Several states have endorsed legislation requiring teachers to use “the science of reading” in their classrooms. Only the “science of reading.” The legislators, of course, know nothing about teaching reading but they have it on good authority (reports in the media) that there is only one correct way to teach reading, so they feel it is appropriate to mandate that way and ban other ways.
As someone living in New York City, I don’t know whether to laugh or groan. In 2002, Michael Bloomberg, the new mayor, took control of the New York City public schools. He selected attorney Joel Klein as the city’s all-powerful chancellor. A year later, after much deliberation, Klein and Bloomberg announced a single citywide curriculum in reading and mathematics. With the exception of a few high-performing schools, all teachers were required to teach Balanced Literacy. Phonics advocates howled but they were dismissed. Any teacher who taught reading during the three terms of Mayor Bloomberg was mandated to teach Balanced Literacy.
But now, Balanced Literacy is out, and phonics is in. Are there new longitudinal studies showing the success of one and the failure of the other? No, but there is a new zeitgeist, and Americans are always ready to rally around the latest cure-all.
Some states are not only mandating “the science of reading,” but banning Balanced Literacy and its practices. Louisiana banned the use of three-cuing in 2022. In North Carolina, the General Assembly also banned the use of “three-cuing.” Three-cuing is a feature of Balanced Literacy.
As of last October, three-cuing has been banned in Arkansas, Indiana, Florida, Texas, Ohio, and Kansas.
What is three-cuing? The definition in Louisiana is quoted at the end of this post.
In addition, three states have banned the program called Reading Recovery: Arkansas, Louisiana, and Indiana.
I have not seen evaluations or experimental evidence proving that students read better and comprehend better if teachers use only one instructional strategy and no other. The fourth grade scores in states that hold back third graders with low scores are proof of nothing, other than the certainty that scores go up when low-scoring students are not in the testing pool.
Suppose a first-grade reading teacher is fully onboard with phonics; suppose she does everything exactly by the book and is devoted to everything associated with “the science of reading”? This otherwise blameless teacher must take care not to show students how to use context cues! If she does so, she has broken the law! Will she be subject to prosecution and imprisonment for using the wrong method?
There has been a vigorous campaign to install phonics as the best way to teach reading. I repeat for the nth time that I’ve always been a proponent of phonics. I remember when Balanced Literacy became a national fad in the 1980s and 1990s; every publisher endorsed it (except Open Court). And I opposed it because I typically look skeptically on fads, movements, and panaceas.
The struggle between phonics and “whole word” methods has been ongoing since the 1830s. The pendulum swings back and forth. Now, everything from the big publishers will be decodable. Wherever Rudolf Fleisch may be, he is very happy (he wrote a book in the 1950s called Why Johnny Can’t Read, calling for a revival of phonics, which had been replaced by the Dick and Jane readers and the “look-say” method).
But it’s irresponsible to pass laws banning other ways of teaching! Wouldn’t it be wise to wait for some solid results before declaring that there is one and only one way to teach reading?
My view: Teachers should be prepared to teach phonics and other methods. No instructional method should be banned. Teachers should know a variety of teaching strategies and do what’s best for the children in front of them.
Three-cuing as defined in Louisiana law:
Act 517 of the 2022 Louisiana Legislative Session prohibits the use of the three-cueing system, or the MSV technique, in curriculum and instructional materials. This approach has been proven ineffective by empirical research in teaching students to read. This guidance document provides an explanation of what the three-cueing system is, what to look for when identifying these strategies in curricular materials, why it is not best for students learning to read, and what instructional strategies are proven effective for teaching students to read and comprehend.
What is the “Three-Cueing System?”
The three cueing system is an approach to foundational skills instruction that involves the use of three different types of instructional cues: semantic (gaining meaning from context and sentence-level cues), syntactic or grammatical features, and grapho-phonic (spelling patterns). When students encounter words that they cannot read automatically, they are prompted to question themselves using the following three questions: Does it look right? Does it sound right? Does it make sense?
At the earliest stages of learning to read, students are prompted to default to semantic or syntactic cues before attempting to use grapho-phonic cues. Students are encouraged to use illustrations to “guess” the meaning of words in predictably-written texts.
