Emily Hanford has brought attention to reading, including several new podcasts, Sold a Story, claiming children have been harmed for years by reading instruction. She singles out programs she says failed. The stories about children are compelling. But she leaves out some history, and I don’t think she’s ever critical of any of the many online reading programs that currently flood the market.
Emily’s quest to fix reading coincides with a movement for school privatization and replacing professional teaching with technology. So, the absence of her critiquing private and charter schools, online reading programs, or mentioning privacy concerns parents have about online data collected on children is worrisome.
I won’t debate the programs she criticizes. There’s enough about that on social media. And I’ve never used them, although I knew some parents who appreciated Reading Recovery, and a few who didn’t.
I don’t always disagree with her. All children deserve quality programs, especially those with dyslexia or reading disabilities, who will likely benefit from intensive phonics and work on fluency, vocabulary, comprehension, and more.
I do question a Science of Reading. I taught a resource class for many years and used phonics, have an M.Ed. in learning disabilities (when that was an area of study), so I see the advantage of its use for students with dyslexia or reading disabilities. But I also effectively used other reading methods.
I’d also agree that states and school districts have failed children with reading problems, but not always for the reasons Emily states. And I respectfully argue with some of what seems incorrect or ignored about her reports.
1. Common Core and Online Instruction
Conservative parents initially fought Common Core, including phonics standards that have dominated classrooms since 2010.
I’ve not heard Emily mention Common Core or its phonics, prominent since 2011 in online programs like iReady. The data collected on children and privacy concerns abound.
She and other Science of Reading promoters also do podcasts for Amplify, Rupert Murdoch’s online program acquired by Laurene Powell Jobs. There’s a lack of research on its success for students. I can only find a study by Amplify.
Tulsa teachers questioned Amplify, concerned about its age-inappropriateness.
2. IDEA
Since 1975 and the All Handicapped Children’s Act, teachers have struggled to better understand students with reading problems. Numerous policies have changed.
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 1998 and 2004 reauthorizations reduced special services to students with dyslexia and reading disabilities, placing most students in general classes, sometimes large, with little teacher support.
This leaves a wide range of reading abilities and difficulties in one class that one program won’t likely address. It isn’t fair to create a one-size fits all plan.
There’s a larger discussion here to lower class sizes.
3, NCLB
Emily’s writings seem pro-NCLB, but the twenty-year-old law drastically changed teaching, unrealistically raising kindergarten reading expectations (see Is Kindergarten the New First Grade?) and pushing high-stakes standardized tests on young children.
This is one of the main concerns I dislike a Science of Reading. Advocates seem to think this intensive phonics is warranted for all children in kindergarten.
Demanding formal reading instruction (any program) on early learners, even children with disabilities, seems developmentally unsound, although increasingly accepted, unfortunately. It reduces or eliminates play, proven to develop cognitive and critical social skills.
Parents might believe their child is deficient if they’re not reading by first grade, but first grade was always the year formal reading instruction began.
4. Public School Reform
There’s a huge problem in that many public schools have reneged on the promise to provide Free Appropriate Public Education to children with dyslexia and reading disabilities, like in Texas and the charter schools in New Orleans, which have lacked services for children for years.
Few politicians and policymakers ever wanted to adequately fund programs for students with disabilities.
Claiming a specific program or a way of teaching all children will eliminate reading problems might mean that children won’t get the individual or small group services they might need or that parents seek and appreciate in private schools.
5. Reading First
Emily’s third podcast glosses over President Bush’s Reading First ($6 billion in six years), focusing on Marie Clay and Reading Recovery and others. She leaves out much.
At the time, Columnist Anne C. Lewis said about Reading First in Phi Delta Kappan:
—in trying to sort out the U.S. Department of Education’s “little Enron” scandal [Enron was a notorious accounting scandal], one needs even more, like maybe a giant spreadsheet and flow chart with lines and arrows in order to begin to comprehend who did what for whom. From the imperial Texas landscape comes an incredible tale of influence, intrigue, and incompetence. And it illustrates an inevitable truism: when you impose a market-driven mentality on public education, you get. . . well, you get the marketplace.
Despite this scandal, phonics results showed children learned sounds but lacked comprehension, important information to move forward.
6, Resource Class
Along with IDEA, most schools eliminated the resource class where students with dyslexia and reading disabilities could get one to two hours of intense reading instruction each day. Many parents wanted inclusion.
