Already troubled by her 4th grade students鈥� low reading levels, San Antonio-area teacher Melody Fernandez entered 鈥渟urvival mode鈥� when she was moved down to 1st grade鈥攁nd discovered the full scope of what she and many of her elementary colleagues were not prepared to teach.
She had learned a lot in her preparation about reading theories, but no specific protocols for teaching the subject. So she did what many teachers new to a grade do. She used the methods more seasoned colleagues told her to use, and the curriculum on hand, which relied on leveled picture books with easily memorized, repetitive sentence structures.
鈥淵ou would just do different strategies, different little activities to get this rote memorization of sight words,鈥� she said. 鈥淚 did everything I was supposed to do. Kids were supposed to need kinesthetic movement, and so we did 鈥榬each up high for the tall letters and hang down low for the low letters.鈥� We had our weekly spelling test and our sound of the week, and that was supposed to translate to reading,鈥� she said.
In all that鈥檚 been written about early literacy, little attention has been given to the cultural factors that influence how such practices are learned, reinforced, and transmitted. Yet sociology plays a major role in why they linger on in classrooms鈥攄espite evidence that they can hinder young readers鈥� ability to crack the code.
This is a story about how Fernandez realized there was a better way to teach early reading. It鈥檚 also a cautionary tale illuminating the cultural obstacles that hold back many of her K-2 reading peers, and the field at large, from similar shifts.
For one thing, new data from the Education Week Research Center, released as part of this special report, suggest that in the pursuit of 鈥渂alanced literacy,鈥� many teachers are blending multiple approaches in a way that can weaken instruction. What that means is that shifting early literacy practice on a large scale won鈥檛 happen merely by switching out a textbook or two. It will require helping teachers make a culture shift鈥攚ithout blaming or shaming them.
Teachers are using flawed reading practices not because they鈥檙e ignorant, ill-prepared, or incompetent. They are doing it because, like Melody Fernandez, they are being told to use them鈥攗sually by deeply trusted sources, like cherished mentors, colleagues, or the popular curriculum sitting in their classrooms.
Taking a Cue
The Education Week survey paints the first nationally representative picture of how K-2 teachers instruct students to decode, or identify new words on the page鈥攁 critical piece in the complex process of learning to read.
Nearly 70 percent of K-2 and special education reading teachers in a nationally representative survey conducted by the Education Week Research Center said that they are using balanced literacy. But what did they mean by it? In responses, teachers outlined how they defined the term, with most falling into one of the following three categories.
A combination of phonics and whole language instruction
Balanced literacy is often defined as 鈥渢aking the best parts鈥� from these two approaches. Among the most common blended approaches is the notion of using 鈥渃ueing systems鈥� to solve unfamiliar words: 69传媒 are asked to use meaning cues like pictures and context, syntactic cues like sentence structure, and 鈥済raphophonic鈥� or visual cues like initial letter sounds to identify a new word. In practice, phonics is often subordinated to the other two cues.
Guided reading or leveled reading
These are most associated with two specific curriculum providers, both of them popular among educators. The Education Week survey found that 4 in 10 teachers use Fountas & Pinnell鈥檚 Leveled Literacy Intervention and 16 percent use Units of Study for Teaching 69传媒, developed by Teachers College Professor Lucy Calkins. In a guided reading program, students work with a teacher in groups separated by their reading level, usually determined via periodically administered 鈥渞unning records鈥� looking at student reading errors based on cues. The students read and analyze texts at their instructional level, rather than books deemed too challenging or easy. Phonics skills are generally introduced within context.
A program that bases instruction on all five major components of literacy
The 鈥渂ig five鈥� refer to the 2000 National 69传媒 Panel report. The federally financed panel concluded from a review of empirical research that phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension were critical elements of early literacy teaching.
But the panel did not prescribe a particular way that these components should be put together in a curriculum.
