The 10th episode of Sold a Story was released last week, and has done what good journalism does: it has made its listeners think. As always, Emily Hanford and Christopher Peak of APM Reports have given me great pause.
The only thing stopping me from listening to the entire Sold a Story series again is the plethora of other literacy podcasts that exist.
The 10th episode succinctly recaps the series by revisiting the personal stories told throughout. Those stories include the families impacted by poor reading instruction, instruction that included the use of 3-cueing, which in large part, encourages guessing at words, rather than decoding words. The podcast series sheds light on an idea that was sold: the idea that is in conflict with the research. The idea, known as balanced literacy, took a strong hold and resulted in sales of products that benefitted companies and individuals, while leaving many children in the dark when it comes to reading.
The Sold a Story podcast has been a key player in unveiling the poor teaching practices around literacy instruction… without blaming teachers. It has done what it intended to do: “I [Emily Hanford] was hoping it would get more people curious about the scientific research on reading. That people – especially teachers – would listen and want to know more.” We are listening, Emily. And we do want to know more. Thank you.
A Hunger for Knowledge
The Sold a Story podcast has inspired a hunger to know more about the science of reading – what the science is and how it impacts classroom practice.
I see evidence of this hunger every day with the questions colleagues ask, the books and articles they share, and the change they implement in their classrooms. I see evidence of this hunger every day as social media explodes with resources connected to the science of reading.
I see evidence of this hunger in the newly elected board to The Reading League Iowa, in formation. Papae Wymore, Stephanie Edren, Lisa Williams, and I are thrilled to welcome Rhonda Nelson, Kara Veach, and Amy Numedahl to our board. Your knowledge, expertise, and hunger for more knowledge around effective literacy instruction will serve Iowa well. We cannot wait to officially launch!
Experts in the Field
The Reading League has a clear definition of the science of reading: “The science of reading is a vast, interdisciplinary body of scientifically-based research about reading and issues related to reading and writing. This research has been conducted over the last five decades across the world, and it is derived from thousands of studies conducted in multiple languages. The science of reading has culminated in a preponderance of evidence to inform how proficient reading and writing develop; why some have difficulty; and how we can most effectively assess and teach and, therefore, improve student outcomes through prevention of and intervention for reading difficulties.”
Many researchers in the field have added a key piece to this definition: “It is an ever-evolving body of research.” As new evidence comes in, we respond accordingly.
Reid Lyon, a neuroscientist, and Mark Seidenberg, a cognitive scientist, both featured in Episode 10, expressed excitement around the growing interest in the science of reading. Both also expressed concerns. One of Lyon’s concerns is that movements often ignore the details, and details about effective reading instruction are critical. One of Seidenberg’s concerns is that teachers are actually teaching kids more than they need to know. For example, they are teaching kids terms like “phonological awareness” – a term that teachers absolutely need to know and understand, but kids don’t. Kids need to know how to read.
Seidenberg suggested that there is an overuse of explicit instruction, and a lack of knowledge about “implicit learning” or “statistical learning.” “This kind of learning occurs without explicit instruction…Explicit instruction is critical at first – most kids don’t just start picking this up. But research shows that a lot of what a good reader eventually knows about words – and how they’re spelled and what they mean – is stuff they learned implicitly, through reading. Mark says the goal of reading instruction should not be to teach kids everything they need to know. It should be to teach them enough so that this implicit or statistical learning can kick in.”
As I process what Lyon and Seidenberg are suggesting, I keep thinking that we can be cautioned to avoid:
- over-correcting mistakes from the past
- blindly following one idea or person
- being overly-skeptical… or not skeptical enough
- relying on legislation to get the job done when it comes to effective literacy instruction
- relying on a curriculum or program to get the job done when it comes to effective literacy instruction
Tweaking Systems with Evidence
I know from personal experience that adopting a high-quality curriculum is absolutely necessary, yet not nearly enough to change literacy outcomes for students. There is no silver bullet. MUCH knowledge-building, support, and flexibility are needed. I know from personal experience that a robust system is needed to impact literacy outcomes for students. Systems are tough to build and maintain, and systems need constant tweaking as new information comes in.
I am absolutely sold on Hanford’s final thoughts: “I think – as a nation – we need to approach what’s happening now as a work in progress. Keep learning new things. And be prepared to course-correct if necessary. But this is hard to do in education. Because it’s such a big system with so many parts and so many people – and so much money involved and so much at stake. What I can see is that the Sold a Story podcast and our earlier reporting has helped to raise awareness about the body of research known as the science of reading. It’s spurred a lot of action and reaction. And now it’s kind of messy out there. And that means we’re not done with this story. There’s a lot more to report on. And we’re going to do that.” I couldn’t be more happy to hear that!
On a Personal Note
And speaking of selling things… our hearts continue to hurt and attempt to heal over the passing of our parents, Reed and Sue Haeger. The loss of both, within 83 days of each other, has made 2024 an incredibly tough year. We are now facing a third loss, which is not at all on the same level as losing our parents, but is a loss all the same.
The Corner Tap, Mom and Dad’s place of business for 40 years, has been sold. “But – ” in the words of Chuck Vandenberg, “That’s Beside the Point.”
The Corner Tap, West Point, IA
Excellent on the 10th episode of Sold. I will be sure to get that loaded and listen.
Messy. Work in progress.
And…with a grieving heart I will now put in a request for time off on Monday, May 6th and 7th.