The Tyranny of 'Normal': How AB 2222 Perpetuates a Narrow Vision of Literacy Development
The recently proposed California literacy law, Assembly Bill 2222, aims to address the state’s persistent “literacy crisis” by mandating the use of instructional practices and materials aligned with the “science of reading.” As you know if you’ve been reading the AutSide for a while, this approach emphasises explicit, systematic instruction in phonics, phonemic awareness, and other foundational reading skills that is appropriate for about 60% of the human population. Whilst well-intentioned, the bill’s reliance on a narrow interpretation of the “science of reading” (SOR) raises serious concerns about its ability to meet the needs of all learners, particularly those who process language differently - like me.
As an autistic individual and a gestalt processor (aka, non-verbal) who graduated from a “good” California high school in the late 1980s, I find this proposed law both deeply troubling and personally triggering. Like many others who share my cognitive style, I struggled to learn to read through the traditional methods prioritised by the SOR. Despite the state’s significant investments in literacy education since the 1960s, I left school functionally illiterate, a tragic outcome that speaks to the failings of a one-size-fits-all approach to reading instruction (documented here).
The fact that AB 2222 doubles down on the very strategies that failed learners like me is a painful reminder of how little progress we have made in recognising and supporting neurodiversity in education. By codifying a narrow set of instructional practices and materials, the law risks perpetuating a system that marginalises and excludes those who process language differently, leaving countless students to struggle and fall behind.
Moreover, the bill’s emphasis on the SOR as the sole legitimate approach to literacy instruction dismisses decades of research and experience pointing to the importance of alternative methods for gestalt processors and other neurodiverse learners. This not only denies students access to potentially life-changing interventions but also sends a damaging message that their way of learning is invalid or deficient.
For me, the proposed law is a personal affront, a rejection of my lived experience and a reinforcement of the trauma I experienced as a student. It is a painful reminder of the countless hours I spent struggling to make sense of reading instruction that was fundamentally incompatible with my cognitive style, of the shame and frustration I felt as I watched my peers progress while I fell further behind.
But beyond my personal story, AB 2222 represents a larger failure to recognise and address the diversity of learning needs in our schools. By privileging a narrow conception of the SOR over all other approaches, the law risks condemning another generation of learners to the same struggles and setbacks that I and so many others have faced.
If California is truly committed to solving its literacy crisis, it must reject the false promise of a one-size-fits-all solution and instead embrace a more holistic, inclusive approach to reading instruction. This means recognising the validity of alternative methods like gestalt language processing, providing teachers with the training and resources to support diverse learning styles, and creating a system that values and nurtures the unique strengths of every student.
Only by acknowledging the complexity of language development and the diversity of human cognition can we hope to build a literacy education system that truly serves all learners. The proposed law, in its current form, falls woefully short of this goal, and its passage would be a tragic mistake that we cannot afford to make.
In the following sections, I will delve deeper into the shortcomings of AB 2222 and propose alternative approaches that honor the needs and experiences of neurodiverse learners. It is my hope that by sharing my story and my expertise, I can contribute to a more informed and inclusive dialogue about literacy education in California and beyond.
Background
The so-called “science of reading” is a “body of research” that emphasises the importance of explicit, systematic instruction in phonics, phonemic awareness, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension as the key components of effective reading instruction. Proponents argue that these skills must be taught directly and sequentially, with a strong focus on the structure of language and the relationship between sounds and letters. This approach is often contrasted with whole language or balanced literacy methods, which place greater emphasis on meaning-making and the use of authentic texts.
In California, the influence of the SOR can be seen in various literacy initiatives and teacher training requirements over the past few decades. One notable example is the Reading Instruction Competence Assessment (RICA), a high-stakes exam that all aspiring teachers, including myself as an Education Specialist, must pass to earn or maintain their credentials. The RICA is designed to ensure that teachers possess the knowledge and skills necessary to provide effective reading instruction in line with the principles of the SOR.
However, despite the state’s efforts to promote this approach, California’s literacy rates have remained stubbornly low, with significant disparities along lines of race, income, and language background. This suggests that the narrow focus on the SOR may not be sufficient to address the complex challenges facing California’s diverse student population.
