If we could think small and agree on this simple declaration, it would be a big deal.
"Balanced literacy et al. could be a-ok, but only if there were an acknowledgment that connecting visual cues (letters or symbols in written language) to auditory cues (sounds in the spoken language) is fundamental and non-negotiable."
I really appreciate your call for specificity, Claude, and I’ve been thinking about that a lot—especially when it comes to what people mean when they talk about “sides.” Like many others, I was taught in the '90s to prompt kids to look at the picture first, then the print. That was just how it was done. But over time, I unlearned that approach by reading more of the research and—importantly—by trying new things with students and seeing how much more effective systematic instruction in phonemic awareness and decoding really was.
Still, I’ve had so many conversations over the past ten years with educators who say they’re “balanced literacy,” and when I ask what that looks like, many have never used or endorsed three-cueing in the way you described above. They were surprised that that was how I was taught to teach kids to read. I’ve also never endorsed some of the writing workshop “practices” that circulate online (like “decorate the front cover” or “see three before me” or 'love up writing and no explicit instruction) in the classrooms I’ve coached. It makes me furious that Writing Workshop is getting torn apart online and forcing teachers to stop doing something that they
are actually getting good results with. And at times when I try to get into the conversation and explain this I am dismissed and/or talked over.
So I agree—specificity matters. I don’t think it helps anyone when we flatten these conversations into “switch sides” or “start over.” The real work is in digging into what’s actually happening in classrooms and helping educators refine, improve, and align their practice with what we know works.
Clearly I have been thinking about this because I have more to say :))Claude’s question about how we move past the “reading wars” has been sitting with me. I don’t have an easy answer, but I think one step forward might be asking how we disagree, not just what we disagree about.
I don’t think “compromise” helps much—especially when it feels like “you give up your work and I’ll keep mine.” But maybe we can start by looking at why this conversation so often turns into conflict. I want to share three real stories—not to stir the pot, but to highlight how many people are walking into this discussion already feeling judged or dismissed.
A superintendent this year told me she wanted to hire me to do some consulting in her district based on my record and ideas—but after a parent group looked me up and saw “Teachers College” on my resume from 20 years ago, the job was off the table. I offered to talk to them about how my thinking has evolved. But I wasn’t willing to say I had to relearn everything—because that just wasn’t true.
I recently posted about reading The Dyslexic Advantage and said I appreciated its focus on student strengths alongside needs. People seemed interested—some even wanted to start a book club. Then a prominent voice in the science of reading world commented, simply: “pseudoscience at best.” No question, no curiosity. Just dismissal.
I’ve seen a lot of “have grace for yourself” messaging toward people who used to be in balanced literacy. And while well-meaning, it sometimes feels one-sided—like grace only flows one way. I’ve been invited to share what I’ve “learned” from the science of reading movement and what I have unlearned, but rarely asked what I’ve learned over 30 years of working in classrooms. And I don’t often hear those in the science of reading space reflect on what they got wrong, even as they now revise past statements about things like story writing or leveled texts—statements that had real, harmful ripple effects in schools.
"I offered to talk to them about how my thinking has evolved. But I wasn’t willing to say I had to relearn everything—because that just wasn’t true."
This is so important--and so unfortunate. Claude has isolated a non-negotiable, but there are many negotiables out there. I have battled writing workshop presenters insisting that I must give a 'mini-lesson' and not interested in my arguments for giving a 'maxi-lesson'. However, like you, there are parts of the program that I have valued. It's the new teachers who become caught in the middle because they lack both experience and familiarity with the research to make the kinds of decisions you and I are making.
And FYI if i had been the presenter I would have said your lesson is as long it needs to be for students to learn it. The mini part only means that you want to teach only one thing to avoid cognitive overload. I wish terms like writing workshop, balanced literacy and science of reading weren't used in conversations that were trying to move beyond the reading wars. Rather if we could be as specific as Claude was about decoding, it would help us move forward. And hearing Rebecca's story and how her work has been influenced reminds me that we need to pay attention to the effect this is having students first and foremost but also the effect this is having on adults. Thankfully, there are many many schools/district off line who get this and want folks partnering with them who are nuanced and can get under the generalities and talk specifics. I'm doing a lot of work these days with attestation process in New York. I love it because it's all about the reflective dialogue and moving the conversation forward.
