Best Online Logistics Degrees Of 2023

When looking for an online logistics degree program that suits your budget and career goals, you should keep several considerations in mind. Use the following tips as you navigate your options.

How much time do you have available for classes and assignments? Some online logistics degrees feature flexible scheduling, with weekend or evening classes or self-paced delivery formats. Scheduling flexibility can allow you to fit your studies around your personal or professional commitments.

While some logistics degrees require full-time course loads and specific time frames for completion, others allow part-time enrollment and extended times to completion. If you’d like to finish your degree quickly to jumpstart your career, consider an accelerated logistics program to help you reach your goals faster. If you already hold an associate degree, you might seek a degree-completion program to expedite your bachelor’s studies.

Institutional accreditation is essential for a reputable, high-quality education. Accreditation makes it easier for students to receive federal financial aid and transfer credits to other schools. Ensure any online logistics degree you consider is accredited by an organization recognized by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation.

Programmatic accreditation is also relatively common for logistics degrees. This type of accreditation endorses specific programs or departments rather than whole schools.

Business-focused accrediting bodies, like AACSB, IACBE and ACBSP, usually accredit logistics programs. Some programs also earn accreditation from more tech-focused agencies, like ATMAE. Graduating from an accredited program could enhance your resume when you’re ready to begin your job search.

Different schools offer different types of bachelor’s degrees for logistics majors, such as bachelor of science, bachelor of science in business administration, bachelor of business administration and bachelor of applied science programs.

The differences between these degrees are minimal, but one may have more appropriate coursework for your interests or goals than the others. For example, a bachelor of arts may give you a broader humanities education than a bachelor of science.

Likewise, business administration bachelor’s degrees tend to emphasize the managerial aspect of logistics. These degrees often suit logistics professionals who want to learn the business of logistics through law, policy, accounting and operations management coursework.

The Fight Over Phonics

This transcript was created using speech recognition software. While it has been reviewed by human transcribers, it may contain errors. Please review the episode audio before quoting from this transcript and email transcripts@nytimes.com with any questions.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

From “The New York Times,” I’m Michael Barbaro. This is “The Daily.”

The New York City Department of Education says in 2019, only 53 percent of third grade students were proficient in reading. That rate fell to 49 percent in 2022.

And that is why the city says it announced plans today to dramatically change the way children are taught to read.

A few weeks ago, the nation’s largest public school system, New York City, abandoned its current system for teaching kids how to read.

This is not just in New York. It’s all across the nation. 80 percent of the kids in Chicago do not read on grade level. In Detroit, 91 percent do not read on grade level.

It was the latest and biggest acknowledgment to date that a generation of American students has been given the wrong tools to achieve literacy.

This is a national problem. And it’s the educational crisis of our time.

Today, my colleague, Dana Goldstein, on the influential educator who helped create those flawed tools and is now trying to fix the problems that they created. It’s Tuesday, June 6.

Dana?

Good morning, Michael.

Good morning. I can see that have brought some books. And I think we’re going to need them. So thank you for doing that.

We’re here to talk about how kids learn to read in the United States. And so to begin with, I think it would be useful for you to define and demonstrate the big schools of thought that exist in American education about the best way to teach kids to read. So if you’ll indulge us.

Yes. Well, probably the dominant way over the past few decades has been a school of thought called balanced literacy. And balanced literacy really focuses on letting children choose those books that they gravitate toward, giving them a lot of time to read quietly by themselves, having children really focus on the meaning of stories, what happens in them, and really look a lot at the pictures, even use the pictures to guess the words on the page.

Hmm. OK. Let’s demonstrate balanced literacy through this delightful-looking book in front of us.

Yes, this is a book called “Mixing Colors.” My five-year-old daughter brought it home from her classroom, which has a balanced literacy library in it. And let’s go ahead and open the book. It has a big splotch of red paint, a big splotch of yellow paint, and then it shows them mixing together to form orange.

Right. If I can read it, it says, “Red and yellow make orange.”

Yes. And there’s a few things I would just call your attention to about this page. First of all, you can kind of guess what the words will be by the colors.

— the colors.

Right. I mean, five-year-olds, six-year-olds in kindergarten, they know their colors already. And so they very little even need to look at the words to get what it says.

Right. I think my two-year-old son would say red, yellow.

Yeah. The other thing I would point out is while the concepts of the colors are very easy, the words themselves are really hard for a kindergartener. Yellow is a really hard word. It has some irregular pronunciations. And so is orange.

OK, the second method?

Yes, this book is part of a set that’s based on something called the science of reading. And it heavily focuses on phonics. The science of reading and phonics are ways that teach children to read through a really sequenced introduction to the sounds and letter combinations that make up the English language. So we wouldn’t be introducing the word “yellow,” for example, before we do cat, dog, and other very simple words like that.

That teach us what those consonants and vowels do.

Exactly.

OK, so we’re opening up this book.

Yeah. The book is called “Sam.” And the purpose of this book, as we’ll notice, is really to teach that the letter A in many cases says “ah.” So page one says, “Sam and cat.” So it has three different uses of A saying “ah” in three different words.

Sam and cat, right?

Yeah, and let’s just do one more page.

Matt and cat.

Yeah.

Right. And there’s no way I would know that fellow is Matt because he’s not a splotch of red paint.

