The Forgotten 40%: How California's Proposed 'Literacy Law' Fails Gestalt Language Processors
Building on yesterday’s article, today’s focus is on the early stages of literacy … and where the literacy problems begin.
Introduction
As a Gestalt Language Processor (GLP), my journey to literacy has been a challenging one. I vividly remember struggling, feeling disconnected from the way reading was taught. Whilst my classmates seemed to grasp the concepts of breaking down words into individual sounds and blending them back together, I found myself lost and frustrated. As I’ve documented here, it wasn’t until much later that I discovered my brain processes language differently, and the traditional methods of reading instruction were not designed with learners like me in mind.
This experience is not unique to me; in fact, an estimated 40% of the population are GLPs, who learn language in a holistic, context-driven manner. Unlike Analytic Language Processors (ALPs), who excel at sequential, part-to-whole language processing, GLPs rely on patterns, connections, and meaning to acquire language skills. Despite these differences, the prevailing approach to literacy instruction, known as the “science of reading” (SOR), heavily favours the needs of ALPs while neglecting the unique challenges faced by GLPs.
California’s proposed Assembly Bill 2222 (AB 2222) seeks to address the state’s “literacy crisis” by mandating the use of SOR-aligned instruction in all classrooms. Whilst seemingly well-intentioned, this narrow focus on a single approach to reading instruction risks leaving behind a significant portion of the student population. GLPs, like myself, may find themselves struggling to keep up with their ALP peers, leading to frustration, disengagement, and a widening achievement gap.
In today’s article, we will explore the characteristics of ALPs and GLPs, examine the limitations of the SOR, and discuss the potential consequences of AB 2222’s one-size-fits-all approach to literacy instruction. By shedding light on the unique needs of GLPs and advocating for a more inclusive, equitable approach to reading education, I hope to ensure that no child is left behind in their journey to literacy.
Analytic Language Processors and the so-called science of reading
ALPs are individuals who learn language in a sequential, part-to-whole manner. From birth to 4 years, ALPs typically develop literacy skills by focusing on phonological awareness, phonics, and decoding. They tend to break down words into individual sounds and then blend them back together to form words. This process allows them to gradually build their reading skills from the ground up, starting with the smallest units of language and progressing to more complex structures.
The SOR is a both a body of rather un-validated “research” that emphasises the importance of explicit, systematic instruction in phonemic awareness and phonics and a bandwagon of supporters that uncritically push the SOR’s commercialised products into classrooms. The SOR approach, they say, aligns well with the natural learning style of ALPs, as it breaks down the reading process into discrete, manageable steps. By teaching ALPs to identify individual sounds, associate them with letters, and then blend them together to form words, the SOR provides a clear, linear path to ALP literacy acquisition. As these children master these foundational skills, they can then progress to reading connected text and developing higher-level comprehension strategies.
However, whilst the SOR has proven effective for many ALPs, it is not without its limitations. One major drawback is its assumption that all children learn to read in the same way. The SOR's one-size-fits-all approach fails to consider the diverse range of language processing styles that exist among learners. For some children, particularly those who are Gestalt Language Processors (GLPs), the SOR’s emphasis on isolated skills and drill-based instruction may be ineffective or even counterproductive.
Moreover, the SOR’s narrow focus on phonics and decoding skills may overlook other critical aspects of language development, such as vocabulary acquisition, comprehension strategies, and oral language skills. By prioritising a single set of skills and instructional methods, the SOR creates a literacy curriculum that is incomplete and fails to meet the needs of all learners.
To truly address the “literacy crisis,” educators and policymakers must recognise the limitations of the SOR and seek to develop a more comprehensive, inclusive approach to reading instruction. This can involve incorporating elements of the SOR whilst also making room for alternative strategies that cater to the unique needs of GLPs and other learners who process language differently. By embracing a more flexible, multi-faceted approach to literacy education, we can ensure that all children have the opportunity to develop the skills they need to become successful readers and writers.
Gestalt Language Processors and our unique needs
Gestalt Language Processors (GLPs) are individuals (like me) who learn language in a holistic, whole-to-part manner, differing significantly from ALPs. In Stage 1 of language development, GLPs exhibit unique characteristics that shape our language acquisition process. We tend to process language in larger chunks, relying heavily on echolalia and scripted language. This means we may repeat phrases or sentences verbatim, often without fully understanding the individual components. Additionally, GLPs will struggle at this stage with breaking down language into smaller units, such as individual sounds or words, which can make traditional phonics-based instruction challenging.
GLPs learn and acquire language differently from ALPs, and our unique needs must be acknowledged and addressed in early literacy instruction. Rather than focusing on isolated skills and drills, GLPs benefit from context and meaning-based instruction. We require a more holistic approach that emphasises the overall message and purpose of language, rather than its individual parts. Visual supports, such as pictures and gestures, can be particularly helpful for GLPs, as they provide additional context and help bridge the gap between spoken language and meaning. Non-verbal communication, such as facial expressions and body language, also plays a crucial role in helping GLPs understand and interpret language.
