Critics slam teachers and public schools for low reading scores. Much of that criticism is wrong and misses the real problem. The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and the Science of Reading (SoR) both seriously hamper children’s writing (their voices) and, in turn, their ability to learn to read.
Writing and reading are siblings. They complement each other, and for most children, if one isn’t working, the other isn’t either. That’s why, as children learn to read, they should be learning to write. Good reading and writing instruction involves interactions and feedback from teachers, students, and parents.
Below is a reminder of what makes a good writing program, but first I want to address the problem.
The National Reading Panel, which led to the SoR, failed to adequately research reading (See Yatvin, 2003). They ignored writing!
In 2023, Stephen Sawcheck of Education Week wrote about this omission: How Does Writing Fit Into the ‘Science of Reading’? His points are valid, but his focus on breaking writing into explicit skills, much like the SoR breaks up reading, misses the mark.
The Science of Reading isn’t settled, since believers finally want to address writing. They sound like writing instruction never existed, calling for a Science of Writing. Adding “science” makes it sound legit and lends itself to for-profit programs.
While reading Sawcheck’s report, it’s easy to picture newly minted, skill-oriented, expensive online writing programs for states to add to their already crowded list of online decoding programs.
In fact, another Ed. Week report (Schwartz, 2026) indicates that New Hampshire is getting $8M for evidence-based writing that will include online programming.
Arizona is getting $11.5M for the Arizona Education Foundation to partner with the Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD). This includes Science of Writing online courses for purchase to teach teachers to teach students to master self-regulation to work on their own.
I would argue that none of that is necessary for children to learn to write (and read better). What’s needed is paper and pencil and adults who care about student writing, will read and value it, and help children improve upon it.
Teachers used to address writing well. They focused on it more and better. What happened?
Remember Common Core and David Coleman’s toxic words about student voice?
David Coleman, a businessman and co-developer of the CCSS, who now makes millions as the head of the College Board, denounced student voice. Around 2015, Coleman, discussing student narrative writing, stated to a group of teachers:
You grow up in this world, and you realize people don’t really give a shit about what you feel and what you think.
Along with this, SoR enthusiasts largely ignored the critical connections between writing and learning to read. The heavy focus on decoding and direct instruction still permeate early learning classrooms, and writing has been an afterthought.
Coleman was wrong, of course. The most critical part of writing is student voice. The SoR folks are wrong too. Skills are secondary to writing well. With both writing and reading, children must first understand what’s in it for them.
When students see their words on paper, it’s a powerful incentive. When young children know adults in their world care about the words they speak or put on paper, they will be more interested in learning how to improve their writing and apply techniques to make it better.
Donald Graves and the Writing Workshop set students free with writing!
The best professional development I ever had involved the Writer’s Workshop to teach children the writing process developed by Donald Graves. The workshop didn’t shy away from helping children with disabilities learn how to write either.
Much of Donald Graves’s work has been published by Heineman, a publishing company rejected by many following the Science of Reading. They believe they don’t emphasize phonics enough and reject certain authors. This is a serious mistake.
Like understanding that sounding words will get them to be able to read beloved picture books, children recognize when their written work is valued and will improve upon it. Students become enthusiastic about writing their ideas in journals, even when their writing has mistakes. Why?
Teachers and parents focus first on student voice. Then, students become enthused about their writing, and they will care more about addressing grammar and punctuation to perfect it.
Children dictating their stories is a great start!
When children are around 2 to 3 years old (and older), they chatter a lot! They’re developing language and adults listening validates what they say. Before a child reads or writes, when a teacher or parent listens to them dictate a story it’s thrilling! Children see their words on paper.
They’re also reading and hearing sounds, sounding and blending words which makes sense because they’re their words.
This self-expression matters more to a child than some prescribed skill lesson that shows how to blend sounds to produce words. It’s not that there isn’t a place for skill instruction, it’s just a child must first know why learning skills matter.
