Popular Reading Programs Lack Scientific Support

Over the years, there has been a great deal of research conducted on the most effective methods for teaching early reading. Experts in the field have developed a settled body of knowledge on the subject, which has been widely accepted and implemented in classrooms across the country. However, despite this wealth of knowledge, there are still many challenges that educators face when it comes to selecting the right reading curriculum for their students. One of the biggest challenges is sifting through the multitude of options that are available. With so many different programs on the market, it can be difficult to determine which ones are truly evidence-based and which ones are simply well-marketed. This is especially true for teachers who may not have the time or resources to conduct their own research or evaluate each program individually. Given these challenges, it’s important for schools and educators to carefully consider their options when it comes to selecting a reading curriculum. They should look for programs that have been rigorously tested and evaluated, and that are backed by a strong body of research. By doing so, they can ensure that they are providing their students with the best possible foundation for success in reading and beyond.

And making matters more complicated, there’s no good way to peek into every elementary reading classroom to see what materials teachers are using.

“Understudied issue,” says Mark Seidenberg, cognitive scientist at University of Wisconsin-Madison and author of “Language at the Speed of Sight”. Large publishers not forthcoming about program usage data, making research difficult.

As we delve deeper into the current educational landscape, it is critical to understand the methods and materials utilized by educators in their early reading instruction. Therefore, the Education Week Research Center conducted a comprehensive survey, gathering data from K-2 and special education teachers across the nation. The survey sought to determine the curricula, programs, and textbooks employed in classrooms to foster successful reading development among young learners. By examining the results of this nationally representative survey, we gain invaluable insights into the teaching strategies that are most effective in promoting literacy among children, and can thus work towards enhancing early reading instruction across the board.

The top five include three sets of core instructional materials, meant to be used in whole-class settings: The Units of Study for Teaching Reading, developed by the Teachers College Reading and Writing Project, and Journeys and Into Reading, both by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. There are also two early interventions, which target specific skills certain students need more practice on: Fountas & Pinnell’s Leveled Literacy Intervention and Reading Recovery.

According to Seidenberg, phonics is a crucial component of reading programs that is often overlooked or “buried” in many commercially available programs. While these programs may offer some resources and materials for teaching phonics, it can be challenging for teachers to construct a comprehensive and effective sequence for teaching this important skill. In some cases, teachers may be left to their own devices to develop a coherent plan for teaching phonics, which can be a daunting task. However, with the right resources and support, teachers can help ensure that their students have the foundational skills they need to become confident and successful readers.

Equity & Diversity

Explainer

What Is Critical Race Theory, and Why Is It Under Attack?

Stephen Sawchuk, May 18, 2021

•

10 min read

Students use multiple cues to solve words, including letters, context, pictures, and grammar.

The way in which we read and process written language is a fascinating subject that has garnered significant attention from researchers over the years. Through the use of observational studies, we have discovered that individuals who struggle with reading tend to rely on different sources of information in order to predict what words might say. However, it is important to note that this is not the case for skilled readers. In fact, studies have indicated that skilled readers do not read in this way at all. Thanks to advances in neuroscience research, we now have a better understanding of how skilled readers process written language. It has been found that skilled readers are able to process all of the letters in words as they read them, rather than relying on contextual clues or other sources of information. Furthermore, skilled readers are able to read connected text much more quickly than those who struggle with reading. These findings have significant implications for how we approach the teaching of reading and literacy. By understanding the neurological processes involved in reading, we can develop more effective strategies for helping struggling readers to improve their skills. Additionally, we can help to dispel common misconceptions about reading, such as the idea that it is simply a matter of decoding individual words based on contextual clues. Overall, the research into reading and language processing is a vital area of inquiry that has the potential to improve the lives of countless individuals.

Even so, many early reading programs are designed to teach students to make better guesses, under the assumption that it will make children better readers. The problem is that it trains kids to believe that they don’t always need to look at all of the letters that make up words in order to read them.

Teachers may not realize that cueing strategies are not backed by scientific evidence for reading instruction, says Heidi Beverine-Curry of The Reading League.

When it comes to the selection of primary reading programs and materials, classroom teachers are often not the ones making the final decisions. According to a recent survey conducted by Education Week, a majority of teachers (65 percent) reported that it is their district that chooses the curriculum that will be used in the classroom. Only 27 percent of teachers indicated that their school was responsible for this decision. It is important to note that while teachers may not have the final say in selecting the materials they use to teach their students, they still play an integral role in implementing these programs effectively. Teachers are responsible for ensuring that their students understand the material, and they are often the ones who provide valuable feedback to their districts about the effectiveness of the curriculum. Despite not having complete control over the selection of reading programs and materials, teachers remain committed to providing their students with the best possible education.