Yeah. You would not know that his name was Matt if you didn’t read the book.

OK, so to summarize, balanced literacy focuses more on stories, context, illustrations. It’s learning to read a word by considering the meaning of the story and what word might fit into the themes and the images on the page. By contrast, science of reading includes a big dose of phonics, which is to say a kid learns the letter sounds — the consonants, vowels, the common combinations that we talked about, like “ca” for “cat” and, therefore is going to sound out the words rather than try to rely on contextual clues.

You got it and the two schools of thought represented by these two books, balanced literacy on one hand and the science of reading on the other, have been battling it out in this country for decades as to which is the best method, the right method for teaching young children how to read. And reading, of course, is the most fundamental skill of all schooling. Reading is the first thing kids need to do when they get to school. And what’s happening right now is a big and important reckoning over which of these methods is right and which is wrong.

And how did we get to this overdue moment of reckoning?

Let’s start in the 1960s. At that time, there was really no settled way to teach children how to read. But in the late 1960s, early 1970s, something was happening in education in the counterculture. And it was this idea that all learning should be based on the child’s curiosity, that children could naturally figure it out on their own if given the right environment.

And one person in particular really embodies that school of thought and came to be a real leader in the United States. With this idea and her name is Lucy Calkins.

And what should we know about Lucy Calkins?

Lucy Calkins grew up outside Buffalo. She was one of nine children. And although her parents were doctors, they also maintained a working farm. And they put the kids to work on the farm. So it was a bit of an eccentric family.

Or idyllic, depending on your view.

Yeah. She said she worked really hard. And she learned how much a child can really do because her and her siblings were expected to care for these animals. And she always was really interested in teaching.

So do you mind if I ask you some biographical questions?

No, just go ahead. I’m all set to whatever you want.

I know you got started —

And over the course of my reporting, I had the opportunity to interview Professor Calkins and speak to her about how she got started in teaching and how she came to develop her ideas about how children learn.

I wanted to be a good teacher. I taught with fervor. But I didn’t know what I was doing. And I needed to know more.

And in the early 1970s, she decided to go apprentice herself in the elementary schools in England. And the reason she wanted to do that is because they were known as being at the forefront at that time of progressive, child-centered education, the idea that children’s curiosity can really drive learning, that teachers were guides to develop kids’ curiosity, not that teachers had all the answers or the adult was the real leader of the classroom.

So the opposite of the teacher with a stick at the front saying, look at the chalkboard and this is what we’re doing.

Exactly. And that’s exactly what Lucy Calkins wanted to get away from.

So I flew to Heathrow and hitchhiked, stuck out my thumb, and hitchhiked to Oxfordshire.

So she goes over to the UK. And she’s in Oxfordshire. And she absolutely falls in love with the type of teaching that she sees in those elementary schools.

So the teaching was kind of a simple, highly structured really workshop so that the teacher could be responsive. Kids were deeply engaged in projects. There was an emphasis on craftsmanship and care.

Like, for example, she told me about watching children just arrayed in front of a mushroom.

They would have the kids very painstakingly observe the mushroom and try to draw it with great accuracy and careful, invested, deep work.

And they spend an hour just looking at the different parts of the mushroom and sketching it in their notebooks and coloring it in.

This is very ‘60s, ‘70s.

Yes, that’s very creative. And I think there’s definitely a strong appeal to this. I think about, say, taking my five-year-old to the park. And she might say, look at this flower. And we can talk about how the sun and the rain help it to grow and notice how many petals it has, its color.

So, of course, children’s curiosity does drive a lot of their learning. And there is an intuitive truth here.

So what emerges from this experience that Lucy Calkins has in the UK?

Well, what eventually comes out of this is a strong philosophy that she has a theory that children can use these curiosity, inquiry-based methods to learn anything, including how to read.

OK. So how does she proceed down this path?

Interestingly, she gets her PhD in teaching children how to write, not how to read. And she does something in writing education that is really revolutionary. Prior to the work of Lucy Calkins and colleagues of hers, a lot of teaching children how to write was really rote. It was boring. It was about spelling, grammar, penmanship. And while those things are important, they might not have really sparked kids’ desire to write all that much.

And what Lucy Calkins did is she took the concept of a graduate school writing workshop for adult writers, where you keep a journal, you practice writing about your life. And she said, let’s have elementary school writers do this. And what was really interesting about this is that when elementary school kids were given writers’ notebooks and journals and they were encouraged to write without focusing too much on stuff like spelling, many of them really could do it.

So this worked.

Yeah, for many kids. Not for all, but for many kids it did work really well. And teachers absolutely loved this. So Lucy Calkins, through the ‘80s and ‘90s, she became so beloved for her writing workshop technique for young children.

But she starts to hear more and more from teachers and she notices herself when she’s going across the country training educators that for kids who struggle with writing, reading is really at the core, that reading is the fundamental skill that they need to get down if they’re going to become great, enthusiastic writers. So she decides that she wants to start exploring creating her own approach to reading, something that would draw upon what she sees as the strengths of what she did with writing, something that centers the child, lets their curiosity guide the curriculum, and gives the student a lot of free choice in what they read. And so at that point, in the late 1990s and early 2000s, she begins to branch out into the teaching of reading.

So what happens when she brings this approach to reading?