Repetition, predictability, and the incorporation of special interests are essential elements of effective literacy instruction for GLPs. By providing consistent, predictable language patterns and routines, educators can help GLPs feel more secure and confident in our learning environment. Incorporating their special interests into literacy activities can also enhance motivation and engagement, making the learning process more enjoyable and meaningful.
Unfortunately, the unique needs of GLPs are often overlooked or misunderstood in traditional educational settings. Many GLPs are mislabeled as “learning disabled” and assigned to work with speech therapists who may not have the expertise or resources to provide comprehensive literacy instruction. This approach fails to recognise that GLPs’ language processing style is not a deficit but rather a difference that requires a specific approach to language development.
When GLP needs are neglected in early literacy instruction, the consequences can be severe. GLPs may experience frustration and disengagement from learning, as we struggle to keep pace with our ALP peers in a system that does not cater to our learning style. This can lead to a widening achievement gap between ALPs and GLPs, as the latter group falls further behind in their literacy development. Moreover, by failing to identify and support GLPs early on, educators miss critical opportunities for intervention and targeted instruction that could help these students thrive.
To ensure that all children have the opportunity to succeed in their literacy journey, it is essential to recognise the unique needs of GLPs and provide appropriate learning opportunities. This will involve using curricula that is geared towards GLPs language development, training teachers in GLP-friendly instructional strategies, and collaborating with professionals who have expertise in holistic language development. By embracing a more inclusive, flexible approach to literacy education, we can create a system that values and nurtures the diverse range of language processing styles present in our classrooms.
AB 2222's shortcomings and the potential for harm
AB 2222, a bill aimed at the mandatory alignment of all literacy instruction in California with the SOR, has gained significant momentum in the state legislature. Whilst the bill’s emphasis on systematic, explicit phonics instruction and the requirement for curricula and materials adhering to SOR principles may benefit some students, it fails to consider the unique needs of GLPs. As a result, AB 2222's mandates will have significant consequences and potentially harm a significant portion of California’s student population.
Again, the SOR, which heavily influences AB 2222, prioritises structured literacy approaches that focus on phonics and decoding skills. Whilst these methods can be effective for ALPs, they do not provide the appropriate, targeted instruction that GLPs require. As we’ve seen, GLPs benefit from a more holistic, context-driven approach to language acquisition, which allows us to make connections and derive meaning from the larger context of the text. By mandating a one-size-fits-all approach to literacy instruction, AB 2222 will leave GLPs behind and label them as “struggling readers,” despite our inherent strengths and potential.
The lack of appropriate instruction for GLPs under AB 2222 will have long-lasting negative effects on their academic achievement and self-esteem. When students are constantly subjected to teaching methods that do not align with their natural language processing style, they will become discouraged, disengaged, and develop a negative self-perception of their abilities. This can lead to a widening achievement gap and perpetuate inequities in the education system.
To ensure that all students have the opportunity to succeed, it is crucial that California adopts a more inclusive and equitable approach to literacy instruction. This means recognising and valuing diverse language processing styles, including both ALPs and GLPs, and providing instruction that meets the unique needs of each learner. By investing in teacher training and resources that support a variety of instructional strategies, California can create a learning environment that fosters growth and success for all students, regardless of their language processing preferences.
As the hearings on AB 2222 approach, it is essential that the voices of GLPs and our advocates are heard in the Capitol. Without our input, the bill will proceed without considering the potential harm it will inflict on a significant portion of California's student population. By engaging in open dialogue and collaboration with educators, researchers, and stakeholders who understand the diversity of language processing styles, policymakers can craft legislation that supports all learners and promotes equity in literacy instruction.
Concluding thoughts
In concluding today’s article, it is crucial that we acknowledge and address the unique needs of GLPs in early literacy instruction (Stage 1). By focusing solely on the so-called “science of reading” and its emphasis on systematic, explicit phonics instruction, AB 2222 risks neglecting the learning styles of a significant portion of California’s student population. This narrow focus will lead to dire consequences, such as GLPs falling behind their peers, being mislabeled as “struggling readers,” and experiencing long-term negative effects on their academic achievement and self-esteem.
The potential consequences of AB 2222's narrow focus on the SOR extend beyond individual students. By failing to provide appropriate, targeted instruction for GLPs, the bill will perpetuate existing inequities in the education system and widen the achievement gap. This oversight will have far-reaching implications for California’s future workforce and society as a whole.
It is imperative that policymakers, educators, and parents advocate for a more comprehensive and inclusive approach to literacy instruction that supports all learners, including the “forgotten 40%” of Gestalt Language Processors (this school district likely has a higher percentage of GLPs). By recognising and valuing diverse language processing styles and providing instruction that meets the unique needs of each learner, California can create a more equitable and effective education system that fosters success for all students.
As AB 2222 moves through the legislative process, it is essential that the voices of GLPs and their advocates are heard and considered. Policymakers must engage in open dialogue and collaboration with educators, researchers, and stakeholders who understand the diversity of language processing styles to craft legislation that truly supports all learners. Only by embracing a more inclusive approach to literacy instruction can California ensure that every student has the opportunity to reach their full potential and succeed in both their academic and personal lives.