Get important education news and analysis delivered straight to your inbox
In the debate over Emily Hanford’s podcast “Sold a Story,” two groups have been vocal: those who agree that teachers have been conned into believing most children learn to read without systematic phonics instruction; and those who, like the 58 educators who signed a letter to the editor of the Hechinger Report, respond that Hanford has “reduce[d] the teaching of reading to phonics.”
But there’s a third perspective that needs to be heard if all children are to become fully literate.
Related: Reading Matters: Read Hechinger’s reporting on literacy
I disagree with the contention that Hanford has reduced reading instruction to phonics. She’s acknowledged that comprehension is important. And she deserves enormous credit for revealing that standard instructional methods have left many children unable to decode words.
But I agree with the letter writers that there’s more to the story than Hanford’s podcasts cover. I just don’t think we agree on what that is.
Those who signed the letter ask for “stories of school districts and educators who have seen incredible success using comprehensive approaches to reading instruction.” Given that Lucy Calkins is one of the letter’s signatories, I suspect they mean approaches that include methods of teaching reading comprehension and writing that Calkins herself has long promoted. (Disclosure: The Hechinger Report is an independent unit of Teachers College, Columbia University, where Calkins and several other signatories to the letter serve as professors.)
My view is that those approaches have failed, leaving untold numbers of children not only unable to decode but also unable to understand complex text or express themselves coherently in writing. I believe we need to hear more about that part of the story, which is inextricably connected to schools’ failure to teach decoding.
For students to become fully literate, we need to be informed about all the fundamental flaws in a tightly woven system of literacy instruction. If schools get the idea that all they need to do is switch to a new phonics program, they’re going to be in for a shock when it becomes apparent that students at higher grade levels still can’t understand what they’re expected to read or write well about it.
Related: Inside the podcast that reignited the reading wars
Given that Hanford has now devoted about eight hours of audio to reading — counting her four previous hour-long documentaries, including one ostensibly on comprehension — it’s surprising she hasn’t at least mentioned problems with comprehension instruction that have long been identified by reading experts.
The standard approach, which Calkins’ materials support, is to have students spend hours every day practicing reading comprehension “skills and strategies,” like “making inferences” or “visualizing,” using books on random topics that are easy enough for them to read independently. The theory is that if children master comprehension skills, they can eventually use them to glean knowledge from any text they encounter.
But, as scientists have long known, the key factor in comprehension is knowledge, either of the topic or of general academic vocabulary. The best way to build that knowledge, beginning in the early elementary grades, is to immerse children in social studies, science, and the arts — the very subjects that have been marginalized to make more time for comprehension skill practice.
As for writing, the usual approach — which Calkins pioneered — is to have children write freely at length beginning in kindergarten, either about their personal experience or topics in a separate writing curriculum. But if students aren’t writing about the content of the core curriculum, they’re missing an opportunity to cement new knowledge — the kind of knowledge that fuels reading comprehension. Research has shown that writing about content in any subject boosts learning.
And if students aren’t explicitly taught how to construct complex sentences, the syntax of written language can also be a serious barrier to comprehension. Once they learn to use a word like “despite” or a construction like a subordinating conjunction in their own writing, they’re far more likely to understand it when they encounter it in text.
One reason for our flawed system of literacy instruction is that we’ve used “reading” to cover two very different things: decoding and comprehension. Professor Alan Kamhi has proposed redefining the word to simply mean decoding. That, he argues, would “focus attention on the true crisis in American education: knowledge deficits.”
If standardized reading tests were limited to measuring decoding ability, schools might abandon the futile attempt to teach reading comprehension as an abstract skill and spend more time on subjects like history and science—and help students understand the texts they read in those classes.
Alternatively, we could start talking about the “science of literacy” instead of the science of reading, signaling a broader focus. Before students are fluent readers, the most efficient way for them to acquire the knowledge that fuels reading comprehension is through listening and speaking.