One key factor that is often overlooked in the dominant discourse around reading instruction is the existence of different cognitive styles or processing modalities. Gestalt language processing, in particular, is a way of understanding and producing language that is markedly different from the linear, sequential approach privileged by the SOR
Gestalt processors, (like me), who make up an estimated 40% of the total human population, tend to learn language holistically, relying on context, meaning, and pattern recognition rather than explicit phonics instruction. We may struggle with tasks that require isolating individual sounds or following a prescribed sequence of steps, but excel at making connections and seeing the big picture.
For gestalt processors, the emphasis on systematic phonics and other decontextualised skills in the SOR can be deeply frustrating and even counterproductive. We often feel like they are being asked to learn in a way that is fundamentally at odds with our natural cognitive style, leading to feelings of inadequacy, anxiety, and disengagement.
As an autistic gestalt processor myself, I have experienced firsthand the challenges of trying to learn to read through traditional methods. Despite my best efforts of my teachers, I struggled to make sense of the abstract rules and isolated skills emphasised in my reading instruction. It wasn’t until I discovered alternative approaches that leveraged my strengths in pattern recognition and contextual understanding that I began to make real progress - in my late 30’s.
Sadly, my experience is not unique. Countless gestalt processors and other neurodiverse learners have been left behind by an educational system that prizes a narrow set of skills and instructional methods at the expense of recognizing and supporting diverse ways of learning. The fact that I, as an Education Specialist, am required to pass the RICA to maintain my credential, despite my firsthand knowledge of its limitations, is a testament to how deeply entrenched these biases are in our educational institutions.
If California is to truly address its literacy crisis, it must grapple with the reality of cognitive diversity and the limitations of a one-size-fits-all approach to reading instruction. This means looking beyond the narrow confines of the SOR and embracing a more holistic, flexible understanding of language development that recognises the strengths and needs of all learners, including gestalt processors.
By acknowledging the existence and validity of different processing modalities, and providing teachers with the knowledge and resources to support a range of learning styles, we can create a more equitable and effective literacy education system that leaves no child behind. This will require a significant shift in our thinking about what constitutes “evidence-based” instruction, as well as a willingness to challenge long-held assumptions about how language is acquired and processed.
Ultimately, the goal of literacy education should not be to impose a single, rigid set of skills and strategies on all learners, but rather to help each individual discover and develop their unique strengths as a reader and communicator. Only by embracing this more expansive, inclusive vision can we hope to unlock the full potential of every student and build a more literate, equitable society.
Personal experience
As an autistic gestalt processor, my journey to literacy has been marked by struggle, frustration, and a bit of success against the odds. Growing up in California in the 1970s and 80s, I was subjected to the same reading instruction methods that have dominated American education for decades - methods that, unbeknownst to me at the time, were fundamentally incompatible with my cognitive style.
From the earliest grades, I was immersed in a world of phonics drills, sight word memorisation, and other decontextualized skill-building exercises. Despite my best efforts to follow along and apply the rules I was taught, reading remained an elusive and frustrating pursuit. Using my echolalia, I could remember some frequently appearing words, but the larger meaning of texts often escaped me. I struggled to make connections, to see the bigger picture, and to find the joy and purpose in reading that seemed to come so easily to my peers.
As I progressed through school, the gap between my reading abilities and those of my classmates only widened. Yet, my skills gaps were ignored. I wasn’t pulled out for special interventions or subjected to endless hours of repetitive drills. Back then, I was made to feel like my difficulties were a personal failing rather than a reflection of a system that was not designed to meet my needs. The shame and self-doubt I internalised during those years would stay with me long into adulthood.
It wasn’t until my late thirties, when I had the fortune of crossing paths with an accomplished author who recognised my unique cognitive style, that I finally began to make real progress in my reading journey. As I document in the upcoming Holistic Language Instruction, this mentor helped me to see that my struggles were not a defect, but rather a reflection of a different way of processing language - one that required a more holistic, contextual approach to learning.
Under her guidance, I learned to leverage my strengths as a gestalt processor - my ability to make connections, to see patterns and relationships, and to grasp the overall meaning and structure of texts. Instead of trying to force myself to learn in a way that felt unnatural and confusing, I was encouraged to trust my intuition, to follow my curiosity, and to engage with reading in a way that made sense to me.