As part of the three-cueing system, teachers analyze student reading errors using the “MSV” technique and seek to determine if reading errors are related to “meaning, structure, or visual” issues. If students’ errors are meaning-related, the teacher will focus instructional efforts on supporting a student in using semantic cues to read passages. If the issues are related to structure, the teacher will focus on supporting students’ use of syntactic cues, and if the errors are visual, the teacher will prompt students to use grapho-phonic strategies.
As evidence mounts against the three-cueing system, many programs no longer refer to this instructional approach using this terminology, so identifying three-cueing in curricular resources requires careful observation of the strategies used to guide students as they learn to read.
When Might I See “Three-Cueing?”
The three-cueing approach is most-often found during foundational skills instruction in grades K-2. Some of the common prompts associated with this approach – “Does this make sense?” or “Look at the picture” – can be appropriate in other instructional contexts, such as when a student is encouraged to use illustrations to support deeper comprehension of stories, or when students are monitoring their own reading, but they are not effective strategies or prompts for teaching students to read words on a page. Instead of relying on multiple, varied cues, students should instead be consistently prompted to decode words using learned spelling and syllabication patterns.
As the three-cueing approach typically involves teachers prompting students to use different cues, this type of instruction is often found in small-group or individual settings.
It is a hallmark of “Balanced Literacy.”
So who’s going to write the article, “Why Can’t Donald Read?”
Paul Bonner,
Love the question. Donald is not a reader. Last night, his former national security advisor John Bolton said it would be very dangerous if he were in office during an international crisis. He said: Trump has a very short attention span. He doesn’t know world history. He is not interested in foreign affairs. He only cares about how he is portrayed in the press.
My view: Teachers should be prepared to teach phonics and other methods. No instructional method should be banned. Teachers should know a variety of teaching strategies and do what’s best for the children in front of them
I agree totally.
It is true in all areas of teaching….one should be prepared to teach a variety of styles, methods, pedagogies, etc. We have read for years on this blog and in the comments, “one size does not fit all”. I learned mostly the “Dick and Jane, see Spot run” for reading. I am not a reading specialist, so I don’t really know if that had an impact on my dislike of reading for so many years. As I have mentioned before, it was my junior year English teacher who ignited the spark and I have not looked back. Thank you, Mr. Rasmussen.
Sosberg1701, when I learned to read, my teachers used “Dick and Jane,” but I think they supplemented it with phonics. I love to read. I always have. Reading is freedom.
Well said! My diverse district got excellent results from our balanced literacy program. The district invested a great deal to train us and gave us the resources to do a good job. My school was awarded a Blue Ribbon from the DOE for our improved efforts. Nobody micromanaged us, but we were well trained, and some of us were certified in reading like myself or in special education. I modified some of instruction to better address the needs of my ELLs in my ESL/ENL classes, and nobody chastised me for adapting some aspects of the program. There was no balanced literacy gestapo policing the teachers. Students of all socioeconomic backgrounds learned to love books and reading. Reading was viewed a joyful, thoughtful, engaging experience. Balanced literacy also reinforced writing and thinking as students responded to texts verbally and in writing. A well implemented balanced literacy program can be highly effective that can encourage students to become life long readers and critical thinkers. However, as Diane states, there are many different ways to teach reading, and wise teachers will take their cues from students.
I was saddened to see NYSUT, the New York state teachers union, jumping on the “science of reading” bandwagon with the governor. Politicians and unions should not be endorsing pedagogy. School districts and teachers should be making those type of decisions, particularly when there is zero evidence that “the science of reading” is superior to other approaches. https://www.nysut.org/news/2024/january/reading
Even if it was proven to be “superior,” what does that mean? No looking at pictures? No asking what is going on? No asking if something makes sense? Just keep sounding out those words. That’s why I read! I love the sound of a well decoded word! As a special education teacher, I more than understood the importance of phonics instruction for some children, but I caught their interest in reading with content.
The legislators, of course, know nothing about teaching…
No matter how many times this point is made,
the State still controls credentialing
(licensing, registrations and certifications),
STATE ACTORS.
