Nick Covington taught social studies for a decade. He recently decided to delve into the mystique of “the science of reading.” He concluded that we have been “sold a story.”
He begins:
Literacy doesn’t come in a box, we’ll never find our kids at the bottom of a curriculum package, and there can be no broad support for systemic change that excludes input from and support for teachers implementing these programs in classrooms with students.
Exactly one year after the final episode of the podcast series that launched a thousand hot takes and opened the latest front of the post-pandemic Reading Wars, I finally dug into Emily Hanford’s Sold A Story from American Public Media. Six episodes later, I’m left with the ironic feeling that the podcast, and the narrative it tells, missed the point. My goal with this piece is to capture the questions and criticisms that I have not just about the narrative of Sold A Story but of the broader movement toward “The Science of Reading,” and bring in other evidence and perspectives that inform my own. I hope to make the case that “The Science of Reading” is not a useful label to describe the multiple goals of literacy; that investment in teacher professionalization is inoculation against being Sold A Story; and that the unproductive and divisive Reading Wars actually make it more difficult for us to think about how to cultivate literate kids. The podcast, and the Reading Wars it launched, disseminate an incomplete and oversimplified picture of a complex process that plasters over the gaps with feverish insistence.
Sold a Story is a podcast that investigates the ongoing Reading Wars between phonics, whole language, balanced literacy, and “The Science of Reading.” Throughout the series, listeners hear from teachers who felt betrayed by what school leaders, education celebrities, and publishers told them was the right way to teach, only to later learn they had been teaching in ways deemed ineffective. The story, as I heard it, was that teachers did their jobs to the best of their personal ability in exactly the ways incentivized by the system itself. In a disempowered profession, the approaches criticized in the series offered teachers a sense of aspirational community, opportunities for training and professional development, and the prestige of working with Ivy League researchers. Further, they came with material assets – massive classroom libraries and flexible seating options for students, for example – that did transform classroom spaces.
Without the critical toolkit and systemic support to evaluate claims of effectiveness, and lacking collective power to challenge the dictates of million dollar curriculum packages, teachers taught how they were instructed to teach using the resources they were required to use. And given the scarcity of educational resources at the disposal of most individual teachers, it’s easy to see why they embraced such a visible investment in reading instruction. Instead of seeing teachers in their relation to systemic forces – in their diminished roles as curriculum custodians – Hanford instead frames teachers who participated in these methods as having willingly bought into a cult of personality, singing songs and marching under the banners of Calkins and Clay; however, Hanford also comes up short in offering ways this story could have gone differently or will go differently in the future.
A key objective of Sold A Story is to communicate to listeners that “The Science of Reading” is the only valid, evidence-based way to teach kids to read and borders on calling other approaches a form of educational malpractice, inducing a unique pedagogical injury. In the wake of Sold A Story, “The Science of Reading” itself has been co-opted as a marketing and branding label. States and cities have passed laws requiring “The Science of Reading,” sending school leaders scrambling to purchase new programs and train teachers to comply with the new prescription.
In May 2023, the mayor of New York City announced “a tectonic shift” in reading instruction for NYC schools. The change required school leaders to choose from one of three pre-approved curriculum packages provided by three different publishing companies. First-year training for the new curriculum was estimated to cost $35 million, but “city officials declined to provide an estimate of the effort’s overall price tag, including the cost of purchasing materials.” NYC Schools also disbanded their in-house literacy coaching program over the summer to contract instead with outside companies to provide coaching. It’s hard not to conclude that the same publishing ecosystem that sold school leaders and policy-makers on the previous evidence-based reading curriculum – and that Hanford condemns in the podcast – is happy to meet their current needs in the marketplace. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Now, months into the new school year and just weeks before Winter Break, how is the hurried rollout of the new reading curriculum going for NYC schools and teachers? One Brooklyn teacher told Chalkbeat they still hadn’t received the necessary training to use the new materials, “The general sentiment at my school is we’re being asked to start something without really knowing what it should look like, I feel like I’m improvising — and not based on the science of reading.” A third-grade teacher said phonics had not been the norm for her class, and that she hasn’t “received much training on how to deliver the highly regimented lessons.” Other teachers echo the sentiment of feeling rushed, hurried, and unprepared. One 30+ year veteran classroom teacher mentioned that she has “turned to Facebook groups when she has questions.” The chaotic back-and-forth was also recognized by many veteran teachers responding to the Chalkbeat piece on social media. One education and literacy coach commented, “I sometimes wonder how many curriculum variations I’ve seen in the last 3 decades – ’Here teachers [drops off boxed curriculum], now teach this way’ – hasn’t changed student outcomes across systems.”
