I’d hate to see what failure looks like.<\/p>\n

Gift link to my letter here:
\nhttps:\/\/www.wsj.com\/opinion\/the-science-of-reading-isnt-that-successful-phonics-california-a4c71702?st=knJpm3&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink<\/a><\/p>\n

Gift link to original editorial:
\nhttps:\/\/www.wsj.com\/opinion\/california-phonics-bill-reading-school-mississippi-018d0372?st=XArrWi&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The ‘Science of Reading’ Isn’t That Successful<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

You write that the Golden State is \u201cjumping on the caboose\u201d of the pro-phonics movement in reading instruction (\u201cCalifornia Learns From Mississippi<\/a>,\u201d Review & Outlook, Sept. 27). Yet nearly 30 years ago, our Legislature required all new elementary teachers to pass a test on what is now called the \u201cscience of reading.\u201d Hundreds of millions of dollars were spent on teacher training and new curricula. Large districts such as Los Angeles Unified purchased \u201cteacher-proof\u201d programs to ensure every child received a heavy dose of phonics. Yet reading scores barely budged.<\/p>\n

An analysis of peer-reviewed studies by\u00a0Jeffrey Bowers\u00a0in 2020 found no advantage for phonics instruction in early reading achievement compared to other methods. Whatever the reasons for Mississippi\u2019s recent gain, they are unlikely to be explained by this approach.<\/p>\n

\n

Despite bipartisan enthusiasm, California\u2019s latest splurge on phonics promises to be another train wreck.<\/p>\n

Jeffrey McQuillan<\/strong><\/p>\n

Los Angeles<\/em><\/p>\n

Mr. McQuillan is author of “The Literacy Crisis”<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

I schooled the Wall Street Journal editorial page writers in a letter published in today\u2019s (Oct. 3, 2025) edition (see image, link, & text below). The Journal had applauded California’s recent adoption of (more) phonics teaching (see link below). The writers were apparently unaware that California went all in on phonics back in the 1990s, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[4],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/backseatlinguist.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2268"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/backseatlinguist.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/backseatlinguist.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/backseatlinguist.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/backseatlinguist.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2268"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"http:\/\/backseatlinguist.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2268\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2272,"href":"http:\/\/backseatlinguist.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2268\/revisions\/2272"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/backseatlinguist.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2268"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/backseatlinguist.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2268"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/backseatlinguist.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2268"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}