So she comes out with a book in the early 2000s called “The Art of Teaching Reading.” And it very much calls back to her earlier work on “The Art of Teaching Writing.” She takes a workshop approach. She gives children a lot of free time in the classroom to sort of pick books and quietly read.

She starts doing this in kindergarten. Kindergarten students, for the most part, cannot read. So what they’re doing quietly when they are, quote unquote, reading is really just flipping the pages and kind of looking at the pictures and the words, not actually reading. And she has a real approach to sounding outwards or phonics. She’s skeptical of it.

Interesting.

She acknowledges that phonics is part of learning to read. But rather than spend a lot of classroom time teaching children the correspondence between the letters on the page and the sounds we hear in spoken language, she cautions that doing this in too structured of a way is really going to turn kids off. And she even says, if a kid is struggling to correctly read the word, don’t have them sound out the letters. That’s not how you should prompt them. Instead, you should have them flip back through the pages of the book, consider the meaning of the story, look at the pictures, and think about what word could be right.

Really interesting. So this approach is fundamentally not about phonics, maybe even a little antiphonics.

She might resist that if you said it that way because what she’ll say is, “I always said there was some place for it.” But that’s really not what teachers took from her writing and from the speeches she gave. They took from her writing and the speeches she gave that focusing too much on phonics was going to harm children. They should be thinking about the meaning of stories.

They should be enjoying the pictures on the page. When they struggle, they should guess, guess what the word is based on the meaning of the story and the pictures that they see. Don’t labor over the letters in the word.

OK. So how influential does this approach that Lucy Calkins is, it sounds like pioneering, become?

Very influential. And as balanced literacy grows and Lucy Calkins’ curriculum materials spread out across the country, there’s a big upside for her.

She’s a business.

She is. And, in addition to being a professor at Columbia University, she has two private companies, a domestic private company and a foreign one, that sell these materials and sell teacher training across the United States and around the world. And by the early 2000s, it becomes the primary way that teachers and graduate schools of education are taught to teach children how to read. And it becomes the way that probably about half or more of American elementary schools teach kids.

And to give you an example of how much success she’s having selling this curriculum, New York City, the largest district in the country, which educates 1 million children, in the early 2000s, under Mayor Michael Bloomberg, actually mandated that schools use Lucy Calkins’ methods and materials.

Wow.

So to call back to the beginning of our conversation, to the degree that there’s been a big, long battle in this country over the right way to learn to read, between the science of reading, this phonics-based approach, and balanced literacy, this Lucy Calkins approach, it sounds like around this point, by the time New York City is adopting this in such a profound way, as are so many other districts, that Lucy Calkins’ approach, balanced literacy, is winning.

Yeah, absolutely. That’s true. But while she was pushing this out across the country, and it was wielding so much influence, and so many teachers and students were falling under its sway, there was something else happening that was really casting doubt on whether this was truly the best way to teach children how to read.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

We’ll be right back.

So, Dana, tell us about this doubt that’s starting to emerge about balanced literacy and Lucy Calkins’ now a very popular, best-selling approach to how to read.

Yes. Well, there were always voices in dissent to her approach and to the balanced literacy philosophy. And a really important group of dissent were parents of children with dyslexia. They were saying, my kid is not learning how to read in school. I went out, and I had to pay with my own money for really expensive tutoring. And guess what the tutor did with my child?

What?

Taught them phonics.

Interesting.

And, all of a sudden, my child, who was diagnosed with a learning disability and was really struggling, is at least able to get the basics down, is able to read. And why should I have to pay for this? What about parents who can’t afford to pay? Schools, you have let us down.

Interesting.

But those parents were sort of seen as squeaky wheels, advocating for their particular children. And perhaps they were asking for something that wasn’t right for the general group of learners.

Got it.

And I think school districts saw it as a niche request to a large degree.

So you’re saying dissent and doubt a little bit gets disregarded and maybe bulldozed.

Yeah, yeah. Now, here’s a really interesting thing — starting around the 1990s, functional magnetic resonance imaging, the MRI machine, allowed researchers to look at the brain of a reader, of children learning to read, of adult readers. And it really shed a lot of light on how it is that reading takes place in the brain.

And what did it find?

It found that while we’re reading, we’re using a lot of those parts of our brain that we use for speaking and listening. And those parts are doing the hard work of connecting those letters and words on the page to what we all do naturally know how to do as human beings, which is to speak and to listen to language. And that’s what reading is. Reading is the work of connecting letters and words to the sounds of spoken language.

So that is an understanding of reading as being profoundly auditory. And from what you’ve been describing of Lucy Calkins’ work, she has deliberately de-emphasized that notion of sounding out words in a rigorous way.

Yeah. The MRI machine made a really helpful intervention here. It gave us some really big clues that leaving out the sounded out piece, the phonics piece, was going to really do children a disservice.

So by the time Lucy Calkins’ reading curriculum is becoming ascendant and adopted in places like New York City, Dana, as you have told us, there’s actually anecdotal evidence that it’s not working for key groups of kids, like those with dyslexia, and then this scientific evidence that the entire approach is basically wrong based on how the human brain works and how we learn to read.

Right. And what happens over the past, say, six or seven years is that the doubt grows and grows due to a few key developments. First of all, there’s all of these test scores coming out that are showing that it’s just so persistent, that about a third of children in America do not have basic reading skills. And, from a civil rights perspective, although all children are affected by these reading problems — they cut across class, they cut across race — it is the fact that low-income children are affected most by these problems. And so there’s a real equity issue here, too.