1. I don’t agree that balanced literacy/three-cueing/whole language are similar and derive from the same set of assumptions and premises. I just don’t, but maybe that me. They are very different to me.
2. I think we DO agree that learning letter-sound correspondence is the gateway to literacy and I honestly don’t know anyone who would argue that point. Also, most of us would say that we privilege grapho-phonemic “cueing” over any other information in reading instruction, and that other sources are used to confirm the word once it has been decoded.
3. SOR as it is being implemented can and does get out of balance (dare I use that word?). I have seen it too often. It might be with good intentions, but phonemic awareness and phonics have taken over the vast majority of literacy teaching. What gets left out (sometimes) are the applications to real reading and writing, so the students don’t get to apply the skills they are learning. Read alouds, writing instruction, and content areas such as history, geography, social studies, and science are also casualties.
4. “Getting this understanding firmly in place in the minds, materials, and hands of those responsible for teaching children to read is one of our central challenges…” I could not agree more. The question to me is how? That may be a both/and. We need to improve preservice instruction, the programs and materials we give to teachers to use, and professional development (ongoing and not publisher-specific).
Interesting observations, Gina. I wonder if what I just posted, including Esther's blog, addresses your points 1 and 2... what's fundamentally the same about BL/3-cueing and whether any one argues the point that "learning letter-sound correspondence is the gateway to literacy." In addition, if you read/listened to posts/recordings that involved my new friend (although maybe not anymore?) Andy Johnson, there's someone who actively disputes that learning letter-sound correspondence is the gateway to literacy. He'd probably agree to "a gateway." But THE. No way! Same with Tierney and Pearson and a whole bunch of others including my EL advocates and sorta friends. That is THE sticking point, and they stick very hard to their.. I was going to say "guns," but instead I'll say their beliefs.
Understood. I guess there are folks who think that way. I was thinking of the teachers I know and the schools where I have taught. No one there was teaching cueing or avoiding teaching phonics.
Thank you for this lengthy and carefully crafted response. I agree with all of what you’ve said regarding what is essential for beginners. I also understand that the Pearson three-piece diagram is for mature readers. I don’t think I embrace both/and in such a way as to negate letter-sound correspondence must be first, both as primary and also chronologically for young readers. My concerns have been about 1) active bashing of persons, 2) excluding the use of ANY context, morphology, pictures, non-decodable text, and 3) impoverished text choices. Like Leah, I have experienced schools that canceled my contract, dismantled all “leveled libraries” and discarded books, refused any kind of Writing Workshop, limited texts to “decodables” up into grades 3+, and other examples. My notion of balance came originally from Michael Pressley, who posited both text-based and meaning-based approaches in appropriate balance. There’s so much more to say, but time and space prevent it for me at this time.
Getting past the labels, by which I mean having a common understanding of what they mean—we need words!—is certainly a must… including or ESPECIALLY science of reading. Even presumed experts play fast and loose with the terminology, lack of nuance, etc.
Problem is how do we do that with some words? What people are saying is a common understanding of balanced literacy is not how I would define it. So I tend to (right or wrong, I'm not sure) avoid the word these days and talk about specific instructional practices. With some words like it feels doable like decoding or phonics. With others like balanced literacy...I feel confused on how that would be done.
As you say, Claude, there’s a big difference between mature readers and beginners - and I love your changing the clutch story!
In England, three-cueing was very much promoted from the 1980s to the early 2000s. I have a video from a government-issued pack from about 2002 in which a teaching assistant stops a struggling 6-year-old from sounding out the word ‘soft’ as she reads and tells her instead to think about ‘What word would make sense?’ The child was well on her way to working the word out phonically, but was stopped in her tracks and told to use a much less effective strategy.
Since 2006-7, however, official policy in England has supported the sounding-out approach for beginners which that child was trying to use - look at the letters from left to right, say the sounds you have been taught for them, then blend those sounds together into a spoken word. We even have a compulsory screening check on this near the end of children’s second year of school (20 real words and 20 pseudo-words), and a study by Double et al. has shown that children who meet the required standard in this go on to do well in the international PIRLS reading test (comprehension) four years later.
