A low grade for literacy coverage

In the fourth of our series, a leading NYU reading researcher gives literacy coverage “a B — or maybe even a C — ” and urges journalists to produce more realistic coverage — without vilifying anyone.

By Susan B. Neuman

The “reading wars” are heating up, and it’s all about the “science of reading.”

Journalists and scholars alike are eagerly entering the fray, some claiming there is no science, others saying that the public has been “sold a story.”

In a perspective published in the Washington Post, for example, a columnist headlined an article “on the latest obsession with phonics,” merely re-posting an article by two retired professors from a journal that questioned the science of reading.

Overall, I’d give the reporting coverage a B — or maybe even a C.

Overall, I’d give the reporting coverage a B — or maybe even a C.

Previous pieces in the literacy series include Inadequate literacy coverage in New York City, Don’t call it ‘the reading wars’, and Bringing energy and creativity to literacy coverage. Upcoming pieces include advice from APM Reports’ Emily Hanford and the Boston Globe’s Mandy McLaren. 

At times, reporters have produced deeply reported stories that accurately reflect the complexity of the topic. But more often, it seems, they take a more simplistic approach.

Some reporters, like Emily Hanford in APM Reports and Natalie Wexler at Forbes, have dug deep to understand the nuances of reading, reporting on the need for both foundational skills and language comprehension in rich content texts.

Similarly, Troy Closson of the New York Times and Alex Zimmerman of Chalkbeat NY have written some terrific articles, detailing how the science of reading is being implemented in classrooms.

In a recent article, Zimmerman detailed some of the concerns about universal screening and the need for additional diagnostic tests to better target interventions.

This kind of reporting is so critical because it can help the public understand how the science of reading is actually playing out in some of largest school districts. It may also bring to light some questionable practices that schools might wish to reconsider.

But other news coverage seems merely to repeat what other journalists have reported, adding in a local touch here and there.

Still others seem to go after individuals as culprits or conspiracists, essentially accusing them of causing the reading failure of millions of children.

Others seem to go after individuals as culprits or conspiracists.

The New York Times podcast “The Daily,” generally known for its top-notch reporting, castigated a colleague of mine from Teachers’ College for her work on a curriculum known as “Units of Study.” The reporter literally asked her to apologize to the American public for causing the poor reading scores in the country.

The fact that school districts across the country eagerly bought these “unscientific materials” seemed lost in translation.

This type of reporting reminded me of Don Henley’s ditty in the song “Dirty Laundry”: “kick ‘em when they’re up; kick ‘em when they’re down, kick ‘em all around.”

I may strongly disagree with an approach, and may argue against its merit, but I would never attack the integrity of an individual. It’s cancel culture at its worst.

It’s cancel culture at its worst.

Here are my recommendations for moving the coverage of the science of reading from a B or a C (depending on how you read these comments) to an A.

First, some things for journalists to stop doing:

Stop calling the science of reading a “phonics-based” instructional approach. It isn’t. Even fairly comprehensive stories seem to emphasize phonics. For example, an article in the Ohio Capital Journal (April 5, 2023) says, “reading instruction that prioritizes phonics and decoding words is gaining emphasis.” However, the science of reading is not just about phonics. Rather, it represents the converging evidence from research indicating that children need phonics and comprehension skills to become proficient readers.

Stop using the same voices from academia who insist that teachers haven’t been doing it right for years.

Looking across these stories, you’ll find that the same people are being interviewed again and again. Yet some of them only do what we call basic research, relying on laboratory studies of children in carefully controlled conditions. Frankly, these academics wouldn’t know what a classroom looked like if they stumbled into one. Instead, there are many academics and scholars who have a greater understanding of the complexities of the classroom, and can speak with greater authority on the implementation of the science of reading. This is a rich resource that is often overlooked in favor of the so-called big names in reading too often quoted in these articles.

Stop treating the science of reading as “now we know,” as if we’ve been in the Dark Ages and have seen the light.

The Reading First legislation in the George W. Bush era clearly articulated a “scientific approach to reading.” School district leaders just didn’t have the will to pull it off or the ability to mandate certain research-based practices, such as the use of a structured literacy program. For example, the Reading First legislation required teachers to provide children with the skills of phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension — or what has become known as the “five pillars of reading.” Sound familiar? Over 45 states and districts are now calling for the same thing.