And so people are frustrated. And so that draws more people to learn about the science of how kids learn to read and become familiar with this doubt that exists about balanced literacy.

I think scientific research on reading has progressed enormously and has yielded findings that are absolutely rock solid.

And there are some really important writers and thinkers that start to speak out. One of them is Mark Seidenberg. He publishes a book called “Language at the Speed of Sight.” And what this book does — he’s a cognitive scientist. It tries to bring that cognitive science to educators.

A child who’s learning to read already knows something about spoken language, quite a lot. And their immediate problem is to figure out how print relates to spoken language.

And he goes out. And he really gets quite a lot of attention for this book.

For a long time, no one really knew how children learned to read.

It was more —

— debates among people had philosophies —

And there’s a crusading journalist. Her name is Emily Hanford. She’s an audio journalist with American Public Media. She starts to publish a series of audio documentaries about kids with dyslexia, about how we learn to read.

Schools think they’re teaching kids to read. Of course, they do. But it turns out there’s a big body of scientific research about reading and how kids learn to do it. This research shows there are important skills that all kids need to learn to become good readers. And in lots of schools, they aren’t being taught these skills.

And many, many people listen to this in the education world. Teachers are emailing these podcasts to each other and saying, oh my gosh. And this is a real emotional time for teachers who are, for the first time, some of them after 20, 30 years in the classroom, being exposed to cognitive science on how kids learn to read.

And many teachers I’ve interviewed have described to me a sort of nagging sense that something was off, that they had used these balanced literacy methods the best way they knew how, that they had really enjoyed going to those summer training programs with Lucy Calkins. They admired her. They loved reading her books. And for teachers who just had that feeling maybe that they weren’t reaching all the kids that they wanted to reach, who tried their best for years to find out that all this time, there was powerful, persuasive evidence that other methods are more effective, it was devastating emotionally, psychologically devastating for many educators.

What you’re describing, Dana, sounds like a huge clash in the making, all these teachers and parents learning that the way they have been teaching or that their kids have been taught to read was wrong or off through this podcast or through this cognitive psychologist. And yet Lucy Calkins’ curriculum is still being taught across the country. So at some point, that clash does arrive. And it must be kind of spectacular.

Yes.

You note the problematic use of balanced literacy. And I have experienced that firsthand, both as a mom and a legislator.

Over the past five, six years, a major change has occurred.

Having been an educator and having many of us on this conference committee, it is amazing how trends cycle through. And they’re not always good trends.

More and more policymakers were clued into this debate that was going on about the science of reading.

So today, I’m calling for a renewed focus on literacy and on the way we teach reading in the state of Ohio.

And dozens of states started to pass laws actually requiring that structured phonics be taught in elementary schools.

Y’all, we don’t have a science-based reading curriculum in the school district. We don’t teach children phonics.

And dozens of school districts began to pull Lucy Calkins’ curriculum out of classrooms.

Fascinating.

Did you read about the Mississippi miracle yesterday, that Mississippi’s reading scores have shot way up?

We see it in places like Mississippi, Washington, DC.

As representative of NAACP, we look at this as a civil rights issue. Our kids have to be able to read. And it has to start with the state. It’s in the state constitution that kids supposed to get education in California.

Oakland, California, where the NAACP was crucial in asking that Lucy Calkins’ curriculum not be used anymore, a real coalition of people, left, right, civil rights groups, educators, parents coming together to push for change.

In New York City, more than half of our students are not on grade level.

And in a sign of just how big the shift is, New York City, Lucy Calkins’ hometown, the first big district to really embrace her approach —

Phonics and phonemic awareness has been missing in far too many of our schools. And we’re going to fix that.

— has decided that her materials are no longer on the approved list of ways to teach kids to read in the country’s largest school district.

A huge blow to her curriculum and, I have to imagine, to her reputation.

Massive.

And this puts a lot of pressure on Lucy Calkins and the product which she is trying to sell, which is a reading curriculum that does not include much phonics.

So what does she do?

After initially resisting and fighting back, a huge turn happened. She starts to acknowledge that she hasn’t done maybe quite as good of a job as she could in including the science of reading and phonics in her curriculum. And, about one year ago, she made an even bigger change. She created a version of her curriculum which, for the first time, included daily structured phonics lessons. And that is now for sale across the country.

So she recognizes that she has missed a pretty big boat here in the story of how American kids learn to read. And she adjusts in a way that I imagine, given the philosophy that you’ve been describing here, given her background, that experience in England, might have been very humbling and difficult.

I think it was really, really painful for her. And last year, I did get the opportunity to have a really long interview with her about her process and coming to terms with this. And probably the biggest question I had was, given there has been science suggesting that phonics is really important for children, that MRI research, but even prior to that, dating back to the 1960s, how is it that it’s only been in the last few years that she made this change?

And what does she say?

What I feel right now is that the last two or three years, what I’ve learned from the science of reading work has been transformational and has really made me a far better educator.

It really wasn’t all that satisfying of an answer. She told me that she had clued into this the last few years.

Probably after Emily Hanford’s first stuff.

She mentioned the journalist Emily Hanford. She mentioned Mark Seidenberg, the cognitive psychologist I spoke about. In other words, she was coming across this really powerful research alongside so many members of the public who were encountering it for the first time.

