OPINION: A call for rejecting the newest reading wars

Sold a Story does not say that schools should “reduce the teaching of reading to phonics instruction and nothing more.” The podcast says that decades of scientific research have shown that methods that rely on the cueing theory make it harder for some children to learn to read. We stand by our reporting.

Catherine Winter
Senior Editor
APM Reports

Sold a Story is supporting the science of reading and that if something works to improve a child’s reading skills we should be able to see the data to support it! It’s actually very simple and clear that if there is no data we should have questions about the validity of the claims.

Maureen Judge
Reading Specialist

As an educator (and a graduate of one of the programs represented in the list of signatories, which gave me a whole two hours of phonics in the entire course of my master’s degree), I could not disagree more that “paints educators as naively inadequate, gives them a lot less credit than they deserve and diminishes their agency.” This letter is a far greater insult to my intelligence as an educator by implying that the only reason I might have strong feelings about the teaching of phonics in elementary education is that I’m so gullible and easily swayed that some random podcast could convince me that everything I know is wrong.

The truth is, when I first discovered Emily Hanford’s reporting, I had already come to have doubts and questions about everything I learned about reading in my teacher preparation program. I had already started to see that practices I was taught like gospel truths were ideological fantasies completely distanced from any available evidence base; I had already begun to see that when I did what I was taught to do in grad school, many of my students – affluent students from stable homes, who had every environmental advantage – saw no benefit and failed to grow as readers.

Every single thing that “Sold A Story” about pedagogy is something I believed before the podcast started; moreover, it is something I was forced into believing only after being confronted with the failure of the methods I was taught in my master’s program. Listening to this podcast and hearing the voices of other teachers who feel foolish, bamboozled, lied to, and guilty has been the most unbelievable catharsis. I am so grateful to Hanford for making public what I have been saying privately for years, not because some podcast said it, but as a result of my own practice, reflection, and research.

I agree that we should all be banding together to support literacy education. But the kinds of practices described in the podcast, taught to me in graduate school, and mandated by schools I have worked at are not literacy education. Period.

Journalists, parents, and other advocates of teaching phonics adequately have never said that phonics is the only thing required to teach kids to learn to read. This letter is far guiltier of oversimplification and finger-pointing than those who stand thus accused.

Referring to the science of reading as “phonics instruction and nothing more” is inaccurate. “Sold a Story” reveals that many literacy pioneers also share this misconception, which carries over to their work, and in turn affects millions of teachers and students. Spinning SoR as a “fabricated phonics debate” is irresponsible and reckless, and you said it yourself, inaccurate information can spread quickly. This letter says there doesn’t need to be a “war”, but your tone suggests otherwise.

Sadly, there really is a literacy war. Children are not being taught sound reading practices. Rudolf Flesch pointed this out back in 1955 with his book “Why Johnny Can’t Read.” He had to write another book in the 80s, “Why Johnny Still Can’t Read.” Those who signed this letter aren’t the parents who had to teach their kids on their own, nor are they the students who struggle to read. I hope more and more parents and even young students will contribute to this discussion. They’re the ones who struggle with this because of the very silly idea that concepts like “3 cueing” do anything to help a child learn to actually read words.

This list of people, many with a vested interest in the cueing system, is hardly valid criticism of the reporting with science that shows this report was incorrect. If anything, Emily graciously assumes the best intentions. I think that they knew the method was nonsense but liked the cash flow. I based my opinion on The
“Email :From: Lucy Calkins
Date: Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 10:40 AM
Subject: Sensitive & Timely Information re: TCRWP
To: Lucy Calkins
Dear Leaders of TCRWP Schools,
I am writing to give you a heads up. Sue Pimentel, one of the
authors of the CSS and a founder of Student Achievement
Partners, has issued a report on TCRWP that may receive
far more press than would have happened had it not been
for the maelstrom around the science of reading and the Ed
Week articles. I want you to know this will be coming out
today. I just learned of this earlier today, so I’m sorry you
haven’t gotten more of a heads up. I anticipate that this
could create problems for some of you, as well as for those
of us at TCRWP central, and I couldn’t be more sorry. We
don’t yet know what kind of attention this will receive. If the
report happens to go under the radar, let’s let it stay there.
be forewarned, but don’t amplify it by sharing… ”

If I knew this method did not work based on research and science, as a school counselor by keeping current in my field, how do these experts explain their they did not ? How do they justify use of the methods of poor readers rather than instruction to build reading skills needed, malpractice in any other profession?