Open the post to read Covington’s review of the research on phonics-based programs. No miracle. No impressive rise in test scores.
Most of my professional career has been devoted to debunking “miracles“ in education. Whole language was not a miracle cure. Neither is phonics.
Why not take the sensible route? Make sure that teachers know a variety of methods when they enter the profession. Let them do what they think is best for their students. Not following the fad of the day, but using their professional knowledge.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Governor DeWine Now A Reading Expert? (In the Chillicothe Gazette, et. al.)
By Jack Burgess
I saw in the news Gov. DeWine and his Republican legislature want to require Ohio’s teachers to use the “phonics” method of teaching reading. Sounding out each set of letters—it’s called the “science of reading.” Or is it pseudo-science? I was surprised, as I thought DeWine was probably too busy running the state to tell Ohio’s teachers how to teach. As far as I know he has zero experience in classroom teaching—whereas there are thousands of good teachers teaching reading right now, with most of them doing a terrific job—working around various obstacles put in their way.
Truth is, everybody’s experience in learning to read is a bit different. Some learn the way the governor wants to force all kids to learn—sounding out the letters of each word. Lots of us, though, learned with a mix of methods, sounding out some words, using pictures for others.
I remember learning to read. It was World War II—yes, I’m that old. Mom got me picture books of our “fighting men in action”—soldiers, sailors, tanks, planes. Pretty exciting stuff. I’d look at a picture and say “tank” or “plane,” very proud of myself. Turns out lots of kids learn that way.
Years later, teaching 7th graders, some of whom couldn’t read very well, I set up a remedial class during my conference period. I had about 10 kids in it, and they seemed to learn about 10 different ways. One summer, I taught reading to kids who really didn’t want to read and didn’t want to learn. So I turned the class into a bicycle repair shop, complete with manuals on bike repair. Somehow, kids who couldn’t read much before, found something they desperately wanted to read—so they did. Motivation is a huge factor in learning.
When I was chief negotiator for the Columbus teachers, I called a conference of elementary and reading teachers to see what we could do about improving reading. Most teachers said, “Reduce class size!” Hard to teach anything with 40 kids in a class. Others said hire aides to help with the paperwork. Nobody said, “Force everyone to use phonics.”
It’s too bad our Republican friends–who’ve been running the state for a while now—can’t fully fund the schools, as the Ohio Supreme Ct. ordered a couple of decades ago. They could fund schools if they’d stop giving away tax breaks and “incentives” to industry and the wealthy. When was the last time you got a tax break when you hired someone for home repairs? If you add a room on your house you’ll probably get a tax increase.
In fairness, both political parties have had a hand in sabotaging education in Ohio and the US. First they passed that testing-companies’ bonanza called “No Child Left Behind,” a noble goal, but not funded—except for subjecting America’s children and teachers to endless tests that get news headlines but don’t help Johnny learn. On top of that, they piled on new mandates called “Race to the Top.” How exactly kids could “race to the top” without leaving anyone behind has never been made clear. Then there’s the 3rd Grade Guarantee, by which kids “fail” and have to repeat a grade if they don’t pass a standardized reading test. This has been a big problem, because science and experience tells us that when kids are held back it can darn near ruin them educationally and psychologically. But these destructive tests have been a bonanza to the testing industries. And, with a predictable number of struggling kids failing to pass the arbitrary tests, it allowed the mainly-Republican critics of public schools to talk about our “failing” public schools.
Sad. I wish they’d stop using our schools and our wonderful kids as political footballs. Republican politicians: You want to see failure? Look in the mirror.
Jack Burgess taught history, English, and journalism, grades 7-12 in three Ohio school districts.
Reduce class size, yes! When I started teaching I had 38 kids in the class with varying reading levels and 4 reading groups. By the end of the day, I was spent and exhausted beyond belief trying to accommodate so many kids packed into a relatively small space.
Jack B, thanks for a great comment. Only one disagreement: NCLB was doomed to fail, no matter how much funding had been added. No nation in the world has 100% proficiency in reading and math, as NCLB required.
