# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What the Science Says About How Kids Learn to Read

# data[].attributes.body
CORE (3:45)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Reading may fall under language arts, but it truly is a science. And that science was documented in the National Reading Panel Report 20 years ago.

Celebrate the anniversary of this monumental reading research. Listen as Linda Diamond, CORE president and literacy expert, reviews the five building blocks of reading outlined in the report, and explains the important role they play in delivering effective literacy instruction and reading interventions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Neuroscience findings regarding reading and the brain (7:41)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Brain Prize Presents: Stanislas Dehaene

# data[].attributes.body
Webinar from CORE, Inc. with Dr. David Kilpatrick

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Teacher Professional Learning | Literacy, Math | MTSS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Curriculum Adoption

Curriculum Implementation

Literacy Coaching & Site Implementation Support

Early Literacy Planning & Implementation Collaboration

Online Language & Literacy Academy

Publisher Approved Professional Learning

Elementary Reading Academy

Adolescent Literacy Solutions

Curriculum Adoption

Curriculum Implementation

Rise in Math

Math Coaching

Online Math Academies + Coaching

Onsite Math Academies

Teaching Reading Sourcebook 3rd Edition

Curriculum Adoption

Curriculum Implementation

Literacy Coaching & Site Implementation Support

Early Literacy Planning & Implementation Collaboration

Online Language & Literacy Academy

Publisher Approved Professional Learning

Elementary Reading Academy

Adolescent Literacy Solutions

Curriculum Adoption

Curriculum Implementation

Rise in Math

Math Coaching

Online Math Academies + Coaching

Onsite Math Academies

Teaching Reading Sourcebook 3rd Edition

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Phonemic Awareness and Phonemic Proficiency Are Necessary for All Readers - Teacher Professional Learning | Literacy, Math | MTSS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Curriculum Adoption Curriculum Implementation Literacy Coaching & Site Implementation Support Early Literacy Planning & Implementation Collaboration Online Language & Literacy Academy Publisher Approved Professional Learning Elementary Reading Academy Adolescent Literacy Solutions Curriculum Adoption Curriculum Implementation Rise in Math Math Coaching Online Math Academies + Coaching Onsite Math Academies Teaching Reading

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Science of Reading - The Reading League

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Reading League's mission is to advance the understanding and use of evidence-aligned reading instruction through the science of reading.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Education Week Interview with Emily Hanford (30:41)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Teachers Should Know About the Science of Reading

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Sold a Story: How Teaching Kids to Read Went So Wrong

There's an idea about how children learn to read that's held sway in schools for more than a generation - even though it was proven wrong by cognitive scientists decades ago. Teaching methods based on this idea can make it harder for children to learn how to read. In this podcast, host Emily Hanford investigates the influential authors who promote this idea and the company that sells their work. It's an exposé of how educators came to believe in something that isn't true and are now reckoning with the consequences - children harmed, money wasted, an education system upended.

Sixty years ago, Marie Clay developed a way to teach reading she said would help kids who were falling behind. They'd catch up and never need help again. Today, her program remains popular and her theory about how people read is at the root of a lot of reading instruction in schools. But Marie Clay was wrong.
Sold a Story is an independent investigative journalism project from American Public Media. We rely on your donations to support this kind of rigorous reporting.
The controversial educational publishing company has sold instructional materials and professional resources in almost every state, earning at least $1.6 billion over a decade. Explore a map of school districts.

More states are now requiring districts to adopt curriculum that adheres to the science of reading. Look up the policy in your state.

At least 15 states have passed laws about how schools teach reading since the Sold a Story podcast was released in 2022, but there is pushback.

Here's a reading list put together by Emily Hanford.

This discussion guide, created by a teacher, invites educators, parents, community members and kids to have a conversation about the podcast.

Emails and voice messages poured in from people who listened to Sold a Story.

We'll let you know when we release new episodes of the podcast. Enter your address below.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sold a Story: How Teaching Kids to Read Went So Wrong

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There's an idea about how children learn to read that's held sway in schools for more than a generation - even though it was proven wrong by cognitive scientists decades ago. Teaching methods based on this idea can make it harder for children to learn how to read.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Scientific research has shown how children learn to read and how they should be taught. But many educators don’t know the science and, in some cases, actively resist it. As a result, millions of kids are being set up to fail.

# data[].attributes.body
Article and audio (52:31)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Listen to this audio documentary on the Educate podcast. Subscribe now.

Molly Woodworth was a kid who seemed to do well at everything: good grades, in the gifted and talented program. But she couldn't read very well.