Nancy Duggan
Executive Director of Decoding Dyslexia Massachusetts

The movement that is making a case for more systematic phonics and PA instruction does not neglect any other area of literacy and is in fact arguing for more scientifically and research based instruction in all facets of language within our schools. This letter is fully creating a straw man and is itself fanning flames that need not exist if everyone is indeed trying to look at research based practice in this field. I would ask that the respondents actually provide something more substantiative, with references, if these concerns are at all to be taken seriously by the numerous other academics who are heavily involved in literacy research and did not sign on to this letter.

This letter is exactly what is wrong. There is no reading war. Rather than address new information this letter creates division where there is none. Thank you for putting all these names in one place. I will be certain to look carefully at those who chose to instigate fear and spread lies over digging in and understanding decades of scientific research. This response addresses zero facts and simply attacks a podcast that brings to light what we now know… there is a better way. Know better, do better.

I am a public school special education teacher who has attended the week long institute at TCRWP at Columbia, trained in LLI, and also trained as a Dyslexia Practitioner, I can speak confidently about my experience with the first two programs and their effects on students. I have 8 year olds who have masked their illiteracy through 3 cue only to end up at my classroom door because the pictures have gone away in the text and they can no longer make a “smart guess” about a word or what they are reading. I spend precious months undoing bad habits and teaching foundational skills in reading using proper, evidence based techniques.
I’ve argued with administrators only to be told they know “in their hearts” what is best for students. I spend significant time talking to fellow educators to empower them to do what is right by their students. We are not properly preparing educators in reading instruction. Yes, teachers want to have autonomy and creativity to deliver effective, engaging instruction. Yet, they are either not taught how students learn to read or new teachers are shut down by school leaders and persuaded to use ineffective, and even harmful, practices.
“Sold a Story” captures what many of us have been saying for years. The 3 cue strategy does not work. We need to be student centered in our practices. We need to move away from our egos and defense of our past methodology and look at what students need. Cognitive science does not lie. There is as much room for debate about how students learn to read as there is about the existence of climate change.
This opinion misses the mark because even if we give benefit of doubt and conclude that we all agree that phonics is necessary, it fails to provide a rebuttal or provide a reasonable defense of damage done by three cueing. So now, I will also, “ask that those who truly care about doing the real work come together and move forward in a productive way that recognizes all the elements of effective reading instruction.”

The authors seem to be reducing the point of Sold a Story to advocating for phonics instruction. Of course, most of the items the authors listed as essential to good reading instruction are just that.

Sold a Story points out that what isn’t a part of good reading instruction is memorization and context, visual cues, and guessing to figure out unknown words.

Shame on you for your diversion from the truth.

I have been in education for 35 years. I started in a first grade classroom and after 12 years was able to get trained in Reading Recovery. After four years of teaching Reading Recovery, I knew that something was missing in my reading instruction because only about 50% of the disabled readers were successful with that approach. That was when I was trained to teach dyslexic readers using synthetic phonics with direct instruction. It was a game changer. I have been in a district that buys all things Heinemann and I have to agree with what I heard on Sold a Story. I witnessed first hand the damage done to the 85% of kids that need explicit phonics instruction to be successful readers and writers.

To the 58 signers of the letter obfuscating Hanford’s reporting, the only people who reduce reading science to phonics are you. No one who knows the research that has existed for over 50 years would say that. How those of you who are academics could not know the research defies logic.
Nor did Hanford blame teachers as you suggest. She did her job as a good investigative reporter, not unlike Woodward and Bernstein about Nixon. I bet you accept science about covid, climate change and the research on tobacco and lung cancer, so why do you reject the science about reading? The only possible reason is it doesn’t fit your belief system and endangers your revenue stream. Too many children have been harmed by misinformed reading instruction. It is time to consign cueing approaches to the dust heap of bad ideas about reading instruction. This is not a time for making common cause; it is a time to care about our children.