Agreed, Diane. I just said leaving no child behind is a noble goal, not that the program called NCLB was noble. I don’t think leaving “no child behind” was ever what the pols were really about. It was more about a pose–holding schools “accountable,” and such. As I recall, it followed on the heels of Education 2000 and the stuff about “every child will come to school ready to learn,” which everybody knew was not going to happen–so teachers had to find ways to work with kids who weren’t ready to learn. Phonics, followed by a standardized test was not the answer, but Republicans were just trying to look like they were doing something, while “new” Democrats (think Clinton) were trying to look fiscally “responsible.” Etc. It was never about real kids, but about politics. There were some pols who meant well, but some of them–think Ted Kennedy–had gone to private, parochial schools, so they weren’t equipped to understand what real public schools were doing.
So right, Jack. Here’s the key thing: politicians give very little thought to education. It’s way down on their list of priorities. They easily fall for quick fixes, like high-stakes testing, charter schools, vouchers, “the science of reading,” because no one will see that it failed for the next ten years.
Who knows? George Bush, Jr., was and is dumb enough to believe almost anything, including the idea that all students could be made proficient by testing them more. But even he, dumb as he is, isn’t so stupid that he can stomach Donald Trump.
Jack Burgess: . . . nothing less than excellent. CBK
Given the breathtaking number of factors relevant to learning to read, almost none of which are ever controlled for in so-called “studies” of reading pedagogy and curricula, it’s necessary to take these studies with more than a grain of salt. Also, and this is REALLY important: kids differ. They differ A LOT. In their home lives. In their nutrition. In their experiences of the world and knowledge gained from these experiences. In the language they are exposed to. In their exposure in their home environments to sophisticated grammar and vocabulary. In the extent to which adults around them engage them in actual conversations. In their access to libraries and to fun experiences with books and with language (nursery rhymes, jump rope rhymes, skits and puppet shows, read alouds and read alongs with adults who love them. In their levels of security. In their exposure to abuse and violence. In their possession of children’s books of their own. In their developmental level (as opposed to their age). In their native intelligences. AND IN THEIR COGNITIVE FUNCTIONING.
ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL.
Teachers should always work to meet student needs, and not be subjugated to some canned program. In my second year of teaching French, I had a native French speaker in my beginning class. He did not need, “C’est une table.” I got French novels from the public library, assigned him chapters, had him respond in writing and met with him before school to discuss them. Likewise, some American kindergarten students enter school reading on a 3rd or 4th grade level. They don’t need to waste time on basic phonics. Teachers should start by assessing where the student is and plan accordingly, and, class size should be such that a teacher can group students based on needs.
Yes! Sorting elementary school students by birth year makes sense for physical education classes and the region of the playground at recess (if the world of high stakes testing has not obliterated recess) but is junk science for teaching things like reading and math. My dyslexic son was way above grade level in math and not at all presented with what he needed for discerning the identities of the printed word on the page.
Reading comprehension is a totally different thing. He could comprehend when hearing the material.
It is insufficiently understood that SOME KIDS ARE good enough at general pattern recognition (and unconscious rule mapping based on that) to learn to read on a parent’s lap without explicit instruction in phoneme/grapheme correspondences, and SOME KIDS AREN’T. I suspect that these are in part due to differences in brain construction and in developmental level. Many English and Reading teachers are/were of the former camp and so don’t grok that there are a LOT of kids who are not like them–who are in the latter camp.
Having recently guided a gifted reader through high school at an advanced age for a parent, I can personally attest to the truth of what you say. Not only was much of my daughter’s progression through reading intuitive, but her intuitive grasp of punctuation and basic style seems so as she gets older. It is just a complex process, and the overriding element that produces dividends is the motivation of finding delight in the written word. Similarly, the joy of personally discovering an expressive symbolism in reading is an ever-developing aspect of reading.
The other day she arrived at the perfect clothing for Laura in Tennessee Williams’ Glass Menagerie: a print dress that conjured images of china, emphasizing the fragility of the character. The sheer joy of finding that image was an obvious motivation to future learning. She was ecstatic. No basketball player ever celebrated a three pointer with any more emotion.
The point is that people do what they do because they love it. You want people to learn to read? Help them love it.
Roy,
Great point. Motivation of the learner is far more important than mandated methods.
Your final paragraph says it all. Trained teachers are versatile. They understand how to use a variety of materials and approaches to help students learn to read. Our students have varying needs, and competent teachers will determine the best way to help students become successful, fluent readers. A one size fits all approach is naive, inadequate and inefficient. Most of all we need to produce students that can think critically, discern fact from fiction and, hopefully, become life long readers.