For the first time in my life, I experienced the joy and power of reading as a means of communication, expression, and personal growth. I discovered that my unique perspective as a gestalt processor allowed me to bring fresh insights and interpretations to the texts I encountered, and that my creativity and imagination could be powerful tools for making meaning and constructing knowledge.
Looking back on my journey, I am struck by how much needless suffering and lost potential has been caused by the narrow, one-size-fits-all approach to reading instruction that has dominated Western education for so long. How many other gestalt processors and neurodiverse learners have been left behind, their talents and contributions untapped, because the system failed to recognise and support their unique ways of learning?
My own success as a reader, achieved despite the odds and through the intervention of a caring mentor, is a testament to the transformative power of a more holistic, inclusive approach to literacy education. It is proof that when we allow ourselves to see beyond the narrow confines of the SOR, when we open our minds to the diversity of human cognition and language development, we can unlock the potential of every learner and enrich our collective understanding of what it means to be literate.
But my story is also a call to action - a reminder of how much work still needs to be done to create an educational system that truly serves all students. As long as we continue to privilege a single, narrow conception of reading development at the expense of recognising and supporting diverse learning styles, we will continue to leave countless learners behind.
It is my hope that by sharing my experience, I can help to shine a light on the urgent need for change in our approach to literacy education. We must embrace a more expansive, inclusive vision of reading instruction that honors the unique strengths and needs of all learners, including gestalt processors. Only then can we hope to build a more equitable and effective system that allows every child to reach their full potential as a reader and communicator.
A critique of the proposed law
The proposed AB 2222, is a prime example of how well-intentioned educational policies can perpetuate inequity and marginalisation when they fail to consider the diverse needs and experiences of all learners. By prioritising a narrow set of instructional practices and materials aligned with the SOR, the law risks further entrenching a one-size-fits-all approach to literacy education that has already failed countless students, particularly those with different cognitive styles or processing modalities.
One of the most troubling aspects of AB 2222 is its emphasis on structured, sequential, and phonics-based instruction as the primary means of teaching reading. The law mandates that all state-approved instructional materials and professional development programs adhere to these principles, effectively elevating them to the status of pedagogical orthodoxy. Whilst such methods may be effective for some learners, particularly those who process language in a linear, analytical fashion (aka, Analytic Language Processors or ALPs), they can be deeply problematic for gestalt processors and other learners who benefit from a more holistic, context-driven approach.
By enshrining a single, narrowly defined set of instructional practices into law, AB 2222 sends a clear message that alternative methods and approaches are not valued or legitimate. This not only denies students access to potentially transformative interventions, but also reinforces harmful stereotypes about what constitutes “normal” or “acceptable” ways of learning. Gestalt processors, whose natural strengths in pattern recognition, context-building, and meaning-making are often overlooked or dismissed by traditional reading instruction, are particularly vulnerable to this kind of marginalization.
Moreover, the law’s narrow definition of “evidence-based” practices, which relies heavily on quantitative data from standardised assessments given as part of small-scale action research that are never replicated for validity assessment, fails to capture the complex, multifaceted nature of reading development. By prioritising a limited set of measurable outcomes over more holistic, qualitative indicators of learning and growth, AB 2222 perpetuates a reductionist view of literacy that ignores the rich diversity of human cognition and language use.
This myopic focus on a single, dominant paradigm of reading instruction is not only pedagogically unsound, but also deeply rooted in systems of power and oppression that have long shaped American education. The SOR bandwagon, despite its claims to objectivity and neutrality, is in many ways a product of the same corporate and political interests that have sought to standardise and privatise public education in recent decades.
By framing reading as a purely technical skill that can be mastered through the application of a prescribed set of methods and materials, proponents of the SOR have created a lucrative market for educational products and services that claim to be “evidence-based” and “research-proven.” This commodification of literacy education not only diverts resources away from more holistic, student-centered approaches, but also reinforces the notion that learning can be reduced to a set of discrete, measurable outcomes that can be easily controlled and manipulated.
In this sense, AB 2222 can be seen as an example of what some scholars have termed “educational fascism” - the use of state power to impose a narrow, ideologically-driven vision of education that serves the interests of corporate and political elites at the expense of students, teachers, and communities. By codifying a single, dominant paradigm of reading instruction into law, the bill effectively forecloses the possibility of alternative approaches and perspectives, silencing the voices of those who would challenge the status quo.