I was once asked how I was able to get so many students to become good readers. I replied that I taught them. The key point is that I taught them about all of the parts of the puzzle that is learning to read: phonological awareness, phonics, sight vocabulary, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. All of these parts are essential to teach a child to be a reader. In the beginning, it is about the first three parts. When proficiency is achieved in those areas, then it is all about the second three parts.
This is one of my favorite quotes:
“There is no comprehension strategy
powerful enough to compensate for
the fact that you can’t read the words.”
–Dr. Anita Archer

There is no statement more true in the teaching of reading. I fought the “system” in a public school for 32 years. The last 15 years there was a supervisor who is a Calkins’ devotee. She single-handedly destroyed an excellent reading and writing program in my district. Being a special education teacher, I did not have to use the Units of Study, but the general education teachers did and got their hands slapped repeatedly for trying to do the right thing and teach their students using phonics at K and 1st grade. I retired last June. I had enough. I could no longer sit there and watch what was happening. I tried to change things for a long time, but they wore me down. The proof is in the research and in the students who can actually read!

Signed by a host of University PHDs completely disconnected from actual practice. You are the problem!

This is a silly response, from Lucy Calkins and other people that are proponents of 3 cueing and “whole language”. I have had to teach the Units of Study for 8 years. Thankfully, we began supplementing with Fundations. The programs contradict each other and since I began using Fundations and have learned more about the SOR, I have put an emphasis on direct explicit instruction. Before Fundations and other SOR strategies, students would get stuck at F&P level C because they could not decode. Nowhere in the Sold a Story podcast does it say “only phonics”. Since switching my emphasis to phonemic awareness and other explicit phonics instruction, my students are decoding better than ever. (Of course, they cannot “read” the LC running record books because they are awful and barely have any words they can decode in them).

For anyone interested in why I signed the “Opinion: A call for rejecting the newest reading wars,” a response to the “Sold a Story” podcast, here is a link to my response.

https://openletter.earth/why-i-signed-an-open-letter-to-parents-and-others-concerned-about-children-who-struggle-in-learning-to-read-bc111721

After reading this response the the “Sold a Story” podcast by Emily Hanford, I have a few points to make.
1. Regardless of what people “feel” or “believe”, having children exposed to good literature or having them “look for clues” to figure out words, is not reading (taking your eyes OFF the words is guessing). Reading is not a mystery or something that can be picked up by exposure like the spoken language. Letters are symbols that need to be correlated to a sound and that doesn’t happen because books are beautiful and exciting, it takes systematic, sequential, explicit, cumulative, and to mastery instruction.
2. It has been stated several times that the aforementioned podcast is distorting the story and only focusing on phonics. However, Scarborough’s Rope and the Simple View of Reading (D x LC = RC), both of which incorporate all aspects of reading comprehension were mentioned in every episode.
(https://dyslexiaida.org/scarboroughs-reading-rope-a-groundbreaking-infographic/). This is not mentioned at all in the response posted above, only the phonics. There is no mention in this article of the components of Scarborough’s Rope: literacy knowledge, verbal reasoning, language structures, building vocabulary, and background knowledge, yet that is exactly what the “Sold a Story” podcast is promoting.
3. Because we know that Phonological Awareness, Phonics, Fluency, Vocabulary, and Comprehension are the 5 components of reading, I want to note that I do understand what Dr. Rasinski is concerned about when he talks about fluency (I read his letter). Automaticity, which leads to fluency [chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.lexialearning.com/sites/default/files/resources/Core5_pedagogypaper_fluency_Final.pdf] was also mentioned in the podcasts, either by Mrs. Handford or one of her many guests. I do agree with Dr. Rasinski that fluency must be modeled and taught directly and explicitly, and many of the Science of Reading programs actually include a comprehensive fluency component. However, for students to build fluency, they must be able to decode the words first and build automaticity.

Finally, my understanding of “Sold a Story” is that based on the Balanced Literacy method, children are expected to absorb the knowledge of words rather than teaching them to read through proven methods of instruction. I have been an educator for 34 years. I taught the Balanced Literacy Method until 2004 when Dr. Reed Lyon came to our district and taught us how to teach reading to our struggling learners through phonological awareness and phonics. However, it wasn’t until 2014, after attending LETRS training, that I understood the “why”. I can testify that my students who were receiving special education services for reading, I was their special education teacher, made tremendous growth following the Science of Reading instruction they received. They became successful readers and many tested out of their eligibility. I don’t believe this was because I was the world’s greatest teacher, but because I was teaching them that words are broken into sounds and those sounds have graphemes that represent them in the written word. We should not be in Reading Wars with each other, we should be doing whatever it takes to make children successful, strong readers. If what we thought was right we now know was wrong, then we need to change. Kids learning to read should not be determined by who has a product to sell.