Reminds me of my Greek mother, with her sixth grade education in her tiny mountain village, decided to rewire the house, so she enrolled in a night school course. Needless to say, an electrician showed up a few weeks later.
I continue to reflect on this thread, and on my prior work with students, teachers, and curriculum design. I want to begin by accepting that effective instruction requires teaching explicitly about letter-sound correspondences (and patterns), the alphabetic principle, orthographic mapping, morphology, and all of the key foundational skills identified by the research. I also want to accept that research suggests we teach both metacognitive comprehension strategies and a solid approach to background knowledge. Dr. Young-Suk Grace Kim's recent Amplify SOR Reading podcast explained her model called the Interactive Dynamic Model of Literacy, I think. It represents the complex factors that are required for reading, writing, and the reading-writing connection. It sounds wonderful and I can't wait to study it further. I now posit that it's important to look at the bigger picture of the curriculum and design it to include all of those things, connections to science and social studies, appropriate use of technology, accommodation of student differences, and meaningful themes that motivate kids. To do that involves larger-grained, long-term curriculum design that goes beyond one subject area. Dr. Lynn Erickson's work with concept-based curriculum design is one model that provides guidance for how to do this. Nancy Hennessey has a chapter in her book on unit planning that builds in the "big ideas" and conceptual understandings (some call them "Enduring Understandings") and integrate disciplines to help address the "why" of the various facts and skills we want to teach. I taught master's students to build such units while serving as a professor. The units that teachers created were amazing! We can do this work, but it takes a lot o time, energy, resources, and dedication of leaders committed to the model. Teaching has gotten so fragmented. Since the SoR movement, everytime I have attempted to propose this model to real teachers or schools, it gets shot down as "whole language" or "balanced literacy". With more and newer research suggesting that it is effective to build an integrated model (reading, writing, spelling, handwriting, social studies, science, literature, social-emotional considerations), we have the tools to devote renewed energy and attention to robust curriculum. EL (formerly Expeditionary Learning), International Baccalaureate, Dr. Julie Stern's work in Learning that Transfers, and Lynn Erickson's work are all good sources for this. So is Dr. Nell Duke's work, such as Inside Information. Teaching systematically and explicitly doesn't need to omit coherent, motivating work that explores the animating questions of life and leads to human flourishing. It is daunting task, but worth it. With new research and tools that help with effective instruction, the possibilities are exciting.
Thank you for continuing the dialogue. I can't even stand that we are still having this conversation. You are on point. One of my favorite parts of your article is, "How would a novice reader know whether a written word they can’t read and are trying to figure out “looks right”?" I thought the debunking of 3-cuing is settled science.
3-cuing has hurt lives. It has trained students to be guessers. The longer a student has been using context only to guess a word, the more difficult it is to break them of this habit no matter how comprehensive and systematic the phonics instruction. I have seen enormous amounts of students two and three grade levels behind in high poverty schools that are so confused looking at a word out of context and not knowing how to decode single syllable words in 4th and 5th grade. When whole language and balanced literacy advocates say that phonics is important, they are gaslighting everyone. Just like you said, it would be a primary component that learning to read centered around. And Reading Recovery is completely a whole language program. I have heard several people highly trained in that program say that if they prompt correctly, they don't even need visual. They advocate that it is the least important, which leads to teachers then blaming lack of progress on either a learning disability or multilingualism (because they lack the language to use syntax and semantics). We have known since the National Reading Panel the importance of phonemic awareness and phonics, yet these programs wanted to continue to develop their program primarily centered around comprehension and willfully neglected the two most foundational skills. This extended to teachers who would constantly implement comprehension interventions for decades, instead of phonemic awareness and phonics interventions.