A fish rots from the head down, and
it’s the head that calls the shots. If you
want to be paid in the state fish pond,
you do what the rotten head tells you
to do.
Doing wrong (giving tests) with a “good”
heart, is still doing wrong.
The legislators, of course, know nothing about teaching…
“Doing wrong (giving tests) with a “good”
heart, is still doing wrong.”
Exactly, NB!
Doing the Wrong Thing Righter
The proliferation of educational assessments, evaluations and canned programs belongs in the category of what systems theorist Russ Ackoff describes as “doing the wrong thing righter. The righter we do the wrong thing,” he explains, “the wronger we become. When we make a mistake doing the wrong thing and correct it, we become wronger. When we make a mistake doing the right thing and correct it, we become righter. Therefore, it is better to do the right thing wrong than the wrong thing right.”
And to whom is that wrong being done?
The innocent children who have no defense against the standards and testing malpractice regime. It’s a slaughterhouse.
I’m now receiving SoR spam. There’s the problem, $$&.
I believe you were the one who put me onto NEPC’s report in Sept 2022, The Science of Reading Movement: The Never-Ending Debate and the Need for a Different Approach to Reading Instruction. It was spot on. One of the most reasoned and sensible approaches to teaching reading I’ve come across. https://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/science-of-reading
Jody, yes.
Paul Thomas from Furman University has tons of research on his blog about the Science of Reading. Check it out. Experienced teachers know how to teach reading. They use a variety of strategies because students learn in various ways. That’s why we need experienced teachers.
AGREE with Legislatures Should Not Mandate How to Teach or Ban Instructional Strategies
Let me state this again, “Legislatures Should Not Mandate How to Teach or Ban Instructional Strategies.”
Legislatures know NOTHING about teaching and learning. DUH…
So sick of education being a political football game.
This mandating what and how teachers should go about their jobs is part and parcel of undermining the professionalism of the real experts. Just cause folks went to school doesn’t mean they know anything about teaching.
In the same vein, here’s the NYT with another execrable article about the impacts of the covid pandemic on learning – uh, I mean on test scores. Their experts are NWEA, a test publisher, Margaret Spellings, HGSE’s Tom Kane, Erik Hanushek at the Hoover Institute, and a North Carolina administrator who thinks paying teachers $40 an hour over the summer turned around student performance (NC ranks 34th in teacher salary).
Oh the handwringing!
And what if students never catch up?
While test scores are just one measure, lower achievement in eighth grade has real impact in adulthood. It is associated with lower lifetime earnings, as well as a higher risk of unemployment and incarceration, research has shown.
At this rate, the United States will have a less skilled work force in the future, leading to lower economic output, said Eric Hanushek, an education economist at the Hoover Institution…
Students in the vast middle — some who may otherwise have become nurses or electricians, for example — could lose opportunities to establish middle-class lives. Community college enrollment is down from 2019.
No paywall:
I have always hated how the perfectly respectable term strategy is used in education. There, it is used for ANY TECHNIQUE THAT A STUDENT APPLIES TO ACHIEVE ANY END. The term was borrowed from business, which in turn borrowed it from military planning, and in both business and the military, it refers to a grand, overall, over-arching plan for accomplishing a major goal. So, a military strategy might be to weaken the enemy from within by dividing its loyalties. A strategy in business might be to increase profit margins by positioning one’s product as a high-end, luxury one and selling it at a premium. A small thing that one does to achieve an immediate goal is not called a strategy. It’s a tactic. THIS OFTEN HAPPENS IN EDUCATION. People half hear what others are saying and then adopt a term and use it incorrectly based on that misunderstanding. So, for example, in business, a benchmark is a measured standard of excellence set by one manufacturer’s product. For example, the shortest read-write time for a hard drive might be a benchmark for other hard drive manufacturers to meet. But education folk adopted the term and gave it the meaning, “any interim measurement,” as in “We will be giving benchmark tests halfway through the semester.” The term data refers to results from observation and/or experimental study that are both reliable (replicable) and valid (actually measure what they purport to measure). The results of state ELA and Math tests are neither reliable nor valid and so do not rise to the level of “data.” A standardized test is one for which the raw scores go through a mathematical process to convert them to standard scores that measure distance from the mean in terms of number of standard deviations. Standardized tests have gone through a normalizing process involving at least one representative norm-reference group. The invalid state tests given in ELA and Math, mandated by the federal government, have been subjected to no such standardization process and so are not, technically, standardized tests. So, edupundits even misuse terms that originated within their own field!!! Such misuses of language destroy distinctions that are valuable and indicate sloppy thinking on the part of edupundits, who tend to be constantly looking for the next magic elixir to peddle on the Midway this carnival season and so share this in common with Jabba the Trump, aka King Con.