As a resource class teacher, this public-school class was critical for some children and helped teachers monitor student progress in other areas. If schools have eliminated it, they should bring it back for the parents who want it.
7, Retention
Third-grade retention is unnecessary, and there are alternatives to helping children.
Many students with reading difficulties improve past third grade and shouldn’t experience the shame associated with being held back as their peers move on.
It would help if Emily spoke out loudly against this practice. The research is there.
8. School Libraries
We know there’s an association between schools that have good libraries and high test scores. Many poor schools lack libraries and school librarians.
I wish Emily would discuss other variables affecting how children learn to read, like school libraries.
9. Teachers
Universities used to provide studies about learning disabilities. Teachers had to have certification to teach in this area. Now those classes seem condensed for general education teachers.
NCLB also paved the way for Teach for America and other fast-track alternative teachers who can be found, especially in poor schools.
Now with teacher shortages, who’s teaching reading?
Where’s that discussion?
_____
So, while no child should struggle in school to learn to read, teachers should understand how to teach reading, and we should debate more programs; I wish Emily would address more about reading. There are likely other issues I’ve left out, I’m sure.
Emily has become a champion to many parents and teachers who have been convinced that phonics and a Science of Reading are best. Still, I worry about what she leaves out.
I wish I didn’t because public school teachers and students need a reporter in their camp now more than ever, and I’d like to trust her words. I just believe there’s more that needs to be included in her stories.
References
Lewis, A. (2006). “Dramatis Personae.” Phi Delta Kappan. 88 (4): 259-60. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/003172170608800402.
Manzo, K.K. (2004: September 26). Select Group Ushers In Reading Policy. Education Week. Retrieved by https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/select-group-ushers-in-reading-policy/2004/09.
Bailey, N. (2013). Misguided Education Reform: Debating the Impact on Students. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
I have argued with Emily Hanford on twitter and I question her knowledge base. I’d like to know more about her history and who funds her efforts? She does not seem to have a background in teaching or school administration. She does not seem to have had a child with a reading disability. I might be mistaken, but she just seems to be some kind of PR person who was hired to push the latest version of “Johnny Can’t Read.”
I share your concerns. Thanks, Nancy.
Nancy,
Coming from a private school where children were advanced readers and stepping into a First Grade class in the public school system was a shock. Children could not read and were expected to read books used at the Guided Reading table when they could not sound out ‘cat’. They were to memorize words like enough and though. It didn’t make any sense. Little Oscar cried “I can’t read!” when I first called him to the table. I did what they told me to do teaching contextual cues and the 3 steps to figuring out the word. But I kept thinking why not just teach him to actually read/sound out the word. I decided to tutor my lowest students after school using phonics for one hour twice a week. It worked out beautifully and they were able to read by the middle of the school year.
“Coming from a private school where the children were all advanced readers” is already a statement that lacks information. What program did they use? How old? So private is better than public?
And “You did what they told you to do.” Phonics has been around for years. The idea that teachers don’t know what it is and don’t use it in their classrooms is strange.
She has a BA in English from Amherst and since graduation in 1996 has worked in public media.
Thanks, Thomas.
Apparently creation of the “Sold a Story” podcast was funded in part by Pleasant Rowland, who founded The American Doll Company and also “created a comprehensive language arts program, called Beginning to Read, Write, and Listen. It was informally known as the “letterbooks”, and designed to be used for kindergarten and first grade students.” (Wikipedia) That indicates that she would have a vested interest in forwarding an agenda which would support the purchase of her phonics materials. There is also funding by the Hollyhock Foundation, The Oak Foundation, and Wendy and Stephen Gaal. Harder to determine why these entities would even have been interested in this topic.
How interesting. I never heard this before. I can’t find where she is a reading expert, but she seemed to do well with dolls. Thanks for sharing, Lauel. It is interesting how every place has individuals who want to control how schools work.
Dear Nancy,
I am in Finland to observe education here in general.
More than ever, I am convinced that the people’s culture and their education system are inextricably connected.
First, they love their children and youth here, and will do what is needed for their wellbeing. Second, teachers have agency and power, though, under American/neoliberalism influence, there continues to be attacks on teachers here too, but yet not so impactful. Of course, there is lots of time for “play,” including adult-organized play in school (arts and crafts, games).
Just saying…
Tania, it’s great to hear from! I’ve appreciated all that Finland’s teachers and schools have done for years, and I’m sorry teachers have had some attacks too. I love the way they make time for play early. I’ve never understood why in this country we’ve chosen to do the exact opposite. Thank you for your comment! I know you’ll come away with much information and hope the good will be replicated here.