Balanced literacy is a term with a number of interpretations, but teachers appear to use a mix of techniques to put it into practice鈥攕ome research-based and others not. Nearly 60 percent of teachers said that when students encountered a word they don鈥檛 know, they taught them to first 鈥渟ound it out,鈥� a core component of phonics, which helps students master how to decode and encode letter sounds. But that鈥檚 undercut by the more than half who said they agreed that students didn鈥檛 need a good grasp of phonics to read unfamiliar words. And 3 in 4 U.S. teachers said they taught students to use the 鈥渢hree-cueing system鈥� when reading.
Cueing, sometimes called 鈥淢SV"鈥攕horthand for meaning, syntactical, and visual鈥攄eveloped from whole language, an approach that prioritizes meaning over learning the alphabetic code. The basic idea is that students use cues like pictures, sentence structure, and sometimes letters to decipher a new word. 69传媒 are assigned books with predictable sentence structures that reinforce the use of the cues, and they鈥檙e frequently put in teaching groups based on which cues they supposedly need help on.
Empirical research studies overwhelmingly support a systematic code-based approach over the meaning-first ones. But many teachers protest that the two should be complementary鈥攚hat鈥檚 wrong with uniting them? It鈥檚 a common refrain among reading teachers, after all, that students can benefit from 鈥渁ll the tools in the toolbox.鈥� Or, that students can use cueing systems to 鈥渃ross check鈥� whether they鈥檝e successfully decoded a word.
In essence the problem is that phonics and cueing work at cross purposes to one another. As researchers like Marilyn Adams and Keith Stanovich have found, good readers attend to all the letters in words when they read, rather than predicting upcoming words from context. Cueing, on the other hand, encourages students to take their attention off of printed text.
鈥業 Felt Like a Failure鈥�
Fernandez actually had heard about phonics, phonemes, and digraphs in her teacher preparation program. But she also was told about the reading wars, that a balanced approach was the best way to teach, and that students should spend a lot of time reading 鈥渁uthentic texts,鈥� while learning their sounds separately. So alongside phonics, she learned about sight words and the principles of 鈥済uided reading.鈥�
Once in the classroom, with no scope and sequence for teaching phonics, Fernandez prompted her students to use the cueing methods when they came across words they didn鈥檛 know. She had posters on the walls depicting animals, each touting a different reading strategy: 鈥淓agle Eye,鈥� who encouraged students to look for pictures if they didn鈥檛 know a word, and 鈥淪kippy Frog,鈥� who told them to 鈥渟kip the tricky word鈥� they didn鈥檛 know and come back to it later. She made popsicle-stick reminders that students could refer to when reading independently.
But she began noticing small things that didn鈥檛 add up. For one thing, students鈥� brains 鈥渟eemed to turn off鈥� in her small-group lessons. They weren鈥檛 paying attention to the printed words on the page; they were scanning the page looking for pictures and making guesses.
For another, they couldn鈥檛 recognize words out of context: 鈥淭hey would memorize a story in a book, but when they saw those same words in another book they wouldn鈥檛 be able to transfer their knowledge,鈥� she said.
By the end of her second school year teaching 1st grade, Fernandez wasn鈥檛 satisfied with her students鈥� reading growth. 鈥淭hey鈥檇 improved, but the students with the lowest skills still had the lowest skills,鈥� Fernandez recalled. 鈥淎nd that was a problem to me. I had won Teacher of the Year one year. And I felt like a failure.鈥�
Sending Mixed Signals
This mix of techniques isn鈥檛 a bug in the system: It is often communicated to teachers as a best practice. When the cueing systems are taught in education courses next to phonics, the message that sends is that no one method is superior to another. Logically, teachers assume that it鈥檚 perfectly acceptable to pick and choose, or blend them together.
Teacher preparation is hardly the only transmitter of mixed signals. For years teacher licensing exams have included questions related to cueing, often alongside important literacy topics like phonemes and morphemes. Though the Educational Testing Service has phased out most references to cueing in its tests, its reading-specialist exam, required in about 20 states, still includes the topic. (ETS officials said that test will be replaced in September 2020, and will no longer include cueing.)
A set of reading standards used by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, which runs the prestigious national board-certification process, state that 鈥渁ccomplished teachers know that strategic readers use a variety of cueing systems, and they understand how to instruct students to use these systems flexibly.鈥�
Both the ETS and NBPTS exams are taken by teachers of an array of grade levels, including those working with K-2 students, where cueing is likely to cause the most harm.
