The following resolution was passed through the Annual Business Meeting at the 2024 NCTE Annual Convention in Boston:

Resolution on Teacher Autonomy Grounded in Expertise

BACKGROUND

Current educational policies negatively affect classroom decisions and practices, actively undermining teachers’ expertise. Teachers must be treated as agentive professionals who are best suited to make decisions for their students.

Literacy teachers’ expertise and autonomy, including their professionalism and knowledge, continue to be scrutinized, which has intensified since the 1980s (Aukerman, 2022a, 2022b, 2022c; Kraft & Lyon, 2024; Thomas, 2022a, 2022b, 2024). Several NCTE resolutions, position statements, and guidelines have addressed these challenges:

1974 Resolution on Opposing Unilateral Curriculum Decisions by State Authorities https://ncte.org/statement/opposestatedecisions/

1996 Resolution on Teachers’ Right To Teach
https://ncte.org/statement/righttoteach/print/

2002 Resolution on the Reading First Initiative
https://ncte.org/statement/readingfirst/ 

2010 Resolution on Affirming the Role of Teachers and Students in Developing Curricula https://ncte.org/statement/developingcurricula/

2011 Resolution on Challenging Current Education Policy and Affirming Literacy Educators’ Expertise
https://ncte.org/statement/currentpolicy/

2012 Resolution on Teacher Expertise and the Common Core State Standards https://ncte.org/statement/teacherexpertise/ 

2016 Resolution on Dismantling the School-to-Prison Pipeline
https://ncte.org/statement/school-to-prison/

2019 Statement on Academic Freedom
https://ncte.org/statement/academic-freedom-copy/

2021 Recognizing Teacher Experts and Their Paths to Expertise https://ncte.org/statement/recognizing-teacher-experts-and-their-paths-to-expertise/ 

Debates over how children learn to read, combined with sensationalized media coverage on early reading proficiency and instruction, have eroded and undermined public trust of teacher expertise and resulted in an overwhelming push for programs such as Reading First (No Child Left Behind, 2001), Common Core State Standards (2010), and currently Science of Reading. To date, 40 states have passed restrictive literacy legislation grounded in the Science of Reading (Aydarova, 2024; Reinking, Hruby, & Risko, 2023; Schwartz, 2024). High-profile and boxed commercial reading programs are now mandated nationwide, marketing a narrow definition of “science” aligning with structured literacy (Malchow, 2014). Teaching credentials are also in question, as many states require teachers to obtain structured literacy certifications. With over 30 years of flat reading scores with persistent race and socioeconomic data gaps (Aydarova, 2023, 2024; Reinking et al., 2023), the reading crisis narrative prevails, framing teachers as the cause agents, and consequently resulting in overt limitations placed atop teacher autonomy, including decision making and instructional materials.

RESOLUTION

Resolved that the National Council of Teachers of English:

• • • Acknowledges the 50th anniversary of and reaffirms the 1974 statement on Resolution on Opposing Unilateral Curriculum Decisions by State Authorities (https://ncte.org/statement/opposestatedecisions/).
    • Asserts that teachers have the expertise to develop or select curriculum, instructional, and assessment materials that are based on the unique needs of their communities, schools, and students. 
    • Recognizes that deficit-based educational policies and practices should be replaced to reflect students’ cultural identities, practices, and funds of knowledge as assets (Moll et al, 1992; Muhammad, 2020; Souto-Manning & Martell, 2016).
    • Supports efforts toward validity and effectiveness of instructional practices grounded in a wide range of evidence, including diverse and compelling bodies of research and teachers’ varied experiences.
    • Encourages legislation and policy that serves to support schools, teachers, and students in ways that honor human agency while resisting the cycles of educational fads in the marketplace.

REFERENCES

Aydarova, E. (2024). What you see is not what you get: Science of reading reforms as a guise for standardization, centralization, and privatization. American Journal of Education, 130(4). https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/730991

Aydarova, E. (2023). ‘Whatever you want to call it”: Science of reading mythologies in the education reform movement. Harvard Educational Review, 93(4), 556–581. https://doi.org10.17763/1943-5045-93.4.556

Aukerman, M. (2022a, November). The Science of Reading and the media: Does the media draw on high-quality reading research? Literacy Research Association Critical Conversations. https://literacyresearchassociation.org/stories/the-science-of-reading-and-the-media-does-the-media-draw-on-high-quality-reading-research/

Aukerman, M. (2022b, December). The Science of Reading and the media: How do current reporting patterns cause damage? Literacy Research Association Critical Conversations. CC BY 4.0 license. https://literacyresearchassociation.org/stories/the-science-of-reading-and-the-media-how-do-current-reporting-patterns-cause-damage/

Aukerman, M. (2022c, December). The Science of Reading and the media: Is reporting biased? Literacy Research Association Critical Conversations. https://literacyresearchassociation.org/stories/the-science-of-reading-and-the-media-is-reporting-biased/

Kraft, M.A., & Lyon, M.A. (2024). The rise and fall of the teaching profession: Prestige, interest, preparation, and satisfaction over the last half century. EdWorkingPaper: 22-679. https://doi.org/10.26300/7b1a-vk92

Malchow, H. (2014, July). Structured literacy: A new term to unify us and sell what we do. International Dyslexia Association. https://dyslexiaida.org/ida-approach/

Moll, L., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory Into Practice, 31(2), 132-141.

