Chall’s Missing STAGES OF READING DEVELOPMENT in the Science of Reading

In a sense, each teacher adds by putting a brick upon another brick in a child’s reading development. And together all build a great structure.

~Jeanne S. Chall, Stages of Reading Development (1983, p. 169)

Searching the so-called Science of Reading (SoR) research, one may spot citations from the late Harvard reading Professor Jeanne Chall. Her book, Learning to Read: The Great Debate, examined reading research from 1910 to 1965, showing the importance of phonics, especially for children with reading difficulties and the poor. It became a lightning rod involving debate between the phonics/whole language camps (Rothman, 1990).

Today, while the SoR is centered on phonics, it’s hard to find information about Chall’s book Stages of Reading Development. This omission does children a great disservice.

Unlike today’s push for children to read in kindergarten, Chall’s formal phonics instruction starts in first grade, even towards the end of that grade. And while she doesn’t want children falling behind, she also doesn’t expect them to march in lockstep when learning to read, unlike the goal of today’s standardized tests.

The later instructional time seems more like Finland, a leader, where children begin formal reading instruction around age seven. Some argue that Finland has less diversity than America, and children come to school already reading. This may be true, but that doesn’t mean America’s preschools and schools can’t build children’s early learning experiences to be more enjoyable and age-appropriate. Chall’s work shows the way.

In the Stages of Reading Development chapter, “Reading Stages: Then and Now,” Chall reviews reading stage research including William S. Gray published in 1925, Arthur I. Gates The Improvement of Reading (1947), Frances L. Ilg and Louise Bates Ames of the Gesell Institute (1950s), and many more. What’s stunning is how different these studies show the early expectations from the past to today. It leaves one wondering, how we got off track, and why today’s children are pushed so hard to learn with little thought to their age and development.

Some SoR fans scoff at mentioning old developmental reading studies. But children’s brains haven’t changed over the years. Children learn rapidly when young, but that doesn’t mean they should be pressured to focus on higher-level academic skills, disregarding their development. Perhaps children aren’t reading well today because adults ignore these stages.

At the Network for Public Education’s Spring meeting, I spoke about Chall and the early beginnings of the SoR debate. I wanted to convey her points about developmental stages, critical to understanding good reading instruction.

Stage 0, Prereading: Chall makes no hint that kindergartners should read by first grade.

In Stage 0, from birth to age 6, children are introduced to reading, but the expectations to learn to read are not as stringent as they are today. Kindergarten is not first grade.

Chall emphasizes that in Stage 0, children learn many prereading skills, but direct instruction of structured letter sounds isn’t noted. One can’t help but wonder if eager parents and teachers aren’t doing a disservice to children in preschool and kindergarten by pushing children to isolate letters and words in a rote fashion that’s uninteresting and developmentally too advanced.

Stage 0 involves holding a book right and turning pages. When reading picture books, preschoolers and kindergartners will “pretend” or “play” read. After hearing a story, they’ll retell it according to their memory, a critical skill for figuring out the meaning that might be ignored today. They’ll write some words. Children also learn the alphabet. As with all stages, Chall believed children should have access to challenging literature. Stage 0 includes picture and alphabet books.

All of this is crucial for developing a foundation for reading comprehension. Children develop auditory discrimination, memory, analysis skills, and recall by listening. They’re also developing language skills. Chall’s reference to Arthur I. Gates’s reading stages highlights the value of children interpreting pictures at the prereading stage.

In both Chall’s books noted above, phonics, while important, is not isolated from other reading activities, a fact that the SoR advocates seem to be emphasizing more these days (See Education Week: “‘Science of Reading’ Advocates Underscore: It’s Not Just About Phonics” by Sarah Schwartz). Yet, SoR advocates won’t say that branching into other reading instruction leans into the balanced literacy camp.

But who asks what harm is being done by rushing children and insisting that they read early and simultaneously?

Chall noted efforts underway while writing Stages of Reading Development to give preschoolers an early start to reading, but the content was enjoyable. She was an advisor to PBS programs Sesame Street, The Electric Company, and Between the Lions. Contrary to much reading instruction today, those TV programs had a certain panache for teaching with humor and joy.

Staggered Development

Having taught students with disabilities, I especially like that Chall understood children should not be expected to move lockstep through each stage. In the book, she wonders why schools haven’t focused more on the cognitive developmental theories outlined by Swiss child psychologist Jean Piaget.

While knowing that all children don’t move alike through stages should comfort parents, since NCLB, many have been convinced that children must all move along at the same rate based on standardized tests. Parents of children with learning difficulties might believe their children aren’t learning if they don’t keep up with children who are reading. Precocious readers who enter school reading might be seen as the norm.

While Chall recognizes that children develop differently and are not always in line with the developmental stage for their age, she also wants to make sure they don’t fall through the cracks. She believes there should be reading specialists for special assistance. She also ponders whether children working more slowly might be helped by observing and being involved with students working on more advanced levels. Good teachers are imperative, Chall emphasizes this, and she discusses the difficulties of grouping for instruction. Children need phonics, but Chall doesn’t isolate it by any means, instead looking at the broader picture and varied reading activities that help children learn.

Third grade is a pivotal year. Children learn to read up to that point, followed by reading to learn. But there’s no sign that Chall thought children not reading at grade level should be retained. In fact, despite understanding the importance of third grade, Chall notes that children can run into reading difficulties in fourth grade or later, even if they read well in third grade. Chall’s reading stages extend to the end of the student’s senior year or age eighteen.

Many may focus on Chall and phonics; she provides good information there. Still, it’s critical to look at a child’s early reading development and individual progress at home and school, consider phonics and various other methods, and recognize the importance of excellent teachers. All this changes the trajectory and circumstances relating to how children learn to read, giving children time to develop without unnecessary pressure.

Pressuring children to read early has been tried for many years, and it doesn’t appear to work. Why not revisit Jeanne Chall’s Stages of Reading Development and the work of many developmental psychologists, like Jean Piaget and others, and allow children to learn to read according to age and development?

References

Rothman, R. (1990, March 21). From a ‘Great Debate’ to a Full-Scale War: Dispute Over Teaching Reading Heats Up. Education Week, Retrieved from https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/from-a-great-debate-to-a-full-scale-war-dispute-over-teaching-reading-heats-up/1990/03.

Chall, J. S. (1983). Stages of reading development. McGraw-Hill.

Schwartz, S. (2025, April 24) ‘Science of Reading’ Advocates Underscore: It’s Not Just About Phonics. Education Week, Retrieved from https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/science-of-reading-advocates-underscore-its-not-just-about-phonics/2025/04.