These companies would be FAR better served by simply adjusting their curriculum to incorporate a strong foundation of phonics. Put 90% of the focus on early literacy, primarily decoding, on phonics. THEN, apply the cueing strategies to reading comprehension later in the curriculum. I haven’t seen research that shows that cueing is effective for comprehension, but it makes a LOT more sense in that context.

If you do that, you can salvage your reputation, be part of the solution, and keep a lot of the work you’ve already done by incorporating cueing elsewhere.

You have a significant legacy advantage as a company (or as a professor) by virtue of your existing relationships, reputation, credentials, etc. If you make a shift toward a more science-based paradigm, you’ll likely be able to continue to succeed.

But if you fight this, and you try to ignore the evidence, and only make small tweaks to the curriculum and hope you can weather the storm, it is very likely that your revenues and support will slowly erode, and eventually you will be replaced by start-ups that achieve better results without charging as much. In the case of academics, you will gain the reputation of someone behind the times who cares more about never admitting fault than you do about teaching children how to read.

Take a look at the comments section. This defensive approach will not work. It may have done so before the pandemic, but too many parents have now seen first-hand that your systems are failing their children. And based on the many replies from teachers, it seems like even the people who were exhaustively taught your approach are rebelling.

Your products are very expensive. A school district faced with an angry group of parents asking specifically why the district is buying your product and spending so much on it will move very quickly indeed. You are used to working in a sclerotic industry that changes very gradually, and where dominant players are almost never displaced. As a result, you are likely predisposed to be conservative and unwilling to make fundamental changes. That has made sense in the past. But once consumers see you as the problem (even though there are many causes for poor literacy rates), and given that it seems that your boots on the ground (teachers) are rapidly becoming skeptical of your approach, your brand could quickly become unfixably toxic.

Politicians know that they can score a lot of points by improving education outcomes for children. If they perceive that it will be an easy and uncontroversial win to replace your curriculum with a phonics approach, you could lose massive market share very quickly.

Think about this calmly and carefully. There is a win-win available. If you make foundational shifts to the curriculum, you can very easily say that you are “changing with the science” and tout the improved literacy rates of your new approach as evidence that school districts shouldn’t make the huge effort that would be required to totally replace your products.

If instead you try to make a few small, or even just moderate, changes to seem like you’re listening, but it doesn’t improve outcomes, you are risking everything. Not just your bottom line, but your reputation. You’ll be seen (fairly or not) as the villains responsible for hurting millions and millions of children.

In response to a previous comment about research on “cueing” as a teaching strategy, I am reminded of a country and western song about looking for something in all the wrong places. The research on using the subsystems of language as cues for linguistic comprehension is found in the research on second language acquisition and second language reading in studies on language and literacy learning of multilingual learners. The construct that researchers investigate in these academic disciplines is termed “lexical inferencing.” There is a vast body of research in second language acquisition and second language reading research on what is termed “lexical inferencing” that addresses how L2 learners use context (in both listening and reading) to make meaning, build vocabulary, etc. The research points out that L1 readers who are reading in their L2 have an advantage because they have already developed the metacognitive strategies for meaning-making that they can apply to both word form and semantics in comprehending unfamiliar words. In these fields of research, lexical inferencing is treated in the research literature as a valuable and practical skill/ strategy enhances both metalinguistic and metacognitive to support comprehension. Lexical inferencing strategies are transferable from L1 reading to L2 reading for bilingual readers. See the compilation of relevant research in this volume.

Haastrup, K. (2009). Research on the lexical inferencing process and its outcomes. In M. B. Wesche & T. S. Paribakht (Eds.), Lexical inferencing in a first and second language: Cross-linguistic dimensions (pp. 3-30). Multilingual Matters.

Obviously, Emily Hanford in producing her “Sold a Story” podcast did not consult the multidisciplinary research on her “cueing” straw man. This is because to do so would have debunked her theory that what she calls “cueing” for her own purposes is an ineffective teaching strategy for enhancing decoding and comprehension in reading instruction. Educators must challenge the competence of journalists to make judgments about instructional strategies in light of their lack of knowledge of the wide-ranging multidisciplinary research base for effective language and literacy instruction.