Wait a minute, though, that’s a hard concept to swallow for a leading educator, perhaps one of the leading educators when it comes to reading. And somebody who works at a major university somehow had blinders on and never heard of the science that said that phonics was essential, and her system had fundamental flaws. Do you find that credible?

So I really tried to drill down on this with her over the course of several interviews.

Before that, were there ever opportunities for someone like you to meet with someone who looks at reading from a neuroscience type of background? How often, if ever, did that happen? And maybe it never happened. I don’t know.

Well, you certainly can’t say that there’s not opportunities to do that.

One of the things that really came out in our conversation is that she was working very much in the realm of theory and philosophy and ideas about reading, these romantic ideas about child-driven learning, the child’s curiosity driving the classroom, the teacher being a guide as opposed to the bearer of information. And this was an ideology that was very strong in the part of the academy, the part of the university world that she came from.

I mean, I don’t think that I thought about an MRI machine as part of how you get to know a reader.

And, as she said to me, she didn’t think of MRI machines as a crucial piece of evidence in how kids learn. She said those types of researchers did not spend time in classrooms. That was something that created skepticism for her and many of her colleagues, like we spend time talking to teachers, watching kids in classrooms. Those cognitive scientists never go to K-12 schools. They don’t know what an elementary school is like. There was a sort of resistance there to accepting that those experts had much to say about what schools do.

All of that makes a certain sense, Dana. But I’m mindful of what you said about Lucy Calkins, which is that she’s selling a curriculum. So isn’t it possible as well that this is a person who resisted absorbing evidence that her curriculum was wrong because she made a lot of money selling that curriculum?

I can’t look into her soul and know what drove her. I think that we all know that when our economic interests align with something we believe in really deeply, it’s going to be really, really hard to doubt that.

Right, doubly hard.

So difficult. And I think that’s what happened here. But where I will give her credit is that there are other leaders in the balanced literacy world who have not made the changes that she has made and have not even acknowledged even up till now, 2023, that anything was wrong.

How does Lucy Calkins — and I’m sure that came up in your conversation with her — think about the concept of accountability here? Because, according to the science and research, she and those she worked with have led lots and lots of kids astray. Does she feel guilty for basically leading so many people to embrace a form of the teaching of reading that we now think has been somewhat discredited?

I pushed her on this. I asked her about it.

Some critics, they want something more like an apology. Some teachers have said to me, there needs to be almost a national reckoning or a grieving process for reading issues in the country.

I think that people who have supported phonics first would be wise to learn from others and that, sure, they could apologize for not trusting teachers, not giving kids important, engaging projects to work on, not creating classrooms that are vital. And I think that we, all of us, do the best we can.

She turned the question around. And she said, actually, I think those who pushed phonics so heavily owe an apology. They owe an —

Why?

She said, I think they owe an apology for overlooking the importance of joy, overlooking the importance of writing.

Are people asking whether they’re going to apologize for overlooking writing, for not inviting kids to bring their own important knowledge and stories to the classroom? Are they going to apologize for not building on kids’ strengths? I think all of us are imperfect. And we do the very, very best we can. And hopefully we’re willing to say, I need to keep listening to others.

In other words, she sort of drew upon what she continues to see as the strength of her approach as opposed to, I think, truly acknowledging that something was really, really wrong.

That’s not sounding like someone taking a lot of accountability or sounding at all regretful, which is maybe the case, that she’s not.

She has not personally really offered the apology that many parents and teachers are looking for. And when we decided to do this episode, I did reach back out to her team to ask her if her thinking had changed since we last spoke. And they said no. They referred me back to the interview she already gave me last year.

But one big thing that has changed, though, is that these new materials are for sale. And she has told the 15 percent to 20 percent of American schools that are using her old materials that they should update. And if they want to buy the new stuff, they can get a discount.

So even though folks may be looking to her for more of an emotive response, I do think there will be positive change for schools in her network by seeing the fact that she is no longer selling the old approach.

From what you’re saying, Dana, the result of everything that’s happened here, this journey that we’ve been on that’s ended where it’s ended, is that dozens, maybe hundreds of school districts across the country are now changing how they teach kids to read. And I have to imagine that’s a pretty messy process because you’re talking about curriculum that are in place that teachers have been taught how to use. And I don’t suspect that’s like flipping a switch.

It’s really hard. It’s really expensive. You don’t just have to replace the curriculum materials and the books in the classroom libraries. You have to retrain the adults in the system, some of whom still believe in this. So it’s a very difficult shift.

So how is it going? And what does it look like in a district like the one we’re in, New York City, the biggest school district in the country?

Well, I have some personal experience with this. My daughter is finishing up her kindergarten year here in New York City Public Schools in Brooklyn. And at the beginning of this school, year she brought home these books that are really hard for her to read because they don’t have sequenced phonics words.

They’re more of a balanced literacy.

Yeah, the balanced literacy library books, like “Mixing Colors,” the one we started out looking at. And it was frustrating to try to read the books with her. Her teacher had asked us to look at them at home. But she was really struggling. She was having trouble sounding out those words because they were a little bit hard for her.

But I will say, about halfway through the year, I noticed a huge shift. My daughter’s principal is enthusiastic about these changes. And she has been asking teachers to reconsider what they’re doing in the classroom.

