Don’t call it ‘the reading wars’

In the second installment of our month-long series on literacy coverage, a former researcher and professor argues that the ubiquitous phrase is lazy, false, and fundamentally unhelpful to readers. 

By Molly Ness

In today’s hyperpolarized world, the milestone childhood development of reading is rife with conflict and tension.

Documentary films, podcasts, social media, and major news outlets cry out about “the reading wars.”

Readers outside the world of literacy might imagine that in the classroom, pedagogies are pitted against one another — instant word recognition vs. sounding out words through phonics — with only one qualified to emerge victorious.

Not only is that idea false, it’s fundamentally unhelpful. It creates a binary conflict and an unintended hierarchy that is perpetuated in too much education coverage.

A more accurate and realistic way of framing the topic is needed.

First part in this series: Bringing energy and creativity to literacy coverage

Above: A recent AP story

Otherwise, one system or the other will dominate literacy instruction, leaving out the multi-layered approach needed to create a generation of readers.

A recent Associated Press article calls it the “so-called” reading wars, a step in the right direction.

But it then goes on to say, “The battle has reached into homes via commercials for Hooked on Phonics materials and through shoebox dioramas assigned by teachers seeking to instill a love of literature,” and later talks about how whole language had “lost” and the creation of a “truces.”

Just last month, Vox described the reading debate in full war terms with two clear sides and now a phonics “victory” that appears “decisive.”

By comparison, this 2022 piece by Washington D.C. news radio station WTOP avoids all mention of wars and battles, instead offering a brief, calm, and informative explainer on what is meant by the science of reading and how literacy instruction in D.C. schools is shifting somewhat.

Above: A recent Vox story

To improve the literacy landscape for our nation’s students, we need to stop focusing on literacy as a zero-sum game. It’s time to end this flawed notion of a “reading war” once and for all. Wars often have two (and only two) sides. Us vs. them. Good vs. evil. Luke Skywalker vs. the Empire.

That’s not at all how reading works.

Reading involves a sophisticated synchronization of the multifaceted instructional components in reading: building toward comprehension through word recognition, vocabulary knowledge, fluency, etc. (e.g., Scarborough, 2001).

Arguing that phonics is one camp and balanced literacy is the (only) other ignores important skills that are vital to literacy development, including those cited in the National Reading Panel (2000) and the intertwined literacy subskills depicted in Hollis Scarborough’s (2001) reading rope.

 

That’s not at all how reading works.

 

To be fair, the media didn’t invent the concept of the reading wars. The polarization of reading approaches is undoubtedly perpetuated by academia (and amplified by politicians).

But education reporters could and should play a major role in getting past the either-or way of thinking and helping the public gain an accurate understanding of reading instruction by consulting even-handed sources like The Reading League and the National Center on Improving Literacy. Both organizations present clear and accurate information about the development of the reading brain.

Think of it this way: What happens if phonics “wins?” Are we any better off? Probably not. Phonics isn’t “good” or “bad.” It’s a research-based instructional practice requiring the appropriate dosage, explicit instruction, transfer to independent reading, and a clear scope and sequence.

Moreover, phonics instruction cannot merely be incidental or sporadic. Phonics instruction is the foundation upon which reading instruction builds. Our goal should be the necessary phonics instruction merely to enable students to lift words off of the page, while at the same time supporting readers’ ability to make meaning from text and to develop the need for and love of literacy.

Phonics alone will not address stagnant literacy scores. Students need instruction in the syntax and structures of language, content knowledge to apply in conjunction with comprehension strategies, rich exposure to academic and sophisticated vocabulary, and explicit writing instruction connected to text.

We must follow the fascinating science of how the brain learns to read while adapting our instruction to tailor to individual student needs. We should bring all tools to the table, blending and braiding to create the optimal approach for students.

And we should incorporate the multi-dimensional science of reading into our classrooms, equipping teachers with the range of options that will lead to meaningful literacy instruction for our children.

 

The media didn’t invent the concept of the reading wars.

 

Instead of phrasing this discussion as “the reading wars,” let’s reframe it with a better analogy — the ecosystem of reading, perhaps, where listening to words helps build vocabulary, vocabulary supports comprehension, increased comprehension builds more vocabulary (assisted by phonics and decoding), and each literacy building block supports the learner’s comprehension and fluency.

We should embrace the complexity of the challenge, not accept the notion of artificial camps of victors and vanquished.

“When the teaching of reading is framed as a war, nuance and common areas of agreement are casualties, write David Reinking, Victoria J. Risko and George G. Hruby in a Washington Post oped that should be remembered by both journalists and policymakers.

“But worse, our children can become innocent victims caught in a no man’s land between those more interested in winning a conflict than in meeting individual needs.”

A former reading researcher and professor, Dr. Molly Ness is vice president of academic content for Learning Ally and co-founder of the Coalition for Literacy Equity. You can follow her at @drmollyness.

Previously from The Grade
Bringing energy and creativity to literacy coverage (by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel’s Alan Borsuk)
How I missed the phonics story (Patti Ghezzi)
How to report on whether district reading programs are any good (Colleen Connolly)
How do we get Black kids’ literacy to matter? (Colette Coleman)
Cracking the code on reading instruction stories (Holly Korbey)
Why reading went under the radar for so long (interview with APM Reports’ Emily Hanford)
How the media missed the 2000 National Reading Panel report (Will Callan)