Excellent piece! Thank you so much for sharing. I do work for a Board that uses a program that falls under the SoR umbrella, but we are given some freedom in how we use it (we must use it, but we can break it up and use it at different, more appropriate times, during the day). But there is soooo much more to literacy than phonics based instruction; a true balance is what is needed. And, while much of the discussion is US based, those of us in other jurisdictions (Canada for me) who rely on US based materials are pulled along into the discussion. Thank you for sharing your thoughts
And thank you for your comment, Carrie! I love hearing about reading in other countries and I love Canada! I’m glad teachers get some freedom to teach reading the way they know is best. Modifying programs is usually necessary no matter the program. Cheers!
As a former special ed teacher, I always had to modify instruction. In fact, it was essentially a requirement if you were going to meet the needs of the students and follow their IEP plan. Administrators didn’t always get it that our first job was to provide instruction that was aligned with the student’s IEP. They really got caught up in their canned programs.
I had the same experience. Individualizing was difficult even in smaller classes, because everyone was different, and no one program perfect. I imagine that’s even harder to do today with the emphasis on alignment etc. I always appreciate your comments. Thank you!
My friend Paul Bonner who was a long-time teacher and principal and a frequent poster said I could share these words. Thanks, Paul!
I have come to the conclusion that early exposure to our world is the most important motivator for intellectual development and the desire to learn more, thus learning to read. My problem with the “science of reading” perspective is that it ignores the importance of intellectual curiosity. The focus on phonemic awareness over content causes students to disengage. The overemphasis on blind passages as a means to gauge reading proficiency in our standardized tests strikes me as education malpractice. Many of the underprivileged students I served did poorly on reading because they knew nothing of the topic being covered. The little brain research I have studied clearly indicates that prior knowledge is critical to advance learning. The greatest motivation to read comes from the desire to learn more. Otherwise, the drive for fluency serves little purpose and too many simply turn away from school.
I remember a demonstration of how biased those reading passages really were. As a workshop exercise, we were presented with a passage on some specialized topic that was unfamiliar to almost if not all of us. You can imagine how poor our comprehension scores were.
And yet so much reliance on testing. Sad.
As a principal in North Carolina I thought it was unreasonable to ask third graders to read through and respond to ten reading passages in a two hour standardized test. That was the same expectation for eighth graders. I once knew a student who legitimately got A’s and B’s in classwork at this high performing school, but he could never pass the reading portion of the state test. After his last attempt he came out of the classroom with his head down. When asked by his teacher what was wrong he said, “I just couldn’t understand the part about the hummingbird.” The students who succeeded with this passage had seen or been told about hummingbirds. This child lived in an urban neighborhood where hummingbirds were non-existent. I proceeded to advocate to all of my teachers to get kids out in their world. I don’t know if this improved test scores, but it sure improved prospects.
Thank you, Paul. Again, your insight is superb, and I wish I could have taught under your direction. Somewhere I was recently told that “developmentally appropriate” has hurt poor students. I think that has been behind NCLB and other policies, the idea that children need to be pushed harder to learn. The “No Excuses” idea lives on.
I have always appreciated Deborah Meier’s statement: “—the best way to improve test scores was to do for all children even more of what we already did for wealthy children.” Then she talks about the importance of play, and says: “What was good for the rich was best for the poor too—only more so.”
Our society is not at the point where they care enough about students to invest in young minds, only profits. Maybe someday?
There is a potential solution to this problem that I think would be a much better approach, albeit far from perfect. Imagine if the topics of tested reading passages this spring (2023) had been announced by test development companies or state ed departments in June of 2022. Now the grade level teachers can focus on the related content during the course of the year. So, if every third grader learned about hummingbirds, what nectar is, their amazing maneuverability, and migration routes, the playing field of background knowledge is leveled!
If you think this is a ludicrous suggestion, think again because that is exactly what happens in a high school biology assessment or an 8th grade US history exam. They are reading tests after all, but it is unsurprising that kids tend to be more successful on these tests than generic reading comprehension tests in ELA when the content is a crapshoot that advantages some over others.
It makes sense to me, Rick. The trouble is that I don’t think most care about making tests fair. Sorry to sound cynical but I think tests are about highlighting failure so they can blame schools and teachers.
But thank you for sharing because it shows there’s a better way.