And about halfway through the year, my daughter, Talia, started telling me, “C-H goes cha, S-H goes sha.” And just in the past few weeks, she started telling me about what happens when E and I are next to each other or O and U. And so she has absolutely loved this. And I’ve noticed a huge change in her ability to sound out the words.

She’s being taught phonics. And it sounds, from what you’re saying, like she’s now a better reader as a result.

Absolutely. She has made huge strides.

I have to ask you a complicated question. You’re a parent of a kid in the New York City Public School system who, it sounds like, was being taught some of the stuff that now feels like it wasn’t really working for a little bit of time. I don’t know how long.

Do you find yourself mad at Lucy Calkins at all? You’re not just a journalist. In this case, you’re a parent. You’re a New York City Public School system parent. How do you think about that?

[SIGHS]: That’s a hard one. As a reporter, I try to stay above the fray and be objective. Of course, as a parent, I’m not. When I’m struggling with my kid to teach her not to look at the pictures but to look at the words when she’s learning how to read, I have to admit, I feel very frustrated.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

But, at the same time, there were some things Lucy Calkins was right about. Phonics alone is not enough. Kids do need access to books. They need a big vocabulary. Writing is really important.

And for so many things in raising children, we do want to be guided by their curiosity. It’s just that learning to read, really learning to read, is hard. And it is not natural. Children cannot teach this to themselves. Phonics is the crucial building block. And Professor Calkins undersold it.

Well, Dana, thank you very much. I really appreciate it.

Thank you, Michael.

We’ll be right back.

Here’s what else you need to know today. On Monday, there was growing evidence that Ukraine’s long-planned spring counteroffensive against Russian forces, which could change the course of the war, may have begun. Ukraine’s military undertook a sustained barrage of air and ground attacks along multiple sections of the war’s front line, including the Russian-occupied region of Donetsk in Ukraine’s east. Much is riding on the counteroffensive, whose goal is to repel Russian forces and liberate Ukrainians living under Russian control. Success could strengthen Ukraine’s case for longer-term military commitments from the West and improve Ukraine’s negotiating power in any future peace talks with Russia.

Today’s episode was produced by Mooj Zadie, Will Reid, Rikki Novetsky, and Claire Toeniskoetter, with help from Sydney Harper. It was edited by Marc Georges and Liz O. Baylen, contains original music by Diane Wong, Marion Lozano, and Dan Powell, and was engineered by Chris Wood. Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk of Wonderly.

That’s it for “The Daily.” I’m Michael Barbaro. See you tomorrow.

Hong Kong prisons work to compel loyalty to China among young activists

HONG KONG —

The day begins with goose-stepping. In the prison yards of juvenile facilities across Hong Kong, young men and women practice the form of marching used by the Chinese military, kicking their legs up high as guards yell out commands.

In their mud-colored uniforms, the prisoners look almost indistinguishable from military recruits. But before they were detained, these inmates were foot soldiers in Hong Kong’s fight for greater democratic freedoms.

Arrested for their involvement in the 2019 mass protests that saw almost a third of the population take to the streets, the detainees are now the latest subjects in China’s decades-long experiment in political control. The goal is to “deradicalize” them, echoing efforts honed by Beijing from the 1989 crackdown on Tiananmen Square protesters up to the forced detention and reeducation of Uyghur Muslims, though the Hong Kong version is not on the industrial scale of the repression in Xinjiang.

The deradicalization program includes pro-China propaganda lectures and psychological counseling that leads to detainees confessing to holding extreme views, and it is accompanied by a system of close monitoring and punishment, including solitary confinement, inside the juvenile facilities, former prisoners and guards said. As of April 30, 871 juvenile inmates had participated in the program, the Hong Kong Correctional Services Department (CSD) said, about 70 percent of them charged in connection with the 2019 protests. Some are as young as 14.

Hong Kong officials have refused to provide any specifics about what deradicalization — or “targeted rehabilitation,” as they call it — entails. But The Washington Post spoke to 10 former juvenile prisoners and three prisoners formerly held in adult facilities, all arrested in connection with the 2019 protests, as well as two former employees at the CSD who described the program and how it has evolved over the past year. All spoke under the condition of anonymity or only wanted their first name used for fear of repercussions, including additional prison time or retaliation from the authorities.

The ultimate objective, according to a former prison guard, is to create a feeling of hopelessness among prisoners, deterring the youngest former protesters from activism or even seeing a future in Hong Kong.

“It was explicitly said to us that by the end of their sentence, the goal is to ensure the desire of these inmates to continue doing political stuff is less and less, and that they instead look for ways to leave Hong Kong,” said the former prison guard.

One former prisoner, Leo, said: “What really slowly wears down your will to fight is the everyday living in prison … [being] targeted, oppressed, silenced.”

“This is the brainwashing that happens 24 hours a day,” he said.

The CSD said in an emailed statement to The Post that it “will not comment on any individual case.” Wong Kwok-hing, the head of the CSD, has said there is no “brainwashing element” to the program.

“These prisoners joined because they saw the plan can help them correct their wrong values,” Wong said at a February news conference. In the CSD’s 2021 annual report, the most recent available, the program is referred to as a targeted rehabilitation program focused on “Disengagement from Radical Thoughts and Instillation of Correct Values.” It has produced “ideal results,” Wong said in a response to questions from Hong Kong legislators, as “participants felt deep regret for past illegal actions.”