"There was no rhyme or reason to reading for me," she said. "When a teacher would dictate a word and say, 'Tell me how you think you can spell it,' I sat there with my mouth open while other kids gave spellings, and I thought, 'How do they even know where to begin?' I was totally lost."

Woodworth went to public school in Owosso, Michigan, in the 1990s. She says sounds and letters just didn't make sense to her, and she doesn't remember anyone teaching her how to read. So she came up with her own strategies to get through text.

Strategy 1: Memorize as many words as possible. "Words were like pictures to me," she said. "I had a really good memory."

Strategy 2: Guess the words based on context. If she came across a word she didn't have in her visual memory bank, she'd look at the first letter and come up with a word that seemed to make sense. Reading was kind of like a game of 20 Questions: What word could this be?

Strategy 3: If all else failed, she'd skip the words she didn't know.

Most of the time, she could get the gist of what she was reading. But getting through text took forever. "I hated reading because it was taxing," she said. "I'd get through a chapter and my brain hurt by the end of it. I wasn't excited to learn."

No one knew how much she struggled, not even her parents. Her reading strategies were her "dirty little secrets."

Woodworth, who now works in accounting, 1 says she's still not a very good reader and tears up when she talks about it. Reading "influences every aspect of your life," she said. She's determined to make sure her own kids get off to a better start than she did.

That's why she was so alarmed to see how her oldest child, Claire, was being taught to read in school.

As long as this disproven theory remains part of American education, many kids will likely struggle to learn how to read.

A couple of years ago, Woodworth was volunteering in Claire's kindergarten classroom. The class was reading a book together and the teacher was telling the children to practice the strategies that good readers use.

The teacher said, "If you don't know the word, just look at this picture up here," Woodworth recalled. "There was a fox and a bear in the picture. And the word was bear, and she said, 'Look at the first letter. It's a "b." Is it fox or bear?'"

Woodworth was stunned. "I thought, 'Oh my God, those are my strategies.' Those are the things I taught myself to look like a good reader, not the things that good readers do," she said. "These kids were being taught my dirty little secrets."

She went to the teacher and expressed her concerns. The teacher told her she was teaching reading the way the curriculum told her to.

Woodworth had stumbled on to American education's own little secret about reading: Elementary schools across the country are teaching children to be poor readers - and educators may not even know it.

For decades, reading instruction in American schools has been rooted in a flawed theory about how reading works, a theory that was debunked decades ago by cognitive scientists, yet remains deeply embedded in teaching practices and curriculum materials. As a result, the strategies that struggling readers use to get by - memorizing words, using context to guess words, skipping words they don't know - are the strategies that many beginning readers are taught in school. This makes it harder for many kids to learn how to read, and children who don't get off to a good start in reading find it difficult to ever master the process. 2

A shocking number of kids in the United States can't read very well. A third of all fourth-graders can't read at a basic level, and most students are still not proficient readers by the time they finish high school.
Percentage of U.S. fourth-graders below basic level in reading
When kids struggle to learn how to read, it can lead to a downward spiral in which behavior, vocabulary, knowledge and other cognitive skills are eventually affected by slow reading development. 3 A disproportionate number of poor readers become high school dropouts and end up in the criminal justice system. 4

The fact that a disproven theory about how reading works is still driving the way many children are taught to read is part of the problem. School districts spend hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars on curriculum materials that include this theory. Teachers are taught the theory in their teacher preparation programs and on the job. As long as this disproven theory remains part of American education, many kids will likely struggle to learn how to read.
Percentage of U.S. 12th-graders proficient in reading
The origins

The theory is known as "three cueing." The name comes from the notion that readers use three different kinds of information - or "cues" - to identify words as they are reading.

The theory was first proposed in 1967, when an education professor named Ken Goodman presented a paper at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association in New York City.

In the paper, 5 Goodman rejected the idea that reading is a precise process that involves exact or detailed perception of letters or words. Instead, he argued that as people read, they make predictions about the words on the page using these three cues:

graphic cues (what do the letters tell you about what the word might be?)

syntactic cues (what kind of word could it be, for example, a noun or a verb?)

semantic cues (what word would make sense here, based on the context?)

Goodman concluded that:

Skill in reading involves not greater precision, but more accurate first guesses based on better sampling techniques, greater control over language structure, broadened experiences and increased conceptual development. As the child develops reading skill and speed, he uses increasingly fewer graphic cues.

Goodman's proposal became the theoretical basis for a new approach to teaching reading that would soon take hold in American schools.

