Literacy, Phonics & the Science of Reading FAQ
How school leaders can drive literacy improvement across grades, especially in the post-COVID reading gap.
The Science of Reading
What is the science of reading, and why does it matter?
The science of reading is a well-established body of research showing that systematic phonics instruction, combined with building background knowledge, is how kids actually learn to read. It matters because for decades we did something different -- balanced literacy -- and millions of kids paid the price.
Watch the video ->What went wrong with balanced literacy?
Balanced literacy was adopted based on vibes, not evidence. It gave teachers enormous autonomy, which they loved, but it didn't actually work for a lot of kids. It downplayed phonics and leaned on strategies like guessing from context clues -- approaches that left struggling readers further and further behind.
Watch the video ->Is illiteracy really a policy choice?
Yes. Mississippi proved it. They made specific policy changes -- mandating evidence-based curriculum, providing intensive teacher training, and holding schools accountable -- and their reading scores went up and up. When students can't read, it's because we chose not to implement what works.
Watch the video ->Is anyone actually succeeding at teaching all kids to read?
Yes. In Steubenville, Ohio, there's a 25-year track record of teaching every single child to become a fluent reader by the end of elementary school. They use a whole-school model with evidence-based instruction and intensive support. This is not a mystery -- it's been figured out for a long time.
Watch the video ->Should I be worried about pendulum swings in the science of reading movement?
Yes. The science of reading shouldn't develop the same cultishness and hero worship that plagued balanced literacy. We need to stay evidence-based, avoid tribalism, and not commit to a side before the evidence is in. That's what got us into trouble last time.
Watch the video ->Is the science of reading community getting too dogmatic?
Some corners of it, absolutely. There's a strand that has gotten mean, overconfident, and tribal -- people attacking each other over technical topics like phonemic awareness and morphology without really understanding the research themselves. We can have strong convictions without being cultish about it. Let's talk to each other respectfully.
Watch the video ->Phonics & Phonemic Awareness
Is phonemic awareness instruction a waste of time?
It's a live debate. Respected researcher Mark Seidenberg argues that standalone phonemic awareness instruction adds little value and that kids can go straight into phonics. In the UK, they skip phonemic awareness entirely. The oral-only approach in the old version of Heggerty was found to be ineffective -- adding the visual letters is what made it work.
Watch the video ->Does the Heggerty curriculum work?
The old version had an oral-only phonemic awareness activity that didn't work well. But Heggerty already removed that and updated their curriculum -- twice. We should give publishers credit when they improve their products based on new evidence. That's exactly what we criticized Lucy Calkins for not doing.
Watch the video ->Can an iPad app teach a toddler to read?
No. Two-year-olds aren't developmentally ready to read regardless of the medium. These apps exploit parental anxiety by charging outrageous prices for more screen time. The key ingredient in teaching a kid to read is a human being teaching them phonics. My mom taught me with bread bag tags. You don't need fancy technology.
Watch the video ->Reading Comprehension & Knowledge
What's the real key to reading comprehension?
Knowledge. Not skills, not strategies -- knowledge. You can use every reading strategy in the world, and if you don't have the background knowledge to understand what you're reading, you won't comprehend it. There are no general reading comprehension strategies that work without background knowledge.
Watch the video ->Is knowledge-building curriculum actually harmful, as some academics claim?
Absolutely not. Calling knowledge-building curriculum "white supremacy" is an ivory-tower take that hurts the very students it claims to protect. Kids who come in with less background knowledge are the ones who benefit most from knowledge-rich curricula. If we just validate what students already know and refuse to teach them anything new, the most disadvantaged kids lose the most.
Watch the video ->Why did science and social studies disappear from elementary schools?
No Child Left Behind tested only reading and math, so schools squeezed out everything else to focus on tested subjects. The result was content-free reading instruction -- worksheets about "finding the main idea" with no actual subject matter. Now we know those abstract reading skills aren't real skills. Kids need content-rich curriculum, and that means bringing back science and social studies.
Watch the video ->Can critical thinking alone protect students against misinformation?
No. A well-constructed false argument can pass every critical thinking test. If someone says the earth is flat without any logical fallacies, you need factual knowledge to rebut it. Just like in reading, there's no content-neutral skill that works without actual knowledge. To inoculate students against misinformation, give them true information.
Watch the video ->Independent Reading & Classroom Practices
Does independent reading make students better readers?
The causation runs the other way. Strong readers read a lot -- but reading a lot isn't what made them strong readers. Direct instruction is what builds reading ability. Sustained silent reading or "drop everything and read" time isn't the best use of limited instructional time, especially for struggling readers who often aren't actually reading during that time.