Those who study or run deradicalization programs — interventions, for example, to stop young Muslims from joining the Islamic State or White men online from being indoctrinated in white-supremacist thinking — say the concept of deradicalization has been co-opted by authoritarian states.

“For democracy to happen, you need people to confront their government, to be angry … that is sometimes inconvenient, but it is not radicalization,” said Louis Audet Gosselin, the scientific and strategic director for the Center for the Prevention of Radicalization Leading to Violence, a Montreal-based nonprofit. “Imprisoning and brainwashing is not deradicalization.”

The focus on young detainees is part of a broader suppression in Hong Kong of any political speech that challenges the authorities, advocates for democracy or criticizes China. Dissent has been criminalized as extremist and can lead to sentences of life in prison. The authorities, for instance, have used a colonial-era sedition law to target a group of speech therapists who wrote a children’s book about sheep and wolves, a parable on China’s control, and two men who possessed the children’s book. An ex-editor of an independent news outlet on trial for sedition was cross-examined about an opinion piece that compared Hong Kong to George Orwell’s “1984.” Ahead of the anniversary of the June 4, 1989, crackdown on protesters at Tiananmen Square, libraries have removed books on the subject — including one that argued the Chinese Communist Party enforced collective amnesia after the massacre.

“The tactics as a whole are directly imported from what the Communist Party has done in other places,” said Perry Link, professor emeritus of East Asian studies at Princeton University. “It is a system that has been used and practiced, sharpened and created many times over since the early 1950s inside China.”

More than 10,000 people were arrested in connection with the 2019 protests and about a third of those were charged with various crimes, including about 250 under a national security law, which was imposed by Beijing in 2020. The law criminalizes four vaguely-worded offenses “subversion,” “secession,” “collusion with foreign forces” and “terrorism.” The colonial-era sedition law, unused for half a century, has been revived in the wake of the national security law to criminalize other speech.

Though public dissent has been neutralized and virtually all opposition leaders are in jail or exile, the authorities have repeatedly raised the prospect of further unrest to justify the continued erosion of freedoms. In a speech on April 15, a day set aside by authorities to promote the security law, the director of Beijing’s Liaison Office in Hong Kong, Zheng Yanxiong, said the territory’s “anti-China” defenses are not “at a point where vigilance against war can relax.”

“Stubborn people are still putting up stiff resistance; some foreign forces will not disappear and are still stirring the pot,” said Zheng. “Some rioters who have escaped abroad or gone underground are still doing malicious work.”

Hong Kong Chief Executive John Lee in May chided a reporter who used the term “2019 protests” to ask a question, insisting that what occurred was “black violence” with the aim of making Hong Kong “independent.” Independence was only a fringe demand among the protesters, and early demonstrations were overwhelmingly peaceful until the police started to use tactics like deploying tear gas, according to advocates and human rights groups.

“We lived through that, and don’t forget it. We have to bear that in mind so as to ensure that in the long run, the system will protect us” from chaos, Lee said.

Beijing-linked think tanks in Hong Kong, including one affiliated with the city’s former chief executive Leung Chun-ying, in 2021 started pushing for the city to work on “de-radicalizing” its youth. Leung compared Hong Kong’s front-line pro-democracy protesters to drug addicts and commissioned an 83-page report that drew parallels between what it describes as violent radicalization in Hong Kong and Islamist militancy in Nigeria and mass murder by far-right figures in Norway and New Zealand.

The number of protest-related arrests has led to a growing population of inmates spread across Hong Kong’s 24 correctional institutes, both on “remand” — awaiting trial and denied bail — and sentenced. Some of the Hong Kong inmates intended to commit violent, potentially deadly crimes, like the few arrested for possessing bombmaking materials. But the overwhelming majority have been charged with lesser offenses such as vandalism, assaulting a police officer, arson, or holding weapons such as sticks or molotov cocktails. Others were sentenced for nonviolent actions at unauthorized assemblies.

In its report, the CSD said the average daily prison population increased by 10 percent to 7,616 people in 2021, posing “formidable challenges.”

From the start of their detention, inmates are subject to Beijing’s narrative that the protests were a product of foreign manipulation, rather than an organic pro-democracy uprising. One former prisoner in a facility for adults said a guard, holding a checklist in his hands with several questions, asked him whether he had received funding to protest. Several others in juvenile prisons said guards also asked them if they had been paid.

Hong Kong authorities have more broadly redirected prison staff — therapists and guards alike — to focus on monitoring political prisoners and share information on them with the Hong Kong Police Force, according to the two former CSD employees.

Every morning, guards are tasked with sending reports on the daily activities of high-profile prisoners arrested under the national security law or for the 2019 protests. These reports, the former prison guard added, reach the top management of the CSD and the police department, and are produced with the help of counterterrorism teams established before the upheaval.

“There was no such watch list before” the protests, he added.

The CSD annual report said the department has enhanced its intelligence network and system of monitoring, a “pre-emptive” strategy to prevent “radicals” from “building up forces.”

The deradicalization program, steadily rolled out since last year, has so far been targeted at detainees under 21. They include a former prisoner who joined the 2019 protests at the urging of his father and who wanted to be referred to by part of his name, Man. He was 17 at the time and marched in the million-strong peaceful mass protests in early June, which, he said, prompted him to learn more about Hong Kong’s pro-democracy struggles. Man said he came to believe he was in a generational fight, and that it was every young person’s responsibility to take a stand.