Previously, the question of how to teach reading had focused on one of two basic ideas.

One idea is that reading is a visual memory process. The teaching method associated with this idea is known as "whole word." The whole word approach was perhaps best embodied in the "Dick and Jane" books that first appeared in the 1930s. The books rely on word repetition, and pictures to support the meaning of the text. The idea is that if you see words enough, you eventually store them in your memory as visual images.

The other idea is that reading requires knowledge of the relationships between sounds and letters. Children learn to read by sounding out words. This approach is known as phonics. It goes way back, popularized in the 1800s with the McGuffey readers.

These two ideas - whole word and phonics - had been taking turns as the favored way to teach reading until Goodman came along with what came to be known among educators as the "three-cueing system."

In the cueing theory of how reading works, when a child comes to a word she doesn't know, the teacher encourages her to think of a word that makes sense and asks: Does it look right? Does it sound right? If a word checks out on the basis of those questions, the child is getting it. She's on the path to skilled reading.

Teachers may not know the term "three cueing," but they're probably familiar with "MSV." M stands for using meaning to figure out what a word is, S for using sentence structure and V for using visual information (i.e., the letters in the words). MSV is a cueing idea that can be traced back to the late Marie Clay, a developmental psychologist from New Zealand who first laid out her theories about reading in a dissertation in the 1960s. 6

Clay developed her cueing theory independently of Goodman, but they met several times and had similar ideas about the reading process. Their theories were based on observational research. They would listen to children read, note the kinds of errors they made, and use that information to identify a child's reading difficulties. For example, a child who says "horse" when the word was "house" is probably relying too much on visual, or graphic, cues. A teacher in this case would encourage the child to pay more attention to what word would make sense in the sentence.

Goodman and Clay believed that letters were the least reliable of the three cues, and that as people became better readers, they no longer needed to pay attention to all the letters in words. "In efficient word perception the reader relies mostly on the sentence and its meaning and some selected features of the forms of words," Clay wrote. 7 For Goodman, accurate word recognition was not necessarily the goal of reading. The goal was to comprehend text. 8 If the sentences were making sense, the reader must be getting the words right, or right enough.

These ideas soon became the foundation for how reading was taught in many schools. Goodman's three-cueing idea formed the theoretical basis of an approach known as "whole language" that by the late 1980s had taken hold throughout America. 9 Clay built her cueing ideas into a reading intervention program for struggling first-graders called Reading Recovery. It was implemented across New Zealand in the 1980s and went on to become one of the world's most widely used reading intervention programs. 10

But while cueing was taking hold in schools, scientists were busy studying the cognitive processes involved in reading words. And they came to different conclusions about how people read. 11

Scientists take on three cueing

It was the early 1970s, and Keith Stanovich was working on his doctorate in psychology at the University of Michigan. He thought the reading field was ready for an infusion of knowledge from the "cognitive revolution" that was underway in psychology. Stanovich had a background in experimental science and an interest in learning and cognition due in part to the influence of his wife, Paula, who was a special education teacher.

Stanovich wanted to understand how people read words. 12 He knew about Goodman's work and thought he was probably right that as people become better readers, they relied more on their knowledge of vocabulary and language structure to read words and didn't need to pay as much attention to the letters.

So, in 1975, Stanovich and a fellow graduate student set out to test the idea in their lab. They recruited readers of various ages and abilities and gave them a series of word-reading tasks. Their hypothesis was that skilled readers rely more on contextual cues to recognize words than poor readers, who probably weren't as good at using context.

They couldn't have been more wrong.

"To our surprise, all of our research results pointed in the opposite direction," Stanovich wrote. "It was the poorer readers, not the more skilled readers, who were more reliant on context to facilitate word recognition." 13

The skilled readers could instantly recognize words without relying on context. Other researchers have confirmed these findings with similar experiments. It turns out that the ability to read words in isolation quickly and accurately is the hallmark of being a skilled reader. This is now one of the most consistent and well-replicated findings in all of reading research. 14

Other studies revealed further problems with the cueing theory: 15

Skilled readers don't scan words and sample from the graphic cues in an incidental way; instead, they very quickly recognize a word as a sequence of letters. That's how good readers instantly know the difference between "house" and "horse," for example.

Experiments that force people to use context to predict words show that even skilled readers can correctly guess only a fraction of the words; this is one reason people who rely on context to identify words are poor readers.

Weak word recognition skills are the most common and debilitating source of reading problems. 16

The results of these studies are not controversial or contested among scientists who study reading. The findings have been incorporated into every major scientific model of how reading works.

