This month the literacy world was rocked by a new podcast by Emily Hanford (2022) called Sold a Story. Hanford’s podcast is a deep look at how reading has been taught in the US for the past forty years using the cuing system, and why that system persisted for so long even though there is scientific research proving that it is not an effective way for students to learn how to read. Specifically, Hanford focuses on a publishing company and its most popular authors who made lots of money selling their programs that were based on the cuing system. What is referred to as the “Science of Reading” has been around for a long time now. It is not new research! It represents decades of scientific research across multiple disciplines that show how the human brain learns to read.
Did you know that human brains are wired for speech but not for reading? If a human is exposed to spoken language they will pick it up and learn to speak. The same is not true for print. Print is a relatively new invention in human history, and our brains are not wired to be skilled readers without explicit instruction. The whole language movement believed that if children were just exposed to lots of print, lots of vocabulary and background knowledge they would learn to read. Similarly to how a child learns to speak by being surrounded by spoken language. Some kids will learn to read with little explicit instruction and it may appear that the whole language approach worked. However, the majority of children will not just “pick it up” through exposure and limited instruction. Research shows that 60% of students need explicit, systematic, sequential instruction in researched elements of reading, and 100% of students can benefit from this type of instruction (Young, 2018). So why don’t we teach kids to read in this way? This leads us back to Sold a Story.
Essentially what happened is that the science of reading was stifled and politicized. It was shunted to the side in favor of an idealistic vision of children cozied up with books and developing a love for reading, which is basically what the Reader’s Workshop model does. That paints a pretty picture, but it doesn’t actually teach kids how to read. This workshop approach is often referred to as “balanced literacy.” Wexler described balanced literacy as “a philosophy that promises to balance phonics instruction with literature that instills a love of reading (2022).” The problem is that balanced literacy has not been very balanced. It often incorporates only shallow phonics instruction and focuses more on teaching the cuing system strategies for contextual guessing, and students are still not able to actually decode. It is hard to foster a love of reading when you can’t actually read the words.
I am passionate about literacy and it was heartbreaking to listen to the stories of children who were not being taught to read! Interestingly, the pandemic helped to shed a light on this issue as parents were supporting their kids in the virtual classroom and getting a first-hand look at how reading was (or wasn’t) being taught. It is frustrating that the science of reading, and instructional approaches that align with the science, is not being taught to pre-service teachers. Reading scores have not improved much in the US over the past 30 years according to NAEP data, so clearly it’s time for something to change (NAEP, 2022). I think proponents of balanced literacy and the science of reading need to unite and work together to do what is best for kids. There is no need for a “reading war.” The research is clear about what kids need to be successful readers.
Many schools and districts are making efforts to incorporate science of reading based instruction. Several states are also now passing legislation mandating the use of curricula that aligns with the science of reading. These are positive moves in the right direction! The challenge now is equipping teachers with the knowledge and best practices that they need to be effective, while eliminating some of the harmful practices of the past. One example of a best practice would be providing students with decodable text that only presents them with words using skills they have already learned up to that point, rather than leveled predictable text where guessing strategies are inevitable because kids haven’t learned the skills to actually decode all of the words in the leveled books.
While Sold a Story may sound like it’s all about phonics, skilled reading requires more than just phonics, and the science of reading shows us what other skills effective readers need. The instructional components should be integrated throughout a program. Ideally, we should be building phonemic awareness, fluency practice, vocabulary development, comprehension and even writing into our phonics instruction while conversely, transferring phonics skills to all content areas. When we do this, I believe we will start to see true gains in student reading ability. My goal is to continue to raise awareness of the science of reading and show others how it can be applied in practice. Listening to Sold a Story is a great tool to illustrate the need for change. 10/10 recommend!
References
Assessments – reading: NAEP. Assessments – Reading | NAEP. (2022, November 14). Retrieved November 22, 2022, from https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/reading/
Hanford, E., & Peak, C. (2022, October 20). Sold a story: How teaching kids to read went so wrong. Special Projects from APM Reports. Retrieved November 22, 2022, from https://features.apmreports.org/sold-a-story/
Wexler, N. (2022, October 20). New podcast examines why teachers have been ‘Sold A Story’ on reading instruction. Forbes. Retrieved November 22, 2022, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/nataliewexler/2022/10/20/new-podcast-examines-why-teachers-have-been-sold-a-story-on-reading-instruction/?sh=30c44fca76b0.
Young, N. (2018). Ladder of reading infographic: structured literacy helps all students.
https://dyslexiaida.org/ladder-of-reading-infographic-structured-literacy-helps-all-students/
Facilitation Innovation 
One response to “Sold a Story”
[…] in education has good intentions and wants the best for students. However, there are certainly things that need to change. I am working hard in my professional life to eradicate illiteracy and revolutionize […]
LikeLike