As explored elsewhere in this special report, some of the most popular early-reading curricula encourage teachers to use the cueing ideas with their students. Even in those that have recently rushed phonics supplements to market, an implicit message continues to tell teachers that phonics should be separated from the 鈥渞eal鈥� work of reading.
Marketing materials for the Units of Phonics K-2 curriculum, written by Lucy Calkins and her colleagues at Teachers College, Columbia University, and published by Heinemann, say: 鈥淟ucy and her coauthors aim to protect time for authentic reading and writing, while also helping you teach a rigorous, research-based phonics curriculum.鈥�
Professional associations also send a variety of mixed signals. Conferences hosted by the International Literacy Association and the National Council of Teachers of English continue to include sessions critical of code-based instruction. The American Association of School Administrators鈥� November 2019 issue contained an article written by Calkins on her balanced literacy curriculum, whose materials use some of the cueing prompts. It ran right next to an essay by another superintendent, who noted鈥攃orrectly鈥攖hat the curriculum鈥檚 approach lacks empirical research.
In light of that, it鈥檚 no wonder misunderstandings persist, some frustrated district officials said, in response to the odd juxtaposition.
鈥淲e鈥檙e talking about things that are settled, versus things that aren鈥檛 settled or proven outside of anecdotal little stories,鈥� said Jared Myracle, the chief academic officer for the Jackson-Madison district in Tennessee, about the articles. 鈥淢ost superintendents are not experts in the science of reading. 鈥� The next time the discussion comes up in the district and you鈥檙e making decisions about materials, you鈥檝e opened a door for an unsupported theory to take over your district鈥檚 literacy initiative, even though I鈥檓 sure that wasn鈥檛 the intent.鈥�
For Fernandez, things came to a head after one particularly brutal lesson. 69传媒 were working on the word family of the week, specializing in a particular vowel sound, like the long o. They were excited, peppering Fernandez with examples. But then she ran into a problem: 69传媒 were naming words with the correct phoneme but lots of different spellings. And Fernandez realized she couldn鈥檛 explain to them why the /o/ sound could also be spelled -oa or -ow or -oe.
鈥淭hey came up with these great ideas, and it would absolutely be the right sound, but it wouldn鈥檛 fit into that word family. And I鈥檇 tell them that, and their faces would fall,鈥� she said.
She commiserated with a colleague, newly arrived from a different district that had been using a systematic code-based approach, who ultimately told her: 鈥淵ou鈥檙e really not teaching it the best way. Letter names aren鈥檛 as important as teaching all the letter sounds,鈥� Fernandez recalled.
She thought that was crazy at first, but she determined over the summer that she鈥檇 get to the bottom of matters before starting at a new school district. She Googled 鈥渢eaching letter sounds.鈥� She spent hours on blogs. She eventually came across articles on the science of reading, participated in webinars, even paid for some private training on phonemic manipulation and phonics out of her own pocket. And eventually, all the pieces clicked.
鈥淚 was just kind of shocked, I guess, like, 鈥楬uh! This is so weird. This makes sense to me, and it makes sense to teach. Why isn鈥檛 everyone doing it this way?鈥� 鈥� she said. 鈥淚t鈥檚 baffling to me, still.鈥�
Unmixing the Clay
It鈥檚 not as baffling, though, when you consider just how complex foundational alphabetic skills are. The rules for phonics aren鈥檛 simple or intuitive, and guiding students through 44 sound patterns is a lot more difficult than reading alongside a student and prompting him to use context to guess at new words.
Marnie Ginsberg, a former federally funded literacy researcher, is now a literacy consultant and one of the sources Fernandez credits with her breakthrough. She says the teachers she works with generally fall into several categories. Some have access to great phonics resources, but simply feel overwhelmed trying to put them into practice. Others, like Fernandez, don鈥檛 arrive with a particularly strong philosophical bent: They鈥檙e using weak materials and approaches because that鈥檚 what they know.
