This is a first, to my knowledge. Parents in Massachusetts filed a class action lawsuit seeking damages from Lucy Calkins and others who installed the “Whole Language” reading curriculum in their public schools. The parents claim that Calkins and others purposely sold a defective product that ignored “the science of reading” and caused their children to need tutors and other assistance in learning to read.
For the record, I don’t approve of this lawsuit. As far as I’m concerned, it’s far too early to reach a definitive judgment about the efficacy of either Whole Language or the “science of reading.” The phonics-based approach was tried more than two decades ago in a federal program called Reading First. RF was created by No Child Left Behind and cost $6 billion. The program was tainted with scandal, and the evaluations were unimpressive.
I was never a fan of Whole Language but I do not believe that its adherents intended to deceive. I knew many of its advocates, and they sincerely believed that Whole Language was the best way to learn to read.
Furthermore, I do not think that this issue should be resolved in a court of law. Nor do I think that the issue of access to medical care by a pregnant woman or the parents of transgender youth should be decided by courts. But my opinion doesn’t count. We will see if this lawsuit goes anywhere.
The Boston Globe reported:
In what appears to be a first-of-its-kind consumer protection lawsuit, two Massachusetts families are suing famed literacy specialists Lucy Calkins, Irene Fountas, and Gay Su Pinnell, their companies, and their publishers, alleging the former teachers used “deceptive and fraudulent” marketing practices to sell curriculums that ignored the scientific consensus about the importance of phonics to early reading.
The lawsuit, filed Wednesday in Suffolk Superior Court, alleges three minors, identified in the complaint by their initials, suffered developmental and emotional injuries, while their parents, identified as Karrie Conley of Boxborough and Michele Hudak of Ashland, suffered financial losses, having paid for tutoring and private school tuition to compensate for the flawed reading curriculums used by their children’s public schools.
“I trusted that when I was sending my children off to school, they were getting instruction that had been tested and proven effective,” Conley said during a virtual press conference Wednesday morning. “… This isn’t some luxury we’re asking for. This is reading.”
The lawsuit, shared with the Globe in advance, alleges the defendants ignored a plethora of research demonstrating the importance of phonics, or the relationship between letters and sounds, in creating, marketing, and selling their early literacy products and services. The omission of phonics from their curriculums was intentional, despite widely known evidence of its importance, the complaint alleges.
“Defendants denigrated phonics at worst and paid mere lip service to phonics at best,” the lawsuit reads.
A 2023 Globe investigation found more than one-third of all Massachusetts districts, including Amherst, Brookline, and Cambridge, were using the defendants’ curriculums in their elementary schools.
A lawsuit represents only one side of a complaint. Representatives for the defendants did not return an immediate request for comment, though Calkins, Fountas, and Pinnell have in the past denied any wrongdoing.
The Massachusetts lawsuit represents a new step in the early literacy advocacy movement and could spur new complaints like it nationwide. It follows several years of heightened debate surrounding the “science of reading,” a broad body of research demonstrating how the brain learns to read and which shows a firm grasp on phonics to be key to early reading success.
At issue in the complaint is whether the literacy authors knowingly ignored scientific research and purposely sold “defective and deficient” curriculums to school districts across Massachusetts. The lawsuit argues the authors and their publishers did and in doing so broke a state consumer protection law.
“Defendants knew or should have known they were committing unfair and deceptive acts,” the complaint reads.
Rather than emphasizing phonics, or the sounding out of words, Fountas and Pinnell, longtime publishing partners, and Calkins have come under increasing scrutiny for their curriculums’ cueing directions, which instruct children to, for example, look at a picture for context in helping determine an unknown word. In Calkins’s curriculum, Units of Study, this skill has been called “picture power.”
The Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, which considers the defendants’ curriculums to be low quality, has doled out millions of dollars in grant money to help local school districts purchase new materials grounded in reading science. A 2023 Globe investigation found nearly half of all school districts in the state were using a low-quality curriculum in their elementary schools, and, of those, nearly 3 in 4 were using either Calkins’s or Fountas and Pinnell’s materials.
In addition to the authors, the lawsuit, which seeks class action status, names as defendants Calkins‘s company, The Reading & Writing Project at Mossflower; the board of trustees of Teachers College at Columbia University, which used to house Calkins‘s curriculum work; Fountas and Pinnell LLC; New Hampshire-based Heinemann Publishing; and HMH Education Co., a Boston-based publisher.
Diane Ravitch's blog 