Stop targeting individuals as if they were responsible for the dismal reading scores in this country.

Lucy Calkins, Irene Fountas, Gay Su Pinnell, and Marie Clay of Reading Recovery, for example, have all been targeted for their uses of the “three-cue system” — the view that children use context when learning to read. It is cruel and unnecessary. No specific program or person created these problems and it’s simplistic and disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

Stop highlighting particular states such as Mississippi and likening their results to a miracle.

The word “miracle” makes it sounds like they added some magical elixir that made it easy for them to turn things around. In reality, Mississippi’s progress was a result of hard work and diligent attention to detail. They engaged in legislative efforts that mandated districts to adopt a common curriculum, trained teachers and supervisors simultaneously to ensure that everyone “spoke a common language,” used coaches to help teachers enact the program with fidelity, and monitored children’s progress along the way.

Here are some things I wish reporters would do:

Write about the science of reading as a “science.”

In other words, science is never “settled.” Remind readers that while the National Reading Report was an important document delineating critical skills in reading, it’s more than 20 years old. A lot has happened since then. We’ve learned about the importance of oral language development, knowledge-building and its role in reading comprehension, and writing since then. As a result, we know a good deal more about what makes a proficient reader, but we undoubtedly have far more to learn.

Be careful with descriptions of terms.

Numerous times I have seen stories describing the term “balanced reading” inaccurately, almost as if the reporter wishes to create a straw man. In a New York Times article, for example, “balanced literacy” was described as focusing less on phonics and more on “developing a love of books and ensuring students understand the meaning of stories.” But a more precise definition might read like this: Balanced literacy was an attempt to integrate foundational skills and comprehension skills with opportunities to practice reading independently.

Write about organizations that are supporting the science of reading.

Typically, unions get a bad rep when describing changes in instruction. Yet the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) has been at the forefront of reading reform, even as far back as 2001 with the implementation of Reading First. Since then, they have aggressively created workshop opportunities and summer programs, even reaching out to public libraries, all to promote reading engagement and reading improvement. Do we hear about these stories? And why not?

Get in the classroom.

See what actually occurs in reading instruction, and how foundational skills and knowledge-building opportunities can support reading interest and proficiency. For example, I invited a Wall Street Journal reporter to come to a 1^st grade classroom to see how children might struggle in guided reading following the balanced approach. At one point, the child went to the word wall, looking for any context to see what the word “the” might look like. This example of a child struggling helped the reporter write a more vivid account of the problems with guided reading, and the need for potential solutions.

Include in your stories the fact that it will take time to move both small and large districts toward a more scientific approach to reading and to see the results.

Show the public what progress looks like, not relying on test scores but on engagement and evidence of learning that cannot always be seen immediately in long-term outcomes. Some reporters might ask, “What is a valid or objective way to do that?” My answer: Just watch. Look at the number of arms raised in answers to questions, evidence of conversational turn-taking indicating the richness of discussion, focused attention on the lesson at hand. Listen to the children as they read: Hear how they sound out words and retell a story with full comprehension. Valid and reliable? Certainly, more than one test will tell you.

I admire the work that reporters can do to help the public better understand the workings of reading reform. I recognize it’s not easy. Access is difficult. But the rewards could be to stop the pendulum shift from one reading approach to another that has too often plagued our progress and to help sustain our commitment to ensuring that all children become successful readers.

Neuman is a Professor of Childhood and Literacy Education at New York University. You can find her work at the NYU Literacy Lab. You can follow her at @susanbneuman.

Previously in this series:

Inadequate literacy coverage in New York City (Lee Gaul interview)
Don’t call it ‘the reading wars’ (Molly Ness)
Bringing energy and creativity to literacy coverage (Alan Borsuk)

Previously from The Grade

How do we get Black kids’ literacy to matter? Have more journalists cover it.(Colette Coleman)
After ‘Sold a Story,’ what comes next?
How to report on whether district reading programs are any good (Colleen Connolly)
Cracking the code on reading instruction stories (Holly Korbey)
How I missed the phonics story (Patti Ghezzi)