Moving forward, we need to go deeper in our own science. The focus should be 3 big ideas: 1. Reading, writing, and spelling words out of context so that there are zero context clues and the phonics feature can be studied and practiced (Whole language advocates will gasp audibly here). This includes discussing the best scope and sequence options and public reasoning of these ideas. 2. Introducing irregular sounds as little as possible while students are still learning regular sounds (which is one reason why BL, WL, RR, and the leveled reading system failed because it focused on memorizing an enormous amount of irregular words before kids knew the regular sounds). This would include cognitive load theory and how students can be different in this area (working memory) and our pace of instruction of irregular sounds introduction to children that honors these differences. 3. Speech to print approach. Students need to understand this exact phrase, "We match sounds we make with our mouth-- to letters." Almost every single spelling error in early literacy is related to articulation and articulatory awareness.
I have a quiet moment so I wanted to write down some thoughts I had about what Claude said here.
Harriett (You will have to teach me how to block quote. I'm hopeless at the moment. lol.
Yes, three-cueing, balanced literacy, and whole language advocates, believers, and practitioners acknowledge that letters and sounds matter. Here’s the sticking point: Letters and sounds more than just “matter." You must know the letters and their corresponding sounds to become a successful reader in an alphabetic language1. Why? Because the sound-symbol connections are what connect oral language (human speech) to written language (print), and this connection is necessary to become literate in any written language. (See earlier posts on differences between oral and written language.).
I agree with the above completely.
Based upon research and my experiences, educators needs to teach beginning readers to say and the sounds and then read the words first and foremost.
After that they can confirm using other sources of information.
I know there are people who won't say that so I understand why balanced literacy is too vague of a term.
Here is one problem that I see.
Starting with the sounds as the first strategy a fundamental change but once you decide it's not a hard one to change. It's certainly doesn't necessitate an overhaul. When I go into schools and say it people are at times skeptical (but not always) However when I share the research and then work in their classrooms they are almost always convinced. We don't have to solve that with an overhaul. You change up the early reading books--You think differently about how you prompt. That's really it. These overhauls to make that change have made many lose their way.
If we could think small and agree on this simple declaration, it would be a big deal.
"Balanced literacy et al. could be a-ok, but only if there were an acknowledgment that connecting visual cues (letters or symbols in written language) to auditory cues (sounds in the spoken language) is fundamental and non-negotiable."
Great analysis!
What wonderful world that would be…. No?
That is perfection, Harriett and exactly what I share with the schools I partner with. And I completely agree that declaration is vital.
I really appreciate your call for specificity, Claude, and I’ve been thinking about that a lot—especially when it comes to what people mean when they talk about “sides.” Like many others, I was taught in the '90s to prompt kids to look at the picture first, then the print. That was just how it was done. But over time, I unlearned that approach by reading more of the research and—importantly—by trying new things with students and seeing how much more effective systematic instruction in phonemic awareness and decoding really was.
Still, I’ve had so many conversations over the past ten years with educators who say they’re “balanced literacy,” and when I ask what that looks like, many have never used or endorsed three-cueing in the way you described above. They were surprised that that was how I was taught to teach kids to read. I’ve also never endorsed some of the writing workshop “practices” that circulate online (like “decorate the front cover” or “see three before me” or 'love up writing and no explicit instruction) in the classrooms I’ve coached. It makes me furious that Writing Workshop is getting torn apart online and forcing teachers to stop doing something that they
are actually getting good results with. And at times when I try to get into the conversation and explain this I am dismissed and/or talked over.
So I agree—specificity matters. I don’t think it helps anyone when we flatten these conversations into “switch sides” or “start over.” The real work is in digging into what’s actually happening in classrooms and helping educators refine, improve, and align their practice with what we know works.
Clearly I have been thinking about this because I have more to say :))Claude’s question about how we move past the “reading wars” has been sitting with me. I don’t have an easy answer, but I think one step forward might be asking how we disagree, not just what we disagree about.
I don’t think “compromise” helps much—especially when it feels like “you give up your work and I’ll keep mine.” But maybe we can start by looking at why this conversation so often turns into conflict. I want to share three real stories—not to stir the pot, but to highlight how many people are walking into this discussion already feeling judged or dismissed.
A superintendent this year told me she wanted to hire me to do some consulting in her district based on my record and ideas—but after a parent group looked me up and saw “Teachers College” on my resume from 20 years ago, the job was off the table. I offered to talk to them about how my thinking has evolved. But I wasn’t willing to say I had to relearn everything—because that just wasn’t true.