If school districts feel that teachers need to know more about how to teach read, they should invest in teacher training and in-service workshops that will provide the staff with information on the teaching of reading and evidence based ways to better help their students. My diverse district provided teachers with training and guidance from reading teachers, and the results were impactful, not only in terms of scores, but also in terms of improved student interest in reading and writing.
Conveniently overlooked White Language Supremacy, as an apparatus of White Supremacy. Linguistic racism involves tugging on the leash, made of the standards of WHITE English, to bring those outside the proper English sandbox to heal…
NoBrick….you are so DEEP! Sometimes I don’t get what you’re saying, but when I do, it makes me chuckle.
I remember the whole language magic bullet fad that had no gunpowder in it. I was still teaching when the powers on high in a district that managed top down declared war against us teachers to force us to comply.
I protested and I wasn’t alone. Most of the teachers at that high school protested, even the ones that didn’t teach English. It took a few years before admin finally beat most of us into submission. Some of us, including me, never caved. Instead, we went underground and became stealth teachers since admin wasn’t in our classrooms when we were teaching.
Admin required us to turn in our weekly lesson plans each Friday for the next week so they could check that we were teaching the whole language BS as we were told. They even recruited students to spy on us. I was called in for that once. That didn’t stop me from doing what was wright.
I turned in my lesson plans like everyone else but continued teaching how I wanted in my classroom.
It was BS from the start and BS when it went out without a whimper. NO, we are sorry, you were all right. Not from those robber barons in admin.
A few years later, the district admin, who voted for Traitor Trump decades later, I’m sure, as quietly as possible, let us know we could drop the Whole Language BS. Of course, admin at the top, didn’t include the words for BS, but we did learn that standardized test scores had plummeted like a rock dropped from the top of a high rise for the years following the forced implementation for whole language.
Strange, the test scores for my students didn’t drop. Year to year results stayed about the same. I wonder why.
Whole language was an empty blank from the start. Stupid is as Stupid does.
“They even recruited students to spy on us. I was called in for that once.”
Both you and I (or is it me)-more than once.
I see that adminimals be adminimals everywhere, eh! (Is that proper standard White English, NoBrick? 😉 )
According to students, the principal at my last school recruited them to spy on teachers and report back to her. Sickening.
Some of the students would come back and tell me.
Yes, some told me about this as well. That’s how I knew. They also told me that it was widespread, that there were “spies” for almost every teacher.
Sad, eh, very sad.
Which was extremely creepy and undermined the authority of the teachers because, of course, kids talk, and what one kid knows, almost all of them end up knowing.
Bob/Duane/Lloyd: Recruiting students to spy on teachers. . . is to education what duplicity is to modeling character. CBK
Covington’s piece is important, but an excessive analysis of a simpler point: Reading and literacy are complex processes, not reducible to a specific method, not fully understood, and the object of chronic politicking and profiteering.
Disappointing – stunning – that he and others fail to account for the very different rates of development among children. Aiming any standard method or curriculum at a particular age group is bound to miss more children than it hits.
And any teaching that fails to account for the highly varied sensory and cognitive strengths of individuals is absurd.
Exactly so
“Why not take the sensible route? “
Who was it that said “Follow the money”?
Education by buzzword is the product of people who stand to reap financial rewards from the process. Top down reform dovetails nicely with the goals of those who want to make a lot of money at the public trough.
Amen, Diane.
Great heckle. LOL
“. . . and there can be no broad support for systemic change that excludes input from and support for teachers implementing these programs in classrooms with students.“
When in hell has any of the powers that be ever actually listened to the teachers who are required to implement the many malpractices that have been forced upon the public schools?
I dare say. . . NEVER!
This piece is spot-on. I was a victim of “speed reading” and it screwed me up for life. (Add “Maryland Math” to that.) The problem is broad: we don’t always attract the best and brightest because the entrance requirements at most colleges of education are far too low, their training is sometimes inferior (too easy to get an EdD, very few exceptional EdD programs (like UVA’s), the schools are underfunded and teachers’ pay too low due to state politics (male dominated), universities are top heavy with low-quality administrators/armchair intellects/theorists and not enough high quality teaching professors, the required courses in an education program are way too soft on content, and the list goes on and on and…….
Covington has a lot to offer.