Muhammad, G. (2020). Cultivating genius. Scholastic.

Reinking, D., Hruby, G.G., & Risko, V.J. (2023). Legislating phonics: Settle science or political polemic? Teachers College Record. https://doi.org/10.1177/01614681231155688

Schwartz, S. (2024, September 5). Which states have passed “science of reading” laws? what’s in them? Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/which-states-have-passed-science-of-reading-laws-whats-in-them/2022/07

Souto-Manning, M. & Martell, J. (2016). Reading, writing, and talk: Inclusive teaching strategies for diverse learners, K-2. Teachers College Press.

Thomas, P.L. (2022a). How to end the Reading War and serve the literacy needs of all students: A primer for parents, policy makers, and people who care (2nd ed.). Information Age Publishing.

Thomas, P.L. (2022b). The Science of Reading movement: The never-ending debate and the need for a different approach to reading instruction. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/science-of-reading

Thomas, P.L. (2024, March). “We teach English in times of perpetual crisis: The long (and tedious) history of reading crisis.” English Journal, 113(4), 21-26. https://doi.org/10.58680/ej2024113421

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Afflerbach, P. (2022). Teaching readers (not reading): Moving beyond skills and strategies to reader-focused instruction. Guilford Press.

Blaushild, N.L. (2023). “It’s just something that you have to do as a teacher”: Investigating the intersection of educational infrastructure redesign, teacher discretion, and educational equity in the elementary ELA classroom. The Elementary School Journal, 124(2), 219-244.

Compton-Lilly, C.F., Mitra, A., Guay, M., & Spence, L.K. (2020). A confluence of complexity: Intersections among reading theory, neuroscience, and observations of young readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1), S185-S195. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.348

Disotuar, D., Lazrow. S., Holmes-Ware, E., & Henning, C. (2024). Equity and the science of reading. Children’s Literacy Initiative. https://cli.org/resources/equity-and-the-science-of-reading/

Edling, S. (2015). Between curriculum complexity and stereotypes: Exploring stereotypes of teachers and education in media as a question of structural violence. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 47(3), 399–415. https://doi.org10.1080/00220272.2014.956796

Gunter, P.L., & Reed, T. M. (1997). Academic instruction of children with emotional and behavioral disorders using scripted lessons. Preventing School Failure, 42, 33-38.

Hoffman, J.V., Hikida, M., & Sailors, M. (2020). Contesting science that silences: Amplifying equity, agency, and design research in literacy teacher preparation. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1), S255–S266. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.353

Khan, F., Peoples, L.Q., & Foster, L. (2022) Lessons in (in)equity: An evaluation of cultural responsiveness in elementary ELA curriculum. The Education Justice Research and Organizing Collaborative, New York University. https://steinhardt.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/2022-10/Lessons%20in%20%28In%29Equity%20FINAL%20ACCESSIBLE.10.31.22.pdf 

Mora et al. (2024, August). Response to ‘English learners and the science of reading.’ Kappan. https://kappanonline.org/russo-goldenberg-response-to-english-learners-and-the-science-of-reading/

Newkirk, T. (2024). The broken logic of “Sold a Story”: A personal response to “The Science of Reading.” Literacy Resource Commons. https://literacyresearchcommons.org/resources/

Ortiz, A.A., Fránquiz, M.E., & Lara, G.P. (2021). The science of teaching reading and English learners: Understanding the issues and advocating for equity. Bilingual Research Journal, 44(2), 153-157. https://doi.10.1080/15235882.2021.1976584

Resolution on scripted curricula. (2008). NCTE. https://ncte.org/statement/scriptedcurricula/

Rigell, A., Banack, A., Maples, A., Laughter, J., Broemmel, A., Vines, N., & Jordan, J. (2022, November). Overwhelming whiteness: A critical analysis of race in a scripted reading curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 54(6), 852–870, https://doi.org10.1080/00220272.2022.2030803

Shanahan, T. (2006, August/September). The worst confession: Using a scripted program. Reading Today, 24(1), 14.

Shelton, N. R. (2010). Program fidelity in two reading mastery classrooms: A view from the inside. Literacy Research and Instruction, 49(4), 315-333, https://doi.org/10.1080/19388070903229404

Tierney, R.J., & Pearson, P.D. (2021). A history of literacy education: Waves of research and practice. Teachers College Press.

Tierney, R.J., & Pearson, P.D. (2024). Fact-checking the Science of Reading: Opening up the conversation. Literacy Research Commons. https://literacyresearchcommons.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Fact-checking-the-SoR.pdf