The consequences of this kind of educational fascism are dire, particularly for students who are already marginalised by the current system. By denying neurodiverse learners access to instruction that is compatible with their cognitive style, AB 2222 risks condemning them to a lifetime of struggle and frustration, limiting their opportunities for academic and personal success. This not only perpetuates existing inequities in educational outcomes, but also reinforces harmful myths about the inherent superiority of certain ways of learning and thinking.
Ultimately, the fight against AB 2222 and other attempts to impose a narrow, one-size-fits-all approach to literacy education is about more than just pedagogy or politics. It is a fight for the very soul of public education itself - for the idea that schools should be places where all students, regardless of their background or cognitive style, can find the support and resources they need to thrive as readers, thinkers, and citizens.
To truly transform literacy education in California and beyond, we must reject the false promise of standardisation and embrace a more holistic, inclusive vision of learning that honors the diversity of human experience and potential. This means not only challenging the dominance of the SOR bandwagon, but also working to dismantle the larger systems of power and oppression that have shaped American education for generations.
As someone who has experienced firsthand the limitations and harms of traditional reading instruction, I know that this work will not be easy. But I also know that it is absolutely essential if we are to create an educational system that truly serves all learners. By speaking out against AB 2222 and other attempts to marginalize and exclude diverse ways of learning, we can begin to chart a new path forward - one that recognizes and celebrates the rich tapestry of human cognition and language development, and that empowers every student to reach their full potential as a reader, thinker, and member of society.
Alternative Approaches
As someone who has struggled with traditional reading instruction, I have dedicated my “third act” to developing and advocating for alternative approaches to literacy education that recognise and support the diverse needs of all learners. My work on Holistic Language Instruction represents a fundamental departure from the narrow, skills-based approach of the SOR, offering a more inclusive and equitable vision of reading development that honors the complexity of human cognition and language use.
At the heart of Holistic Language Instruction is a recognition of neurodiversity as a natural and valuable form of human variation, rather than a deficit or disorder to be remediated. By acknowledging that individuals process and make meaning from language in different ways, this approach seeks to create learning environments and experiences that are flexible, responsive, and affirming of diverse cognitive styles and strengths.
For gestalt processors in particular, Holistic Language Instruction offers a powerful alternative to the decontextualised, rules-based methods of traditional reading instruction. Rather than emphasising the memorization of isolated skills and facts, this approach focuses on helping students build rich, interconnected networks of meaning that leverage their natural strengths in pattern recognition, context-building, and intuitive understanding.
Moving forward, I believe that the key to transforming literacy education lies not in pitting one approach against another, but in finding ways to integrate and build upon the strengths of different perspectives and methodologies. By engaging in ongoing dialogue and collaboration across disciplinary and ideological boundaries, we can work towards a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of reading development that is grounded in both scientific evidence and the lived experiences of diverse learners.
This article thus serves as a launching point for a series of pieces that will delve deeper into the specific ways in which Holistic Language Instruction can reframe and enrich our understanding of reading development milestones. By examining these “milestones” through the lens of neurodiversity and gestalt processing, I hope to challenge dominant assumptions about what constitutes “normal” or “typical” reading development, and to offer alternative strategies and approaches that can support all learners in reaching their full potential. Ultimately, my goal is not to replace one dogma with another, but rather to expand and enrich the conversation around reading instruction in ways that honor the complexity and diversity of human experience.
Call to action
As we continue to grapple with the persistent inequities and disparities in literacy education, it is imperative that policymakers, educators, and researchers alike take seriously the perspectives and experiences of gestalt processors and other marginalised learners. For too long, the dominant paradigm of reading instruction has privileged a narrow set of skills and strategies that are grounded in a limited understanding of human cognition and language development, leaving countless students to struggle and fall behind.
To truly transform literacy education in California and beyond, we must begin by acknowledging the inherent diversity of learners and the need for more inclusive and differentiated approaches to instruction. This means moving beyond the rigid confines of the SOR and embracing a more holistic, multidimensional view of reading development that recognises the complex interplay of cognitive, linguistic, social, and cultural factors that shape each individual’s path to literacy.
For gestalt processors in particular, this shift towards a more inclusive and differentiated approach to literacy instruction is long overdue. By recognising the unique strengths and challenges of gestalt processing, and by providing targeted support and accommodations that leverage these strengths, we can help to unlock the untapped potential of countless learners who have been marginalised by traditional approaches to reading instruction.