Even when teachers want to question their school or district’s approach, they may feel pressured to stay silent. Education Week spoke with three teachers from different districts who requested that their names not be used in this story, for fear of repercussions from their school systems.

Cue Strategies Endure

Reading Recovery, used by 20% of surveyed teachers, is a 1st grade intervention developed by Marie Clay in the 1970s. 30-minute one-on-one lessons catch students early, according to Jeff Williams, a Reading Recovery Teacher-Leader in Ohio.

In order to assess the reading progress of students, it is common for teachers to conduct a “running record” during reading time. This involves the student reading a book that they have read several times before, followed by a book that is new to them, which they have only read once the day before. As the student reads, the teacher carefully marks any words that are read incorrectly, and takes note of which cue the child appeared to use in producing the wrong word. This process not only helps the teacher identify areas where the student may need extra support, but also allows for a deeper understanding of the child’s reading habits and development over time. By analyzing the cues used by the student, the teacher can better understand how the child approaches reading, and tailor instruction to meet their individual needs. Ultimately, this process helps to create a more supportive and effective learning environment, where students can thrive and develop their skills to their fullest potential.

For example, if a child reads the word “pot” instead of “bucket,” a teacher could indicate that the student was using meaning cues to figure out the word.

Students practice letter-sound, write, assemble words, and read a new book.

The program also requires intensive teacher training, which is administered through partner colleges.

Fountas & Pinnell’s Leveled Literacy Intervention follows a similar lesson structure, but it’s delivered in a small group format rather than one-on-one.

In order to optimize the learning experience of students, both of these programs have implemented a system of leveling text based on its perceived difficulty. This leveling allows teachers to match students with books that are at a just-right level for their skill set, meaning that the material will provide a challenge without overwhelming them. This approach to learning ensures that students are able to engage with the material at a level that is appropriate for their abilities, allowing them to build upon their existing knowledge and develop new skills with confidence. By providing students with texts that are both challenging and accessible, these programs are able to foster a love of learning and encourage students to reach their full potential.

Students in the lowest levels read predictable text: books in which the sentence structure is similar from page to page, and pictures present literal interpretations of what the text says. One LLI book, for example, follows a girl as she gets dressed to go sledding in winter. “Look at my pants,” the first page reads, facing an image of the girl holding up a pair of pants. “Look at my jacket,” is on the next page, with a photo of the girl pointing to a jacket.

Irene Fountas and Gay Su Pinnell, the founders of LLI, declined an interview for this story through their publisher, Heinemann. The company also declined to comment.

The debate around predictable texts and the associated teaching methods is an important one, with varying viewpoints and opinions. At the heart of this disagreement lies the question of whether or not predictable text is an effective tool for teaching young children how to read. While some argue that it can be a helpful way to orient children to the basics of print and language, others argue that it may limit their reading comprehension and critical thinking skills.

For those who support the use of predictable text, like Williams, a Reading Recovery teacher leader in Ohio, the repetitive sentence structure and frequent use of pictures can be valuable in helping children understand that words have consistent meaning and providing a context for linking words to their corresponding images. This can be especially useful for young children who are just beginning to learn how to read, as they may not yet have a solid grasp of the fundamentals of language and reading.

However, others argue that the use of predictable text can be limiting, as it may not expose children to a wide enough range of vocabulary and sentence structures. This, in turn, could hinder their ability to fully comprehend more complex texts later on. Additionally, some argue that it may not encourage critical thinking skills, as children may simply rely on the predictable structure of the text rather than engaging with the content in a meaningful way.

Overall, the debate around predictable texts and their use in teaching young children how to read is a complex one, with strong arguments on both sides. Ultimately, it is up to individual educators and parents to weigh the pros and cons of this approach and determine what is best for their students and children.

He gave the word “hippopotamus” as an example. By pointing out that “hippopotamus” starts with the letter “h,” and linking that word to a relevant picture and story context, the student can connect the word and the meaning of the word.

“When it’s in isolation and we just say arbitrarily, ‘This shape makes this sound,’ that’s a little abstract for little kids,” Williams said.

Experts disagree on using predictable text for young children’s language development.

“You build this foundation of, English is a language that I have to memorize,” said Tiffany Peltier, a doctoral student at Oklahoma University, who studies reading instruction.

But kids don’t memorize words to learn them. Instead, they decode the letter-sound correspondences. After several exposures, the word becomes recognizable on sight, through a process called orthographic mapping.

A hippo picture is useful for understanding its appearance and behavior, but not for reading the word.

In predictable texts, students don’t have to recognize the individual sounds in the word, said Peltier, even though learning how to do that is highly correlated with reading ability. So do Reading Recovery and LLI attend to the sounds in words at all?