I recently posted about reading The Dyslexic Advantage and said I appreciated its focus on student strengths alongside needs. People seemed interested—some even wanted to start a book club. Then a prominent voice in the science of reading world commented, simply: “pseudoscience at best.” No question, no curiosity. Just dismissal.
I’ve seen a lot of “have grace for yourself” messaging toward people who used to be in balanced literacy. And while well-meaning, it sometimes feels one-sided—like grace only flows one way. I’ve been invited to share what I’ve “learned” from the science of reading movement and what I have unlearned, but rarely asked what I’ve learned over 30 years of working in classrooms. And I don’t often hear those in the science of reading space reflect on what they got wrong, even as they now revise past statements about things like story writing or leveled texts—statements that had real, harmful ripple effects in schools.
"I offered to talk to them about how my thinking has evolved. But I wasn’t willing to say I had to relearn everything—because that just wasn’t true."
This is so important--and so unfortunate. Claude has isolated a non-negotiable, but there are many negotiables out there. I have battled writing workshop presenters insisting that I must give a 'mini-lesson' and not interested in my arguments for giving a 'maxi-lesson'. However, like you, there are parts of the program that I have valued. It's the new teachers who become caught in the middle because they lack both experience and familiarity with the research to make the kinds of decisions you and I are making.
And FYI if i had been the presenter I would have said your lesson is as long it needs to be for students to learn it. The mini part only means that you want to teach only one thing to avoid cognitive overload. I wish terms like writing workshop, balanced literacy and science of reading weren't used in conversations that were trying to move beyond the reading wars. Rather if we could be as specific as Claude was about decoding, it would help us move forward. And hearing Rebecca's story and how her work has been influenced reminds me that we need to pay attention to the effect this is having students first and foremost but also the effect this is having on adults. Thankfully, there are many many schools/district off line who get this and want folks partnering with them who are nuanced and can get under the generalities and talk specifics. I'm doing a lot of work these days with attestation process in New York. I love it because it's all about the reflective dialogue and moving the conversation forward.
My thoughts:
1. I don’t agree that balanced literacy/three-cueing/whole language are similar and derive from the same set of assumptions and premises. I just don’t, but maybe that me. They are very different to me.
2. I think we DO agree that learning letter-sound correspondence is the gateway to literacy and I honestly don’t know anyone who would argue that point. Also, most of us would say that we privilege grapho-phonemic “cueing” over any other information in reading instruction, and that other sources are used to confirm the word once it has been decoded.
3. SOR as it is being implemented can and does get out of balance (dare I use that word?). I have seen it too often. It might be with good intentions, but phonemic awareness and phonics have taken over the vast majority of literacy teaching. What gets left out (sometimes) are the applications to real reading and writing, so the students don’t get to apply the skills they are learning. Read alouds, writing instruction, and content areas such as history, geography, social studies, and science are also casualties.
4. “Getting this understanding firmly in place in the minds, materials, and hands of those responsible for teaching children to read is one of our central challenges…” I could not agree more. The question to me is how? That may be a both/and. We need to improve preservice instruction, the programs and materials we give to teachers to use, and professional development (ongoing and not publisher-specific).
Interesting observations, Gina. I wonder if what I just posted, including Esther's blog, addresses your points 1 and 2... what's fundamentally the same about BL/3-cueing and whether any one argues the point that "learning letter-sound correspondence is the gateway to literacy." In addition, if you read/listened to posts/recordings that involved my new friend (although maybe not anymore?) Andy Johnson, there's someone who actively disputes that learning letter-sound correspondence is the gateway to literacy. He'd probably agree to "a gateway." But THE. No way! Same with Tierney and Pearson and a whole bunch of others including my EL advocates and sorta friends. That is THE sticking point, and they stick very hard to their.. I was going to say "guns," but instead I'll say their beliefs.
Understood. I guess there are folks who think that way. I was thinking of the teachers I know and the schools where I have taught. No one there was teaching cueing or avoiding teaching phonics.
I agree with these points.