It’s been found that, on average, students’ listening comprehension exceeds their reading comprehension through about age 13. If teachers read aloud from a series of texts on the same topic, ideally as part of a content-rich curriculum designed to build knowledge, students will hear the same concepts and vocabulary repeatedly, enabling them to retain the information.
Studies indicate that they’ll then be able to read about that topic at a higher level — and presumably write better about it too.
Educators have indeed been “sold a story,” but not just a story about how children learn to read words. There’s less research on comprehension and writing instruction than on phonics, but if we cast the net beyond “reading” research, it’s clear that what schools are doing in those other areas also conflicts with science — and leaves many high school graduates functionally illiterate.
Natalie Wexler is the author of “The Knowledge Gap: The Hidden Cause of America’s Broken Education System” and co-author of “The Writing Revolution: A Guide to Advancing Thinking Through Writing in All Subjects and Grades.”
At The Hechinger Report, we publish thoughtful letters from readers that contribute to the ongoing discussion about the education topics we cover. Please read our guidelines for more information. We will not consider letters that do not contain a full name and valid email address. You may submit news tips or ideas here without a full name, but not letters.
By submitting your name, you grant us permission to publish it with your letter. We will never publish your email address. You must fill out all fields to submit a letter.
Thank you Natalie. Love to see a broader perspective on reading/literacy development and instruction. In addition to phonics, comprehension and writing, how about us tapping into and sharing the research on vocabulary, reading fluency, motivation, parental/family involvement and partnerships, summer reading loss, etc. with the larger community.
As a parent of three teens who all attended or currently attend public schools, and as a private dyslexia tutor who has been teaching reading, spelling, grammar and writing since 2013, I believe that the key problem is that schools are trying to do too much and subsequently, failing miserably at the basics which all students desperately need.
This failure cuts across racial, ethnic and socioeconomic demographics and hopefully, has now become a battle cry for ALL parents. For the 1 in 5 students with dyslexia, it is an unmitigated disaster.
I took on teaching my now 17-year-old son how to read and spell in 2nd grade when it was glaring apparent in 2012 that his teacher, who has a master’s degree in literacy, was ill-equipped to do so. In the fall of 2019 while in 8th grade before the Covid shutdowns, my son was reading at an 11th grade level thanks to the intensive instruction I provided which began with fundamental, accurate word-level reading.
All of the other issues you cogently described ARE important, but it is truly a “cart before the horse” phenomenon and until schools actually teach students how to decode and to do that well, nothing else matters.
It is so important that we pay attention to every student’s proficiencies in BOTH listening comprehension AND decoding.
Here is some recent research that demonstrates the power of providing instruction and practice from BOTH the bottom-up (e.g., transcription) AND the top-down (knowledge building through listening, discussing, and engaging in “close reading”)…”in tandem”!
Harris, K.R., Kim, Y-S., Yim, S., Camping, A., and Graham, S. (2023). Yes, They Can: Developing Transcription Skills and Oral Language in Tandem with SRSD Instruction on Close Reading of Science Text to Write Informative Essays At Grades 1 and 2, Contemporary Educational Psychology
I’m an English language specialist in a high poverty dual language school in Mpls. Mn. I’ve presented at WIDA national language conferences using my methods for reading and writing comprehension for ELLs. I’ve held the belief for many years that students need explicit laser focused instruction on word level, sentence level and discourse level comprehension. I’ve advocated for streamlining and modifying our districts (Lucy Calkins) reading and writing curriculums so better serve the needs of our large ELL population. At the moment, I would like to develop a elementary model that better integrates reading, writing, social studies and science. This thoughtful integration could enrich all students’ in multiple areas of learning. classroom teachers, in turn, would have more time in their schedules to develop small group differentiated lessons. I’m wondering if you have any recommendations for integrated models at the elementary level. I’m also interested in promoting my practices for ELL comprehension strategies. My strategies are based on functional linguistics theory and I’ve had significant success in ELL growth. Please let me know if you’d like me to share my website which has online PD for ELL teachers imbedded in it. Thank you for you time,
Richfield public schools
Submit a letter