Both have daily sections for letter and word work. Reading Recovery tests students on 50 phonemes when they enter the program, and teachers target the ones that students don’t know, said Williams.

In the field of education, it’s essential to provide personalized instruction that caters to the needs and abilities of each individual student. However, relying solely on this approach can sometimes lead to unintended gaps in their learning. According to Kristen Koeller, a former Reading Recovery teacher who now serves as the educator outreach manager at Decoding Dyslexia California, focusing solely on correcting individual student errors without a systematic approach can sometimes result in the neglect of essential skills and concepts that students need to excel academically. Therefore, educators must strike a balance between personalized instruction and a structured curriculum to ensure that their students receive a well-rounded education.

For example, she said, she might have a student who didn’t know the /ow/ sound, like in the words “how” or “wow.” Koeller would work with the student on that sound, but she wasn’t expected to explain the difference between when “ow” makes the /ow/ sound, like in “how,” and when “ow” makes and /o/ sound, like in “show.”

Phonics does happen in Reading Recovery lessons, she said. “But it is not systematic, it is not multisensory, and it depends largely on the teacher’s knowledge base and the book that is selected.”

Fountas & Pinnell Literacy cites 2 studies from the University of Memphis, funded by Heinemann, to validate program’s K-2 effectiveness.

The 2010 paper , which the company calls its “gold standard” study, found that kindergarten, 1st, and 2nd graders who received LLI made greater gains than students who received no intervention. But these gains were only consistent on Fountas & Pinnell’s own assessment, rather than an external validator of reading achievement. Results on DIBELS, a separate early literacy test, were mixed. Kindergartners and 1st graders in the treatment group did better than the control group on some subtests, but 2nd graders saw no difference.

Reading Recovery, by contrast, has a much stronger evidence base for effectiveness. Most notably, an independent evaluation of the federal grant expanding the program found that students who received the intervention did better on assessments of overall reading, reading comprehension, and decoding compared to similar students who received their schools’ traditional literacy interventions. But even that study has invited controversy.

Psychologists James W. Chapman and William E. Tunmer published a critique of the evaluation , arguing that many of the lowest-achieving students were excluded from the program, potentially inflating success rates.

The executive director of the Reading Recovery Council of North America did not respond to requests for comment.

The Education Week survey has revealed some fascinating insights into the world of teaching, with three core instructional programs making the top five most popular list among teachers. These programs have proven to be invaluable resources for educators everywhere, helping them to provide their students with the best possible learning experiences. Among the top five programs were The Units of Study for Teaching Reading, published by Heinemann, which has been celebrated for its comprehensive approach to teaching reading skills. Additionally, both Journeys and Into Reading, published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, have also proven to be incredibly popular among teachers, thanks to their engaging content and effective teaching strategies. It’s clear that these programs have had a significant impact on the way that teachers approach their lessons, and are an important resource for anyone looking to improve their teaching skills and help their students achieve their full potential.

Units of Study for Teaching Reading was developed by Lucy Calkins, a researcher and the founding director of the Teachers College Reading and Writing Project.

The program that we have in place follows a highly effective and proven model known as the “reader’s workshop.” The main objective of this model is to create an atmosphere where students can become independent and proficient readers. At the beginning of each class, our teachers provide a concise and informative “mini-lesson” to the students, which serves as a foundation for the rest of the class. Following the mini-lesson, the students are given time to practice the skill that they have just learned independently. During this time, the teacher closely monitors each student’s progress, providing guidance, feedback, and support where necessary. This approach allows for a more personalized learning experience, as students can receive individualized attention and support from their teacher. Furthermore, our teachers also work with small groups of students during this time, providing targeted instruction that caters to the specific needs and abilities of each student. This approach ensures that each student is given the opportunity to achieve their full potential, regardless of their learning style or ability level. Overall, our reader’s workshop model is designed to create a highly engaging and effective learning environment that promotes student growth, independence, and success. Through this approach, we are confident that our students will develop a lifelong love of reading and become confident, proficient readers.

“We think about what is it that a good reader does. What is the life that a good reader leads?” Calkins says in a video describing reading workshop on the Units of Study website. “So above all, that means putting reading front and center.”

Calkins declined an interview for this story through her publisher, Heinemann. The company also declined to comment on the program itself.

Units of Study instills these reading habits in children, and teaches them that reading is something to value, said Susan Chambre, an assistant professor of education at Marist College in Poughkeepsie, N.Y. It also introduces a variety of genres and gives students choice in what they read. “The fact that we are immersing kids in literature—that is important,” Chambre said.

But Chambre struggled with Units of Study when she used it as a kindergarten teacher in an inclusion classroom. The program assumed a lot of knowledge—of oral language, of phonics—that students just didn’t have. Chambre would watch children mumble through sentences, making up words by looking at the pictures.