Watch the video ->Does reading a lot help at all?
Yes, reading volume does make you a better reader over time -- but slowly. The issue is opportunity cost. In class, we're comparing deliberate instruction to just reading. Deliberate instruction wins. If kids want to read for pleasure outside of school, that's great. But class time should be used for what produces the fastest gains.
Watch the video ->Should students read whole books in school or just excerpts?
Whole books. Teaching only with short passages and excerpts to practice isolated skills like "finding the main idea" is based on a flawed understanding of reading. Reading comprehension is a function of knowledge, not a collection of discrete skills. Whole books build sustained attention, deep comprehension, and a love of reading that excerpts never will.
Watch the video ->Do read-alouds need to be jazzed up with sound effects and gimmicks?
No. Reading a picture book aloud is already one of the most perfect, engaging things you can do with a class. Adding zany sound effects fragments kids' attention -- the very thing we should be building. Read-alouds develop stamina for sustained listening and attention. Don't undermine that with gimmicks.
Watch the video ->Grade-Level Text & Scaffolding
Why is it taboo to have kids read grade-level text?
Somewhere along the way, we decided a kid's independent reading level should dictate what they read in class. But that means below-level readers never encounter grade-level material and fall further behind every year. In class, we have options to scaffold challenging text. At home, sure -- kids read at their independent level. But in class, we need to aim higher.
Watch the video ->Is leveled reading actually a bad idea?
Yes. Timothy Shanahan makes a compelling case in his book *Leveled Reading, Leveled Lives*. It's intuitive to match kids to books at their level, but it means struggling readers never get the rigor, challenge, or content they need. A fourth grader reading second-grade text will never catch up. Grade-level text with scaffolding works better.
Watch the video ->How can below-grade-level readers access grade-level text?
Repeated reading. A five-step protocol -- teacher reads, echo read, choral read, partner read, then solo performance -- lets below-level students successfully read at or above grade level. It requires no special materials or prep. You just read the passage multiple times, building fluency and comprehension with each pass.
Watch the video ->Instruction & Intervention
Does small group instruction squander the literacy block?
It can. If you run three small groups, students spend two-thirds of the literacy block not being taught by a skilled teacher. They're doing stations or busy work instead. Schmoker and Shanahan make a compelling case for more whole-class instruction at grade level. Small groups have a place for intensive catch-up, but they shouldn't be the core instructional model.
Watch the video ->How important is reading intervention?
Critically important. Even with the best tier-one curriculum, some kids will need individualized support. Having a dedicated interventionist who works one-on-one with students on letters, sounds, and decoding is one of the most underrated keys to getting every kid reading. Don't shy away from intervention just because it feels like "drill and kill."
Watch the video ->Is it okay to pull kids from electives for reading intervention?
Yes. If a student can't read at grade level, missing one elective for intensive intervention is a reasonable tradeoff. This isn't permanent -- once skills improve, students return to their full schedule. A student who can't read will struggle in every subject, including their electives.
Watch the video ->Could a bounty program help teach more kids to read?
It's worth considering. We know how to teach every kid to read, but we don't have enough adults in high-poverty schools to provide the one-on-one support struggling readers need. A bounty that increases as kids get older -- reflecting the escalating stakes of illiteracy -- could incentivize the tutoring that's needed at scale.
Watch the video ->Accountability & The Profession
How did Lucy Calkins become so dominant in reading instruction?
We did that to ourselves. Nobody made us treat Lucy Calkins as a goddess who could do no wrong. We chose hero worship over evidence. I went to her training at Columbia in 2008 -- she was treated like a rock star. The antidote isn't just teaching phonics. It's stopping the hero worship and demanding evidence before we adopt anything.
Watch the video ->What happened with the lawsuit against Lucy Calkins, Fountas & Pinnell, and Heinemann?
Parents filed a first-of-its-kind class action lawsuit in Massachusetts over reading curricula that failed to teach their children to read. It's groundbreaking because it targets the publishers, not the school district. Whether or not it succeeds legally, it's a signal that accountability for ineffective materials is coming.
Watch the video ->Why should educators be skeptical of correlation-based claims about reading?
Because correlation isn't causation, and confusing the two leads to terrible policy. Shoe size correlates with reading ability in elementary school -- both increase with age. If we acted on that correlation, we'd be buying kids bigger shoes. The same flawed logic applies when people try to improve outcomes by manipulating correlated variables instead of addressing root causes.
Watch the video ->