But this work cannot be done in isolation, nor can it be accomplished through a single piece of legislation or policy initiative. Rather, it will require a sustained and collaborative effort on the part of educators, researchers, policymakers, and community members to reshape the landscape of literacy education in ways that are more equitable, responsive, and effective for all learners.
This effort must begin with a commitment to ongoing research and dialogue around alternative instructional methods and their potential to support diverse learners. Whilst the SOR has generated an amazing amount of momentum, it is by no means the only or the most complete lens through which to understand reading development. By investing in research that explores the full range of cognitive, linguistic, and sociocultural factors that shape reading acquisition, and by engaging in open and inclusive dialogue across disciplinary and ideological boundaries, we can work towards a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of what it means to be literate in the 21st century.
At the same time, we must work to translate this research into practice by advocating for policies and initiatives that support a more inclusive and differentiated approach to literacy instruction. This means not only challenging the narrow provisions of AB 2222 and other attempts to standardise reading instruction, but also working proactively to develop and implement instructional approaches that are grounded in the science of learning and development, and that are responsive to the diverse needs and strengths of all students.
Ultimately, the fight for a more equitable and effective literacy education system is not just about pedagogy or politics - it is about the fundamental right of every child to have access to the tools, resources, and support they need to thrive as readers, thinkers, and citizens. As an autistic gestalt processor who has experienced firsthand the transformative power of holistic language instruction, I know that this vision is within reach - but only if we are willing to challenge the status quo and work together to create a new paradigm of literacy education that truly leaves no child behind.
So let us begin this work today, by listening to the voices of gestalt processors and other marginalised learners, by advocating for policies and practices that honor the diversity of human cognition and language development, and by committing ourselves to a more inclusive, equitable, and effective vision of literacy education for all. Together, we can create a future in which every child, regardless of their background or cognitive style, has the opportunity to discover the joy, power, and possibility of reading - and to use that gift to transform their lives and the world around them.
Final thoughts
It’s clear that the proposed California literacy law, AB 2222, represents a misguided and potentially harmful attempt to impose a narrow, one-size-fits-all approach to reading instruction that fails to account for the diverse needs and experiences of all learners. By prioritising a limited set of skills and strategies aligned with the so-called “science of reading,” the law risks perpetuating a system that marginalises and excludes gestalt processors and other learners who benefit from a more holistic, context-driven approach to literacy education.
However, this critique of AB 2222 is just the beginning of a larger conversation about the urgent need for a more inclusive, equitable, and effective paradigm of literacy education. In the coming week, I will be publishing a series of articles that delve deeper into some of the common misconceptions and assumptions that underlie the dominant paradigm of reading instruction, particularly with regard to the notion of “developmental milestones” and what students at certain ages “should” be able to do.
One key area of focus will be the concept of phonemic awareness, which is often held up as a critical predictor of reading success in the SOR paradigm. By contrasting the ways in which analytic and gestalt processors approach phonemic awareness tasks, I hope to challenge the notion that there is a single, universal pathway to reading proficiency, and to highlight the need for more flexible, differentiated approaches to assessment and instruction.
Through this series of articles, my goal is not simply to critique the limitations of the current system, but also to offer a vision of what a more holistic, inclusive, and equitable approach to literacy education could look like. By grounding this vision in the lived experiences and perspectives of neurodiverse learners, and by drawing on the latest research and insights from the actual science of human learning and development, I hope to contribute to a growing movement for change in the way we think about and practice literacy education.
Ultimately, the fight for a more just and effective literacy education system is not one that can be won through a single article, series, or policy initiative. It will require a sustained and collaborative effort on the part of educators, researchers, policymakers, and community members to challenge the status quo, to listen to and learn from the voices of those who have been marginalised by the current system, and to work towards a new paradigm that honors the diversity of human cognition and language development.
But I believe that this work is not only necessary, but also urgently possible. By coming together around a shared vision of literacy education that is grounded in equity, inclusion, and the science of learning, we can create a future in which every child has the opportunity to discover the joy, power, and possibility of reading - and to use that gift to transform their lives and the world around them. So let us begin this work today, with courage, compassion, and a fierce commitment to justice for all learners.