Invented spelling is critical for most children to learn to write and read.
Despite participating in Donald Graves’s workshop, when my own child came home with a mishmash of words in first grade, it was cringeworthy. I’d spent a semester in college visiting a third-grade class to help children with writing difficulties, including letter reversals, and reversals were aplenty on my child’s paper; words were misspelled, and the writing was rather sloppy.
I started to make an appointment to see the teacher. Then I remembered that my child’s teacher had an excellent reputation, and this was first, not third grade. Also, my child’s thoughts put on paper were often thought provoking, so I focused on that. I said nothing.
Gradually those papers improved. The reversals disappeared and my child’s writing expanded to be not only interesting, but legible and purposeful and a lot of it. They went on to write effortlessly throughout school and continue to enjoy writing today.
This wasn’t a miracle. Invented spelling has research to show it works (see below).
Letter reversals are also seen as normal until third grade, and don’t necessarily indicate a child has a reading problem. But if they bother you, teach children to write cursive, if they like it and don’t feel pressured.
I will always be grateful for my child’s first grade teacher employing invented spelling. When children have the chance to write with mistakes but to get their thoughts down, and to enjoy that process, they’re in command. Along with learning other writing skills, which become much more meaningful, in time they self-correct.
Why isn’t invented spelling promoted? My guess is that it demands patience as I can personally attest. It also isn’t making a profit for any commercial writing program.
Two Writing Teachers give a great rundown of the Invented Spelling research. One of the best studies by Oullette and Senechal (2017) considered that invented spelling affected how children learn to read:
The exploratory nature of invented spelling encourages children to use an analytical approach that also promotes the integration of phonological and alphabetic information into initial lexical representations that connect phonological and orthographic information; as these lexical representations become refined, they may facilitate the acquisition of reading.
Schrodt, Fitzpatrick, and Elleman (2020) describe how invented spelling builds student confidence. They share some student words.
I am good at writing lots of hard words. I can even write big stories about the wilderness. That’s what I love.
As the 2026-2027 school year begins I hope that teachers and parents will give students every opportunity to express themselves through writing and listen to student voices. Invented spelling is a good place to start.
References
Yatvin, J. (2003). I Told You So!: The Misinterpretation and Misuse Of the National Reading Panel Report. Education Week, 22(33), 56.
Sawchuk, S. (2023). How Does Writing Fit Into the ?Science of Reading? Education Week, 42(19).
Schwartz, S. (2026) First Reading. Then Math. Is the Science of Writing Next? Education Week, Retrieved from https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/first-reading-then-math-is-the-science-of-writing-next/2026/08
Ouellette, G., & Sénéchal, M. (2008). Pathways to Literacy: A Study of Invented Spelling and Its Role in Learning to Read. Child Development, 79(4), 899–913. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01166.x
Schrodt, K., FitzPatrick, E., & Elleman, A. (2020). Becoming Brave Spellers. The Reading Teacher, 74(2), 208–214. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1923
Bless Donald Graves and his writing project. I used it and required students from 6th grade to -college age to write a weekly essay of ONE page about anything. At first they complained that one page was too long, but as they wrote over the weeks they would often ask for more space. When told no, they would say, “But I have a lot to write about.”
Given the chance students discover that they have an authentic voice.
Roger, the same here. It changed the way many teachers approached writing instruction. Skills matter so much more once students understand that their voice is valued and there’s a reason to improve their writing. Thanks.
Yes!!!
Thanks, Cindy.