As that belief intensified, Man and some of his friends felt “standing at the back was quite useless.” They looked into buying hard-hats, gas masks and other protective gear.

“Once we had more, we moved from the back to the middle, and then the front line,” he said.

In July, Man joined a protest that was later classified as a riot. He hit a police officer with an umbrella; carried to protect protesters from the police use of pepper spray, umbrellas became a symbol of resistance in Hong Kong. Man was arrested a few months later as he was about to go to school. He pleaded guilty to assault and rioting, and was sentenced to just over two years in a juvenile correctional facility.

The prison system replaced British-style marching with goose-stepping in 2022, part of a slew of new political propaganda programs. Man and others had to adapt to the new drills and were told to stop calling guards “sir” in English, switching instead to the equivalent in Cantonese.

Inmates were made to watch Chinese propaganda films later that year, including “The Battle at Lake Changjin,” released in 2021. It had a $200 million budget and was commissioned by the Central Propaganda Department as part of celebrations marking the 100th year of the Chinese Communist Party. The movie shows China’s army bravely fending off U.S. troops in a bloody battle during the Korean War, but it has been criticized for whitewashing Beijing’s role in dividing the Koreas.

Some said they watched the film multiple times over the course of weeks and had fill out worksheets to say who their favorite character was.

The CSD has also launched what it describes as an “educational program,” titled “Understanding History is the Beginning of Knowledge.” The program, according to the department, is meant to “assist the young people in custody to learn Chinese history, enhance their sense of national identity … and get back on the right track.” Since July 2022, prisons have also started playing videos each day promoting the national security law.

Photographers were present at the lectures, and the rooms were also fitted with video cameras trained on the inmates. “In promotional videos issued by the [Correctional Services Department] you can see that we just sit there like pieces of wood,” said Leo, a former prisoner.

In addition to the films, the prisons have introduced a group psychological program known as Youth Lab, according to CSD reports. The program resembles cognitive behavioral therapy. After icebreakers like board games, psychologists lead the juvenile prisoners — overwhelmingly those convicted of protest-related offenses — in sessions where they watch television programs and analyze fictional scenarios including conflict between family members.

“They stressed that if we think [twice] we won’t be so impulsive and angry,” Man said. His takeaway was that he was immature before he was imprisoned. “I realized there are many things I cannot avoid, and so I should use a different way to deal with it.”

In separate sessions, inmates can invite a parent to join them in some activities. At one of these, officers made inmates write a letter apologizing — whether to their family or the nation — and had them read it out aloud in front of the prison guards, other detainees and their parents.

A former prison psychologist said evaluations have long been compulsory for young inmates, originally designed to determine whether they show signs of self-harm or suicidal ideation. Rehabilitation was a serious effort to steer inmates away from drug habits or gangs and help them reintegrate into society. With the influx of political prisoners and pressure from the prison authorities, psychological sessions have become “like confession,” said the former prison psychologist who was part of the rehabilitation unit, with the detainees pushed to express remorse over their political actions and acknowledge that their views were extreme.

Link, the Princeton University professor, said the Chinese Communist Party’s “technique of making you feel like you are the minority is very tried and true.”

“At Tiananmen — most of the city was out on the streets, in Hong Kong in 2019, 2 out of 7 million were on the streets, and yet, when they grab you and get you in jail, they psychologically engineer it for you to feel like you are in the minority, and ‘we, the party, we are the mainstream,’ ” he said.

Being identified as “problematic” can lead to retribution. Former prisoners said the withholding of letters from family and friends was a common punishment, leaving prisoners feeling isolated. Others were put in single cells for infractions like holding up five fingers during court appearances — a reference to “five demands, not one less,” one of the mantras of the protests. One 20-year-old juvenile detainee said some officers hit the soles of their feet with a wooden stick if they could not accurately recite a list of 19 prison regulations. He said he was hit several times and received some 40 strikes in total. He also witnessed guards using their elbows to hit prisoners at an especially sensitive part of their back, a move the guards called “doing the chicken wing,” and kneeing inmates in their thighs.

“I accepted my punishment with a smile,” the detainee said.

Former prisoners said they sometimes told guards what they wanted to hear to avoid additional punishment. All but one of the former prisoners said they did not regret their actions at the 2019 protests — only getting arrested for them. “I am very stubborn, you won’t affect me with any words,” said another former prisoner, arrested for arson. “But for appearances, I will pretend to agree with you to save trouble.”

Yet almost all also expressed a sense of hopelessness and a desire to retreat from politics. Their lives have been altered and redefined by the protests, their arrests and imprisonment — but the people around them have largely moved on. The narratives drummed into them inside jail have been reinforced by propaganda outside that promotes the national security law with board games, competitions and cute mascots directed largely at children and preteens, alongside the shrinking space for criticism.

Man said he despises the Chinese Communist Party more than he did before he entered prison. His feelings, he says, have “deepened.” But he is also fearful of authority now, looking away every time he sees a police officer. He said he found it hard to sleep when he first got out of prison. Man still reads news about what’s happening with democratic rights in Hong Kong, but he tries not to dwell on it.

“There’s nothing I can do,” he said.