Teacher with students in reading group

Who Sold a Story?

Sold a Story is important

I’ve just finished listening to all six episodes of Emily Hanford’s masterful podcast, Sold a Story. Should educators and concerned parents listen? Yes. Should they take it as gospel truth? No! Keep reading…

Children have been harmed!

Hanford is a talented and courageous journalist. I am grateful to her for stepping into the reading arena and calling out the terrible injustice that children have endured when not taught to read in a way they could grasp. However, in an attempt to simplify a complex problem, Hanford oversimplified it. Sadly, she set up a straw man and then shot it down with perfect aim. Her prodigious talents could have been put to better use. I have four big questions after hearing the podcast.

Should three-cueing be equated with Reading Recovery?

Hanford castigates Reading Recovery, stating that it teaches children to guess words using the pictures and whether the word makes sense. While Reading Recovery certainly encourages children to think about everything they see on the page, Hanford’s caricature of Reading Recovery teachers is simply unfair. They use phonics and teach phonemic awareness just like any decent reading teacher. 

Hanford misses this: while most children learn to read easily using phonics, this doesn’t work for every child. If we believe, like Hanford seems to, that systematic phonics will teach all children to read, then we are in grave danger of blaming the child when it doesn’t work. Reading Recovery acknowledges that there are children who need other tools. Calling Reading Recovery a three-cueing program is unfair.

Is Phonics the same as the Science of Reading?

Hanford’s podcast, whether intentionally or not, leaves the impression that the Science of Reading equals Phonics, pure and simple. There’s so much more to reading research than that! Is phonics important? Of course! Who would think otherwise? Should children be taught to read before being asked to do it independently? Of course. 

Here again, the missing bit is that not ALL children learn to read when instructed in phonics, despite what the podcast seems to indicate. Hanford demonizes the use of methods other than phonics to teach reading. I wish Sold a Story had made it clear that phonics should always be included, rather than pretending that phonics works for every child. 

Does phonics fix dyslexia?

No. It doesn’t. It’s one tool, an extremely important tool. But having taught hundreds of dyslexic kids to read (and enjoy reading!) I confidently state that to move past painfully slow sounding out, you need to bring additional tools to the table. Tools, not guessing. Failing to do so is unjust, and cruel. Hanford seems to think if dyslexic children are taught phonics they automatically learn to read. If her own children were dyslexic she might have a different opinion. 

Is balanced literacy the same as three-cueing?

Hanford seems to think balanced literacy is a code word for three-cueing. Here I think she REALLY over-simplified or is just wrong. Balanced literacy generally refers to instructional programs that include multiple language skills: oral language, phonological awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension. This sounds balanced! It doesn’t include guessing.

In all my training, I was never advised to guide students toward guessing based on pictures, first letters, or context. I WAS instructed to BALANCE my phonics instruction with other aspects of reading. This included looking at a book to talk about the pictures, the author, the illustrator, when it was written, and the subject matter. I’ve found this preparation for reading especially important for dyslexic students, as it lowers anxiety and increases interest.

Balanced literacy starts with phonics but goes beyond phonics. As Robert Schwartz notes in The Three Cueing Systems in Beginning Reading Instruction: Good Idea or Hoax?, “[Dr. Tim Shanahan] claims that the research evidence shows that skilled readers don’t use meaning or syntactic cues to recognize words. I agree. The research evidence is clear. It is also clear that skilled readers don’t sound out words letter-by-letter and then blend the sounds.”

Hanford correctly points out that skilled readers do NOT use three-cueing methods to read as Marie Clay once thought. And, yes, we need to guide readers toward skilled reading — automaticity and fluency, to use educationese. The key is using phonics AND other tools, together. For a clear and indepth analysis see The Science of Reading and the Media at the Literacy Research Association.

For a beautifully balanced approach to literacy, check out the superb work of Dr. Sam Bommarito. His blog and YouTube channel provide an excellent education for any reading teacher.

Brains are not all the same

Reading is more complex than any one tool or curriculum, and good teachers adjust to the student, trying multiple approaches. Unfortunately, not all teachers know all the tools, especially those needed to move a dyslexic student beyond sounding out every word every time. Worse, certain publishing companies have sold a story about reading that Hanford rightly challenges.

Emily Hanford deserves our gratitude, not our worship

Emily Hanford, in Sold a Story, exposed the horrible reality that many children in our schools fail to read well.  Also, these same children often become avid readers if taught with alternate methods. Hanford is right about that situation and the problem is real! I’m glad she’s got people talking, but she attacked the wrong target.

The true villains in Sold a Story

The villains, in my opinion, are publishing companies that tout their programs as the only way to teach reading, and furthermore, insist that schools buying their curriculum use ONLY their curriculum. Hanford highlights a particular company but there are others. These companies charge exorbitant fees. They use draconian legal shenanigans to punish schools that dare to depart from their contracted program.

The companies SAY they demand absolute loyalty to protect the integrity of their program. They claim their programs are the Science of Reading. They lie. Their actual reason is clear — they make a ton of money off the taxpayers who support the public schools. Greed, pure and simple. Hanford exhibited tremendous courage and reporting ability in exposing them. I’m grateful for her work, even though I have to disagree with much of her presentation.

If you haven’t listened to Sold a Story, it’s worth your time. But don’t be swept up in the pathos — keep in mind that it’s part of the picture, not the whole show.

by Yvonna Graham, M.Ed.

@GrahamYvonna

www.dyslexiakit.net