More challenging, she says, are those teachers who have seen old-fashioned phonics worksheets and thus have the idea of phonics as 鈥渄rill and kill鈥� teaching. But the hardest of all is working with teachers who have been trained in specific balanced literacy curricula.
Indeed, many teachers are deeply skeptical of recent reporting, including Education Week鈥檚, that questions staples of the balanced literacy classroom. And it鈥檚 no wonder: Whole teaching careers, not to mention professional reputations, have been built on these methods. Ideas like cueing are so ingrained that many teachers don鈥檛 even realize their origins; they may only know them as the 鈥渁nimal strategies.鈥�
In those cases, working with teachers is a little bit like trying to separate two colors of clay that have been kneaded together: getting rid of practices like cueing while keeping the commendable focus on reading and writing.
That usually means showing how teachers can start to shift in small, digestible ways. For example, Wiley Blevins, who trains teachers nationwide, helps teachers who lack 鈥渄ecodable鈥� or controlled texts that help students practice newly learned phonics skills create some of their own, and he insists that teachers spend at least half of their lessons having students apply phonics knowledge to actual reading and writing to dispel the idea that building background knowledge isn鈥檛 compatible with foundational skills.
鈥淲e work on how teachers can write [decodable] text sentences鈥攍ike maybe five sentences, with one new word introducing a new phonics skill. You can write sentences on the topics you鈥檙e talking about so you鈥檙e reinforcing it in a phonics way,鈥� he said. 鈥淚 don鈥檛 make them write stories鈥攖hat鈥檚 too hard. But five sentences and one new word? That they can do.鈥�
As teachers gradually learn effective decoding practices, they also start to realize that they鈥檝e become experts in early literacy research, he said.
The challenge facing the nation now is how to do that work at scale. And surprisingly, much of the recent interest in early literacy has been driven by grassroots parent groups, rather than by district brass.
Increasingly, it鈥檚 also being led by practicing classroom teachers, who are organizing themselves into networks to spread research-based approaches to early literacy and other subjects. ResearchED, a teacher-led network inspired by a similar effort in the United Kingdom, has been leading conferences and trainings, as has The 69传媒 League, which began in 2015 as a dedicated group of teachers and administrators in Syracuse, N.Y.
鈥淲e don鈥檛 push strategies, activities, or programs鈥攚e push knowledge,鈥� said Maria Murray, the CEO and president of The 69传媒 League. She鈥檚 heartened to see the rise of like-minded groups and senses that a sea change is coming even if it鈥檚 early days yet.
鈥淚 think because it takes a while for phrases and realities to make their way into schools. Twenty years ago you didn鈥檛 dare do PD and say 鈥榮cience of reading,鈥� but now it鈥檚 been around so long that there鈥檚 more than one person in a school who knows what it is,鈥� she said.
Bottom Up or Top Down?
There are some emerging signs that states are pressing for more systemic changes, too. Mississippi has invested significantly in teacher preparation, while in an aggressive recent move, Arkansas recently declared that it won鈥檛 give any early literacy curriculum program whose theoretical base includes cueing a state stamp of approval.
Still, major knowledge gaps remain. And even those teachers who have successfully shifted their own practices often feel that they鈥檙e swimming upstream against the cultural tides.
Fernandez鈥檚 current district recently selected a new curriculum with a lot of word memorization, and it came with fewer decodable books, she said. There鈥檚 a separate phonics program that doesn鈥檛 appear to be well integrated with the core curriculum. She must still administer periodic 鈥渞unning records鈥� based on the cueing philosophy, because the district uses them to track progress in all its elementary schools.
And fear of falling afoul of administrators remains a powerful deterrent. Education Week spoke with at least two teachers in other districts who shared remarkably similar experiences to Fernandez鈥檚, but declined to share them on the record, citing concerns about professional repercussions.
Fernandez understands. She worries that someday, she鈥檒l be asked to tell students to take the new, not-great curricula out of their desks and to use them.
鈥淚鈥檝e had to find all these reading materials myself, and learn the research by myself without getting caught,鈥� she said. 鈥淭here is always that fear that the other shoe鈥檚 going to drop, and I鈥檓 going to get my hand slapped for not doing what the district has said is the way to teach reading.鈥�
