Cracking the code on reading instruction stories

Journalists share tips for writing powerful reading instruction stories — and preview what comes next.

By Holly Korbey

In late 2018, WHYY Philadelphia education reporter Avi Wolfman-Arent was asked to coffee by a group of suburban Philadelphia moms who had “this little movement” going to push their highly regarded school district to help their struggling readers, some of whom had been diagnosed with dyslexia.

Wolfman-Arent had recently heard APM Reports senior producer and correspondent Emily Hanford’s audio documentaries on reading instruction and decided to pursue the local story because he understood there was “something in the water about it.”

His February 2019 story, Meet the ‘crazy’ moms saying one of Pa.’s top-rated school districts can’t teach reading, surprised readers with its description of parents who were angry at a well-funded, desirable suburban district where as it turned out, lots of children hadn’t learned how to read.

“If a Tredyffrin/Easttown student can’t read, doesn’t that suggest there’s something wrong with how we teach reading?” Wolfman-Arent reported.

The story became one of WHYY’s top-performing stories of the year—not a top-performing education story, but one of the station’s most-read, period.

Wolfman-Arent was blown away by the response.

“We got a ton of feedback, mostly positive but definitely some negative, which speaks to the voracious desire for more coverage on this topic,” he said in a phone call.

He isn’t the only reporter who discovered an audience hungry for stories about reading. Cracking open how schools teach reading has revealed a vein of journalistic gold—a crucial issue for all stakeholders that gets at the very heart of schooling. How students achieve literacy, which sets them up for future learning, is one of education’s most important stories.

So far, reading stories have had a lot of impact. But a lot could go wrong if they’re not done right. To do reading instruction stories properly, journalists recommend taking time, building relationships, and a good grasp of the science.

So far, reading stories have had a lot of impact. But a lot could go wrong if they’re not done right. – Holly Korbey

For kids, not learning to read carries enormous consequences that reach far beyond the classroom. Adults with poor and low reading skills — an estimated 93 million Americans — have lower educational attainment, earn less, and are more likely to suffer from mental illness and poor health outcomes.

Though momentum has been building for four or five years — I first reported on the school struggles of students with dyslexia for KQED in 2015 — recent developments have created a groundswell.

First, well-organized, mostly female parent advocacy groups — like the Philadelphia-area “dyslexia moms” that highlighted the issue for Wolfman-Arent (and nearly all the journalists I spoke with for this story) — educated themselves on the science and created strong networks. Those networks have recently pushed more than 40 states to put dyslexia laws on the books and raised awareness about reading instruction.

Recent work written by cognitive scientists, beginning with Maryanne Wolf’s 2007 book “Proust and the Squid,” have in many ways put to bed much of the “reading wars” of the ‘80s and ‘90s by explaining for a general audience the science behind how the brain learns to read.

In the past year alone, expansive reporting from outlets like EdWeek, PBS Newshour, NPR, the  Seattle Times, and more have tackled the “science of reading” and found a significant audience that played a big part of education coverage in 2019.

And of course, Hanford’s clear, nuanced documentaries on the details of how children are being taught to read in school — especially 2018’s Hard Words and 2019’s At a Loss for Words — have received widespread attention from the entire education establishment and have made “Science of Reading” (or #SoR on Twitter) a familiar phrase in education circles.

Though it took years to reach critical mass, the pieces seemed to gel last year.

“The whole topic just matured to another level. The nation was ready to take another look,” Hanford said in a phone call.

Each week, The Grade takes a deeper look at education journalism. Sign up for the free newsletter. 

Like most reporters, I just jumped in and started going to classrooms… But if I was doing it again, I’d prep by reading [Mark] Seidenberg’s book (“Language at the Speed of Sight”), “Proust and the Squid,” and “Reading in the Brain.” – Katherine Long

To find out what was in the secret sauce that made some of the year’s biggest reading stories so engaging and successful, I reached out to the journalists to see what they thought.

When I first began investigating reading differences and disabilities, I knew right away that being able to explain the complex brain science in a way that people could understand would hook readers. I wanted to show that this fascinating process that so many of us had assumed happened by magic was not, in fact, magical. So my own understanding of the science had to be solid, otherwise I couldn’t write about it with any authority.

I might have driven Maryanne Wolf crazy with my phone calls and questions. I even had her look over the scientific portions of my drafts to be sure I was explaining it right — something I still do with any piece that involves brain science.

Former Seattle Times education reporter Katherine Long agreed. Reflecting on her December 2019 story, “What happened when schools used science to revamp how reading is taught,” the freelancer wished she’d had even more time to learn as much as she could on how people learn to read.

Long traveled to Pennsylvania for the story, visiting classrooms in Danville and Harrisburg that had seen some success adopting a new curriculum that teaches phonics explicitly, called LTRS (Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling). She used their successful stories as an example of what the state of Washington might do with its middling reading scores.