Thank you for this lengthy and carefully crafted response. I agree with all of what you’ve said regarding what is essential for beginners. I also understand that the Pearson three-piece diagram is for mature readers. I don’t think I embrace both/and in such a way as to negate letter-sound correspondence must be first, both as primary and also chronologically for young readers. My concerns have been about 1) active bashing of persons, 2) excluding the use of ANY context, morphology, pictures, non-decodable text, and 3) impoverished text choices. Like Leah, I have experienced schools that canceled my contract, dismantled all “leveled libraries” and discarded books, refused any kind of Writing Workshop, limited texts to “decodables” up into grades 3+, and other examples. My notion of balance came originally from Michael Pressley, who posited both text-based and meaning-based approaches in appropriate balance. There’s so much more to say, but time and space prevent it for me at this time.
Getting past the labels, by which I mean having a common understanding of what they mean—we need words!—is certainly a must… including or ESPECIALLY science of reading. Even presumed experts play fast and loose with the terminology, lack of nuance, etc.
Problem is how do we do that with some words? What people are saying is a common understanding of balanced literacy is not how I would define it. So I tend to (right or wrong, I'm not sure) avoid the word these days and talk about specific instructional practices. With some words like it feels doable like decoding or phonics. With others like balanced literacy...I feel confused on how that would be done.
As you say, Claude, there’s a big difference between mature readers and beginners - and I love your changing the clutch story!
In England, three-cueing was very much promoted from the 1980s to the early 2000s. I have a video from a government-issued pack from about 2002 in which a teaching assistant stops a struggling 6-year-old from sounding out the word ‘soft’ as she reads and tells her instead to think about ‘What word would make sense?’ The child was well on her way to working the word out phonically, but was stopped in her tracks and told to use a much less effective strategy.
Since 2006-7, however, official policy in England has supported the sounding-out approach for beginners which that child was trying to use - look at the letters from left to right, say the sounds you have been taught for them, then blend those sounds together into a spoken word. We even have a compulsory screening check on this near the end of children’s second year of school (20 real words and 20 pseudo-words), and a study by Double et al. has shown that children who meet the required standard in this go on to do well in the international PIRLS reading test (comprehension) four years later.
"I love your changing the clutch story!"
Reminds me of my Greek mother, with her sixth grade education in her tiny mountain village, decided to rewire the house, so she enrolled in a night school course. Needless to say, an electrician showed up a few weeks later.
I continue to reflect on this thread, and on my prior work with students, teachers, and curriculum design. I want to begin by accepting that effective instruction requires teaching explicitly about letter-sound correspondences (and patterns), the alphabetic principle, orthographic mapping, morphology, and all of the key foundational skills identified by the research. I also want to accept that research suggests we teach both metacognitive comprehension strategies and a solid approach to background knowledge. Dr. Young-Suk Grace Kim's recent Amplify SOR Reading podcast explained her model called the Interactive Dynamic Model of Literacy, I think. It represents the complex factors that are required for reading, writing, and the reading-writing connection. It sounds wonderful and I can't wait to study it further. I now posit that it's important to look at the bigger picture of the curriculum and design it to include all of those things, connections to science and social studies, appropriate use of technology, accommodation of student differences, and meaningful themes that motivate kids. To do that involves larger-grained, long-term curriculum design that goes beyond one subject area. Dr. Lynn Erickson's work with concept-based curriculum design is one model that provides guidance for how to do this. Nancy Hennessey has a chapter in her book on unit planning that builds in the "big ideas" and conceptual understandings (some call them "Enduring Understandings") and integrate disciplines to help address the "why" of the various facts and skills we want to teach. I taught master's students to build such units while serving as a professor. The units that teachers created were amazing! We can do this work, but it takes a lot o time, energy, resources, and dedication of leaders committed to the model. Teaching has gotten so fragmented. Since the SoR movement, everytime I have attempted to propose this model to real teachers or schools, it gets shot down as "whole language" or "balanced literacy". With more and newer research suggesting that it is effective to build an integrated model (reading, writing, spelling, handwriting, social studies, science, literature, social-emotional considerations), we have the tools to devote renewed energy and attention to robust curriculum. EL (formerly Expeditionary Learning), International Baccalaureate, Dr. Julie Stern's work in Learning that Transfers, and Lynn Erickson's work are all good sources for this. So is Dr. Nell Duke's work, such as Inside Information. Teaching systematically and explicitly doesn't need to omit coherent, motivating work that explores the animating questions of life and leads to human flourishing. It is daunting task, but worth it. With new research and tools that help with effective instruction, the possibilities are exciting.