“If kids have foundational skills and general knowledge, they’ll do well with Units of Study for Teaching Reading,” said Meredith Liben from Student Achievement Partners.

Many students lack the necessary knowledge and the program doesn’t fill the gaps. Kindergarten students are taught reading “super powers” to aid them in reading. Teachers encourage the use of picture clues and first letter sounds.

In a public statement responding to science-based critiques of her program, Calkins wrote that asking students to guess or “try it” when they come to hard words teaches reading stamina. She also argued that there is value in predictable texts for young children, who are “approximating reading” when they rely on syntax and picture clues.

Though billed as a core reading program, the Units of Study in Reading doesn’t teach phonemic awareness or phonics systematically or explicitly. “At best it’s a suggestion, and there’s a lot of focus on the three-cueing system,” Liben said.

The Teachers College Reading and Writing Project recently released a separate phonics program, the Units of Study in Phonics. In her recent statement, Calkins emphasized the importance of a systematic phonics program, and said it would be a “wise move” for teachers to include more decodable texts in lessons with emerging readers. Still, marketing materials for the units imply that the company believes phonics should not play a central role in the classroom.

“Phonics instruction needs to be lean and efficient,” the materials read. “Every minute you spend teaching phonics (or preparing phonics materials to use in your lessons) is less time spent teaching other things.”

Choices Menu

HMH’s Journeys has 6.7 million users in schools. Into Reading is newer.

Both programs include an explicit, systematic program in phonemic awareness and phonics. In an emailed statement to Education Week, a representative for HMH wrote that the company suggests teachers follow this sequence, as phonics skills build cumulatively. Decodable texts are available for purchase.

This section of a scope and sequence chart from Houghton Mifflin Harcourt’s Journeys reading program lists the skills to teach during kindergarten lessons. The company says that teachers can choose from a variety of materials and have the flexibility to make different instructional decisions.

Because these programs are meant to be comprehensive, they include lessons and resources for teaching other foundational skills—like writing letters, spelling, and fluency—as well as explicit vocabulary instruction, anchor texts and student texts, writing instruction, and comprehension instruction.

Seidenberg found Journeys overwhelming with too many materials and choices. It seems like the publisher tried to include everything in response to reading instruction debates.

In the emailed statement, HMH said that teachers can “choose from a variety of resources to make the best instructional decisions for their students and to align with district curriculum requirements.”

When Milton Terrace Elementary in Ballston Spa, N.Y., started using Journeys, teachers were using the materials differently, said Kathleen Chaucer, the principal. (The school is no longer using the program.) For example—even though the program offers decodable books, kids were practicing in leveled texts, which didn’t offer opportunities to use patterns they learned, Chaucer said.

Journeys includes six teacher manuals for its 1st grade program alone, Seidenberg said. “There is so much information in those teacher manuals, it raises serious questions about whether anyone is actually using them,” he said. “And if they are using them, are they just picking through them to find the pieces that they’re comfortable with?” Chaucer said that’s what happened at her school.

Perfect Program?

When it comes to education, finding the perfect curriculum can be quite challenging. This sentiment is echoed by Blythe Wood, an experienced instructional coach in the special education department at Pickerington school district. As the Vice President of the International Dyslexia Association of Central Ohio, Wood has an in-depth understanding of the complexities of curriculum development and implementation, particularly for learners with special needs. With her wealth of knowledge and experience, Wood is aware that the perfect curriculum may not exist, but she remains dedicated to ensuring that all students receive the best possible education.

She’s critical of Leveled Literacy Intervention, specifically, for the focus it puts on looking at words as wholes, and the lack of decodable text. But there are good and bad parts to most commercial materials, she said.

Teacher knowledge and student needs trump boxed programs. One size doesn’t fit all.

Taking a hard look at curriculum is important—but more important is making sure teachers have the training they need to evaluate practices themselves, said Beverine-Curry, of The Reading League. “Just handing teachers materials or a program or a curriculum is not going to do the job.”

Mar

Thu., March 28, 2024, 2:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m. ET

Jobs Virtual Career Fair for Teachers and K-12 Staff

Find teaching jobs and other jobs in K-12 education at the EdWeek Top School Jobs virtual career fair.

Click Here

Mar

Thu., March 14, 2024, 2:00 p.m. - 4:00 p.m. ET

Recruitment & Retention

K-12 Essentials Forum

Building a Diverse Staff to Improve Equity and Student Outcomes

Join this free virtual event to get up to speed on the pivotal role of diversity in K-12 education.

Click Here

Mar

Student Achievement

Webinar

Closing the Learning Gaps: Acceleration for ALL

Struggling to close the achievement gap? Join this webinar for actionable strategies that embrace acceleration for ALL learners!