As an educator, writer and literacy advocate, I take issue with a recent letter to the editor, “Stop excusing Maine’s dismal test scores” (June 23), which suggested that Maine’s scores are the sole result of certain curricula.

Solely blaming effective programs like Lucy Calkins’ Units of Study overlooks crucial factors like teacher training, support and professional development, all of which are part of creating a well-rounded approach to teaching literacy. Unfortunately, many districts lack the resources for these factors. For instance, in districts that maintained strong training and coaching, outcomes are excellent. In my own classroom, I have seen that the Units of Study support both growth aligned with standards and the development of students’ literacy identities — nurturing joy, confidence and independence.

I support an emphasis on evidence-based reading practices, but the push to overhaul instruction oversimplifies a complex issue by vilifying balanced literacy and scapegoating individuals like Lucy Calkins. Balanced literacy, when done well, includes explicit phonics (contrary to what critics say), vocabulary development, comprehension strategies and authentic, joyful reading experiences.
Shifting toward programs that rely on screens, rigid workbooks and scripted lessons is not the solution. These options lack differentiation and contradict research. This isn’t the science of reading — it’s a narrowing of instruction that sidelines teachers’ expertise.

No curriculum can succeed without adequate time, support and professional learning. If we truly want to improve outcomes, we must stop blaming teachers and start investing in them. Let’s trust educators, build their capacity and focus on what students truly need to thrive.

Becca Burk
Leeds