Thank you for continuing the dialogue. I can't even stand that we are still having this conversation. You are on point. One of my favorite parts of your article is, "How would a novice reader know whether a written word they can’t read and are trying to figure out “looks right”?" I thought the debunking of 3-cuing is settled science.
3-cuing has hurt lives. It has trained students to be guessers. The longer a student has been using context only to guess a word, the more difficult it is to break them of this habit no matter how comprehensive and systematic the phonics instruction. I have seen enormous amounts of students two and three grade levels behind in high poverty schools that are so confused looking at a word out of context and not knowing how to decode single syllable words in 4th and 5th grade. When whole language and balanced literacy advocates say that phonics is important, they are gaslighting everyone. Just like you said, it would be a primary component that learning to read centered around. And Reading Recovery is completely a whole language program. I have heard several people highly trained in that program say that if they prompt correctly, they don't even need visual. They advocate that it is the least important, which leads to teachers then blaming lack of progress on either a learning disability or multilingualism (because they lack the language to use syntax and semantics). We have known since the National Reading Panel the importance of phonemic awareness and phonics, yet these programs wanted to continue to develop their program primarily centered around comprehension and willfully neglected the two most foundational skills. This extended to teachers who would constantly implement comprehension interventions for decades, instead of phonemic awareness and phonics interventions.
Moving forward, we need to go deeper in our own science. The focus should be 3 big ideas: 1. Reading, writing, and spelling words out of context so that there are zero context clues and the phonics feature can be studied and practiced (Whole language advocates will gasp audibly here). This includes discussing the best scope and sequence options and public reasoning of these ideas. 2. Introducing irregular sounds as little as possible while students are still learning regular sounds (which is one reason why BL, WL, RR, and the leveled reading system failed because it focused on memorizing an enormous amount of irregular words before kids knew the regular sounds). This would include cognitive load theory and how students can be different in this area (working memory) and our pace of instruction of irregular sounds introduction to children that honors these differences. 3. Speech to print approach. Students need to understand this exact phrase, "We match sounds we make with our mouth-- to letters." Almost every single spelling error in early literacy is related to articulation and articulatory awareness.
I also wrote a piece today about productive dialogue https://leahmermelstein.substack.com/p/can-we-disagree-and-still-grow-together?r=4uwjft I would love for any of you to add your thoughts in the comments. It would help bring about productive dialogue that I think is soooo needed right.
Claude, do you think the Van Orden experiments should be taught to every prospective teacher?
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3600258/
Yes, along with a bunch of other studies, esp of younger readers. Van Orden experiments were with skilled college student readers.
I have a quiet moment so I wanted to write down some thoughts I had about what Claude said here.
Harriett (You will have to teach me how to block quote. I'm hopeless at the moment. lol.
Yes, three-cueing, balanced literacy, and whole language advocates, believers, and practitioners acknowledge that letters and sounds matter. Here’s the sticking point: Letters and sounds more than just “matter." You must know the letters and their corresponding sounds to become a successful reader in an alphabetic language1. Why? Because the sound-symbol connections are what connect oral language (human speech) to written language (print), and this connection is necessary to become literate in any written language. (See earlier posts on differences between oral and written language.).
I agree with the above completely.
Based upon research and my experiences, educators needs to teach beginning readers to say and the sounds and then read the words first and foremost.
After that they can confirm using other sources of information.
I know there are people who won't say that so I understand why balanced literacy is too vague of a term.
Here is one problem that I see.
Starting with the sounds as the first strategy a fundamental change but once you decide it's not a hard one to change. It's certainly doesn't necessitate an overhaul. When I go into schools and say it people are at times skeptical (but not always) However when I share the research and then work in their classrooms they are almost always convinced. We don't have to solve that with an overhaul. You change up the early reading books--You think differently about how you prompt. That's really it. These overhauls to make that change have made many lose their way.