According to Wikipedia, David Coleman “earned a B.A. in philosophy from Yale University in 1991.[3] As an undergraduate at Yale, he participated in the Ulysses S. Grant tutoring program in reading for inner-city New Haven high school students. He started Branch, a community service program for inner-city students.[citation needed]
“Coleman was awarded a Rhodes Scholarship in 1991 and earned a second B.A. in English literature at University College, Oxford.[4] He then earned a MPhil in classical philosophy from the University of Cambridge.[5]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Coleman_(businessman)
I am livid that a person privileged enough to have this elite literate background could boast that the Common Core State Standards for English would essentially do away with meaning-making, and that he asserted these ignominious words: “You grow up in this world, and you realize people don’t really give a shit about what you feel and what you think.” This is the antithesis of what education should be about–encouraging and supporting each student’s capacity to express themselves for their own enjoyment and the benefit of the civil society. What a travesty that the despised Common Core Standards have been corrupting public education in America for all of these years. so galling. And while I’m ranting, I would like to make a point about “close reading.” I am actually in favor of close reading of text–students need to understand that they are obligated to attempt to understand the text as the author wrote it, not veer off into their own misinterpretations. But the procedure that Coleman espoused was to analyze text only within the 4 corners of the page. How in the world can students, especially students with learning disabilities and second language challenges, understand any text without a thorough grounding in the context? more gall.
Thanks, Sheila. Well put. With all the great reading and writing specialists in the country, how did this guy, tutoring aside, get to co-write standards for kids?
Nancy, there you go again.
A few days ago it was libraries: SoR advocates supposedly don’t demonstrate enough commitment to them, and that was allowed to count against SoR.
Now it’s student voice. You say SoR has a “troubling disregard” for it and “seriously hamper[s]” children’s writing.
But what you actually establish is much narrower: the National Reading Panel didn’t adequately study writing, SoR has concentrated heavily on decoding, and you believe writing deserves more attention.
A research review not studying something is not evidence that the thing doesn’t matter. A defined remit is not hostility toward everything outside it.
Indeed, your own evidence points toward agreement. You cite research suggesting invented spelling helps children integrate phonological and alphabetic information—connecting phonology with orthography.
Splendid. Follow the evidence.
If invented spelling helps, use it. If authentic writing strengthens reading, have children write. If systematic phonics improves decoding, teach systematic phonics.
The evidence doesn’t have to choose teams.
This is the same move as with libraries: identify something valuable outside the claim under examination, judge SoR advocates insufficiently committed to it, then allow that supposed deficiency to cast suspicion on what they actually claim.
First libraries. Now student voice. What next… recess? Music? School lunch? Motorcycle safety?
All worthy subjects. None is an entrance examination for whether evidence about reading is true.
So, again:
Let the claim under examination remain the claim under examination.
More writing? Yes. Student voice? Absolutely. Better evidence about how writing and reading reinforce one another? Bring it.
None of that is evidence against systematic phonics.
Teach children to read. Teach them to write. Follow the evidence for both.
Brian, I’m sorry we’re at odds. We probably aren’t as far off as you say. The SoR I see in classrooms overemphasizes drilling young children on sounds. Usually, kindergartners sit in front of a teacher who points to letters and words, often with those horrible mouth pictures hanging over the board (used for speech therapy), and they reply as a group. There’s little distinction about whether any children need it, and as I’ve said, K is young.
Letting children put their own words on paper is much different.
I have checked several sources and cite Ed. Week, and the consensus is that the SoR has left out writing, yet writing and reading work together. The SoR evidence does not address the importance of writing to reading. That’s a huge omission and missing “evidence” when it comes to writing.
You say “if” invented spelling works, and that already doesn’t give it a chance. All children should get the opportunity to put words on paper the way they hear them.
The SoR is big on costly programs. And what’s truly worrisome is the push for programs without teachers. Check those state links.
I agree that many variables go into teaching reading.
We disagree, but thank you for taking the time to write so much and challenge me with my thinking.
Nancy and others, I have wondered why Caulkins and Balanced literacy folks didn’t object to the attacks from SoR on their lack of phonics by pointing out how much phonics is included in early writing. We did teach phonics in writing and yet it is rarely mentioned.
Great point, Cindy. I wonder why the NRP research left out writing.