“Like most reporters, I just jumped in and started going to classrooms,” she said in a phone call. “But if I was doing it again, I’d prep by reading [Mark] Seidenberg’s book (‘Language at the Speed of Sight’), ‘Proust and the Squid,’ and ‘Reading in the Brain.’ ”

The science of reading is a complicated issue and a lot for reporters to learn, but better understanding means asking better questions, and a stronger ability to see what’s happening in classrooms.

The two surveys we put out to educators? Nobody had done that…We wanted national numbers. How pervasive are these practices? – Liana Loewus

Another reporting tactic is to gather new information that would help readers better understand how reading was being taught.

For example, Education Week’s survey data revealed just how pervasive teaching techniques like three-cueing, which is not supported by evidence of how the brain learns to read, were inside classrooms and schools of education.

Education Week found that 65 percent of education professors surveyed said they taught future reading teachers the three-cueing method of guessing at words rather than sounding them out. Half of the ed school professors agreed with the statement, “It is possible for students to understand written texts with unfamiliar words even if they don’t have a good grasp of the phonics.”

Though previous surveys had looked at both what teachers know about reading and what professors teach, none had yet looked at them together so they could be compared.

“The two surveys we put out to educators? Nobody had done that,” said Assistant Managing Editor Liana Loewus, who oversaw EdWeek’s Getting Reading Right package. “We wanted national numbers. How pervasive are these practices?”

Seeing the numbers of teachers using these popular techniques not backed by science provided crucial insight.

To do reading instruction stories properly, journalists recommend taking time, building relationships, and a good grasp of the science. – Holly Korbey

Getting into classrooms and reporting how reading is taught in real life is another strategy reporters have used to tell this story.

At North Carolina-based education news website EdNC.org, reporter Rupen Fofaria’s original idea was to write up a nationally based story, based on what Hanford had done.

But after it became clear that it was going to be difficult to get state officials to talk about North Carolina’s approach to reading, he decided to go back and start again. He started visiting K-2 classrooms just to see what was going on, and what he saw over and over again was the three-cueing approach.

A few months later, a bill on the science of reading was introduced in the North Carolina state legislature, creating statewide buzz about reading instruction. “When that happened, I was able to re-approach my sources and talk to them more intelligently, and begin to form relationships with them,” Fofaria said in a phone call.

His December 2019 story, A Wall of Sound: Can science knock down barriers to reading proficiency and rescue Read to Achieve?, highlighted a North Carolina teacher who couldn’t reach some of her students, and even her own son, with the methods she’d learned at the prestigious Teachers College at Columbia University.

The story was now about changes in reading instruction in North Carolina specifically instead of nationally, which Fofaria called “the biggest reporting win.”

It’s a simple story… What did you do before? How did you figure out there was a problem? What are you doing to fix it? – Emily Hanford

At this point, doing an engaging local story on reading instruction can be pretty straightforward, Hanford said.

“Find the schools, board members or superintendents who want to change something (about reading), and why,” she said. “It’s a simple story: What did you do before? How did you figure out there was a problem? What are you doing to fix it?”

Hanford sees the next generation of reading instruction stories coming from three big areas: what’s happening in preservice training, professional development, and changes to curriculum. Will curriculum that promises “science of reading”-based approaches really deliver?

Others in education have shared her skepticism:

“Best Education Trend of 2019: The emergence of “The Science of Reading” among the most-discussed topics of the year,” educator and author Robert Pondiscio posted on Twitter. “Biggest Danger of 2020: The potential for “Science of Reading” to become another edu-fad, co-opted by vendors hawking crappy wares and lousy PD.”

“Curriculum is a huge market, there are billions of dollars at stake here,” Hanford said. “Whether curriculum companies will just nip and tuck and repackage their products, that’s another place to watch.”

I would say that I was more nervous to press publish on this story than on 95 percent of stories. – Avi Wolfman-Arent

One of the first things I learned when I began reporting on reading was that one story naturally led to another. A story on how reading difficulties get diagnosed naturally led me to ask: “After diagnosis, what happens to this student?” Questions about the different aspects of how humans learn to read can go on and on — the story possibilities are endless.

The science of reading and phonics-based early instruction are only part of the story on reading. There is so much yet to be covered, especially as districts try to make big changes to early instruction. How will that affect reading outcomes later? What happens when teachers leave and new teachers arrive?

The journalists I interviewed for this story agreed that one of the most satisfying aspects of this reporting is hearing from readers and listeners, and I think so, too. As a result of my reporting on reading instruction, I’ve received many emails about people’s personal struggles with reading, stories about how people coped, and readers who said they have printed my articles to take with them to PTO and IEP meetings.

These stories have a big impact. That impact means that getting the story right is even more important.

“I would say that I was more nervous to press publish on this story than on 95 percent of stories,” Wolfman-Arent said. “I knew people were paying attention and there was a little bit of pressure. Readers needed a simplistic explanation because these issues are not easy to understand, and I had to be that translator.”

Related columns from The Grade:

Why reading went under the radar for so long – and what one reporter is aiming to do about it

How to write smarter stories about English language learners

Writing better stories about students with disabilities