I, too, grew up with Dick and Jane. I cannot remember one iota about how instruction went. I do know that as a class, we would walk to the county library and get to choose books in which we were interested. My parents also purchased books for our home. I devoured all of them. This made all the difference.
My own children, I would surmise, learned to read on the laps of a grandmother and their mother. My son could read by the time he got to school and was terribly frustrated in first grade by phonics, having to deal with nonsense like “the jar is on the car” – he would bring home worksheets covered in red ink .I still remember his frustrations (he just turned 44). He did not learn to love books.
Bottom line is we need to use methods that best fit the student or the situation. Sometimes that may simply be offering encouragement and getting out of the way.
In the middle of the last century, we were using what is known as the “Look-Say” method for teaching kids to decode texts. This method was enshrined in such curricula as the Dick and Jane readers. The method was based on a now-discredited Behaviorist theory that saw language learning as repeated exposure to increasingly complex language stimuli paired with ostensive objects (in the case of the Dick and Jane readers, with illustrations). See Dick run. Dick runs fast. See, see, how fast Dick runs. The theory of language learning by mere association of the stimulus and its object dates all the way back to St. Augustine, who wrote in his Confessions:
When grown-ups named some object and at the same time turned towards it, I perceived this, and I grasped that the thing was signified by the sound they uttered, since they meant to point it out. . . . In this way, little by little, I learnt to understand what things the words, which I heard uttered in their respective places in various sentences, signified. And once I got my tongue around these signs, I used them to express my wishes.[1]
It’s an intuitive theory, like the theory that moving objects use up their force until they stop, but like that theory, it’s wrong. Look-Say was a flawed approach because it was based on a false theory of how language was acquired. The fullest exposition of that flawed theory can be found in B.F. Skinner’s Verbal Behavior (1957). In 1959, Noam Chomsky, who has done more than anyone to create a true science of language learning, delivered a devastating blow to Behaviorist theories of language learning in a seminal review of Skinner’s book. Basically, Chomsky described aspects of language, such as its embedded recursiveness and infinite generativity, that, like jazz improvisation, cannot be explained solely on the basis of responses to stimuli.
Thank you for the lesson. My comment was not an endorsement of my learning to read experience – I was trying to relate that it was forgettable. I am just happy that it did not make me miserable like my son’s experience with phonics instruction.
The current swing back to phonics-based instruction frightens me in that in the wrong hands it becomes a hammer that keeps focusing on the sight-sound aspect and robs kids of the chance to experience literature in its full glory. It can take the humanness out of reading.
Oh, no. I didn’t read it as an endorsement at all. Quite the contrary. I was just providing more info for the general readership of the blog. Sorry that I did not make that clear. It was obvious from what you said that those trips to the library and your parents’ care for your reading experiences were what mattered!!! Same here. So, while I’m at it:
THANKS, MOM! For all the books and for all the trips to the library!!!!
I have in my home, Mr. Corely, some framed pages from the original Dick and Jane Big Books. I treasure these relics from this misbegotten Behaviorist pedagogy. You were fortunate that your teachers did not have to adhere solely and slavishly to that curriculum but also encouraged reading on your own. It’s extremely important for kids to have books of their own. If Bill Gates actually cared about education, rather than about growing his monopoly, he would stop meddling in our curricula and pedagogy and make sure that every poor kid in the U.S. got free books to call his or her own.
What comes around, goes around.