It’s not simply a matter of having reading ‘skills’; it’s a matter of having actual knowledge. This flew in the face of college of education doctrine, which largely persists today, despite the fact that ‘skill-based’ techniques result in systematic failure vis à vis countries that stress content. This is one of the reasons why we fall behind other industrialized countries in the international PISA test (and yet we persist in utilizing failed methods).
I would recommend reading, Why Knowledge Matters: Rescuing Our Children from Failed Educational Theories, by E. D. Hirsch Jr.
You should also let your readers know that they can easily opt out state testing. I have done this in four different states (NY, GA, TX and CA) and it only required a letter to the principal.
Yes. Thank you! So much more more must be considered than the podcast covers.
I appreciate this so much! it is so frustrated that a journalist is given such a huge platform to tell a one-sided story. I wish folks would listen to educators instead…
Thanks Sarah, although a lot of educators also back Emily and the Science of Reading. I’m not convinced it’s settled science and I think reading overall involves so much more. Also concerned it is leading to tech and school privatization. It’s tough to navigate because there are two opposing viewpoints.
Tnank you Nancy. As a a former Reading Recovery Teacher Leader and classroom teacher with 40 years of classroom time, I became incensed afer listening to Sold A Story.. it became obvious that the podcaster never observed a Reading Recovery lesson.
The Reading Recovery program was not designed for classroom use but as a tutorial for children having to most difficulty interpreting print.. It is not dependent on specific books although much money has been made selling program materials to schools.
As a teacher and Teacher Leader, I observed how, over a 20 week period, most of the children did learn to read and write as well as their peers. The children with language difficulties, both receptive and expressive did not fare as well as did children with limited life experiences and poor vocabularies but I think this is the case with all of us. . I would love a chance to speak with Emily Hanford about what she sees and what she is selling..
Thanks, Jill. I have known parents who liked Reading Recovery and believed it benefitted their children. Children with receptive and expressive difficulties can have problems with phonics too, as I’m sure you know.
Yes Nancy, children with both receptive and expressive language dis have a very hard time developing literacy. Reading Recovery provided 20 weeks of personalized one to one 30 minute lessons that incorporated skills in decoding, writing, letter identification and discrimination, how print works and much more. Key to new learning was folloowing the child in current knowledge in order to proceed to something new.
Many years ago, in my school district we used a reading program called ITA or initial Teaching Alphabet. It worked fine for the majority of children, but not for those needing an additional modality. Are you familiar with ITA? The characters are familiar letters joined with special sybols for vowels and digraphs etc. Most of the children made an easy transition to tradional orthography, some did not.
I get the feeling that nobody commenting here has ever read the Report Of The National Reading Panel (NRP 2000). I’m also quite sure their professors in the teachers’ colleges never studied the report either. Nearly 40% of the U S population is functionally illiterate and yet the people who are charged with teaching reading are completely closed minded when it comes to using the knowledge that has been gained by sixty years and billions of dollars of rigorous research.
..
I doubt that’s true. However, many also understand that there were numerous problems with the panel results. I’m referring to the writings of panel member Joanne Yatvin. They’re easy to find if you search her name on Google.
Also, I wrote this post a while back. We need a better, more inclusive new panel. Thanks for commenting, Nick.
https://nancyebailey.com/2021/02/22/time-for-a-new-national-reading-panel-to-study-reading-instruction/
Hi, we are having a discussion about this post in our graduate class. I disagreed with your mention of the Third-Grade Retention for this article. Though it is directly associated with literacy and reading scores, it seems as if the retention was just mentioned for sake of the algorithm. If Emily Hanford did speak out about this in the podcast, it would definitely be in favor of the very program you are arguing against (it would reference how the Science of Reading would be beneficial in this scenario).
Thank you for providing us with discussion material!
This is tricky. I wrote another recent post questioning why SoR parent supporters weren’t fighting more against third-grade retention.
https://nancyebailey.com/2023/05/24/why-do-science-of-reading-advocates-accept-unscientific-third-grade-retention/
I got pushback from parents and to be fair I wrote the following.
https://nancyebailey.com/2023/05/28/third-grade-retention-parents-show-common-ground-fighting-it/
I think Emily Hanford is silent on retention, perhaps because she has received praise from the Bush family, especially former governor Jeb Bush who supports third-grade retention.
Because of this possible connection, I think her reading agenda with the SoR continues to be politically suspect, which was alluded to in my original point involving the post.
I appreciate you using my writing for class discussion and will think more about what you think is a flaw. Very best.