But cueing is still alive and well in schools.

Picture Power!

It's not hard to find examples of the cueing system. A quick search on Google, Pinterest or Teachers Pay Teachers turns up plenty of lesson plans, teaching guides and classroom posters. One popular poster has cute cartoon characters to remind children they have lots of strategies to use when they're stuck on a word, including looking at the picture (Eagle Eye), getting their lips ready to try the first sound (Lips the Fish), or just skipping the word altogether (Skippy Frog).

There are videos online where you can see cueing in action. In one video posted on The Teaching Channel, 17 a kindergarten teacher in Oakland, California, instructs her students to use "picture power" to identify the words on the page. The goal of the lesson, according to the teacher, is for the students to "use the picture and a first sound to determine an unknown word in their book."

The class reads a book together called "In the Garden." On each page, there's a picture of something you might find in a garden. It's what's known as a predictable book; the sentences are all the same except for the last word.

The children have been taught to memorize the words "look," "at," and "the." The challenge is getting the last word in the sentence. The lesson plan tells the teacher to cover up the word with a sticky note.

In the video, the wiggly kindergarteners sitting cross-legged on the floor come to a page with a picture of a butterfly. The teacher tells the kids that she's guessing the word is going to be butterfly. She uncovers the word to check on the accuracy of her guess.

"Look at that," she tells the children, pointing to the first letter of the word. "It starts with the /b/ /b/ /b/." The class reads the sentence together as the teacher points to the words. "Look at the butterfly!" they yell out excitedly.

This lesson comes from "Units of Study for Teaching Reading," more commonly known as "reader's workshop." 18 According to the lesson plan, this lesson teaches children to "know and apply grade-level phonics and word analysis skills in decoding words." 19

But the children were not taught to decode words in this lesson. They were taught to guess words using pictures and patterns - hallmarks of the three-cueing system.

The author of Units of Study for Teaching Reading, Lucy Calkins, often refers to cueing in her published work. 20 She uses the term MSV - the meaning, structure and visual idea that originally came from Clay in New Zealand.

Then there is Fountas and Pinnell Literacy, started by Irene Fountas and Gay Su Pinnell, teachers who learned the MSV concept from Clay in the 1980s. 21

Fountas and Pinnell have written several books about teaching reading, including a best-seller about a widely used instructional approach called "Guided Reading." They also created a reading assessment system that uses what are called "leveled books." 22 Children start with predictable books like "In the Garden" and move up levels as they're able to "read" the words. But many of the words in those books - butterfly, caterpillar - are words that beginning readers haven't been taught to decode yet. One purpose of the books is to teach children that when they get to a word they don't know, they can use context to figure it out.

When put into practice in the classroom, these approaches can cause problems for children when they are learning to read.

'That is not reading'

Margaret Goldberg, a teacher and literacy coach in the Oakland Unified School District, remembers a moment when she realized what a problem the three-cueing approach was. She was with a first-grader named Rodney when he came to a page with a picture of a girl licking an ice cream cone and a dog licking a bone.

The text said: "My little dog likes to eat with me."

But Rodney said: "My dog likes to lick his bone."

Rodney breezed right through it, unaware that he hadn't read the sentence on the page.

Goldberg realized lots of her students couldn't actually read the words in their books; instead, they were memorizing sentence patterns and using the pictures to guess. One little boy exclaimed, "I can read this book with my eyes shut!"

"Oh no," Goldberg thought. "That is not reading."

Goldberg had been hired by the Oakland schools in 2015 to help struggling readers by teaching a Fountas and Pinnell program called "Leveled Literacy Intervention" that uses leveled books and the cueing approach. 23

Around the same time, Goldberg was trained in a program that uses a different strategy for teaching children how to read words. The program is called "Systematic Instruction in Phonological Awareness, Phonics, and Sight Words," or SIPPS. 24 It's a phonics program that teaches children how to sound out words and uses what are known as "decodable books." Most words in the books have spelling patterns that kids have been taught in their phonics lessons.

Goldberg decided to teach some of her students using the phonics program and some of her students using three cueing. And she began to notice differences between the two groups of kids. "Not just in their abilities to read," she said, "but in the way they approached their reading."

Goldberg and a colleague recorded first-graders talking about what makes them good readers.

One video shows Mia, on the left, who was in the phonics program. Mia says she's a good reader because she looks at the words and sounds them out. JaBrea, on the right, was taught the cueing system. JaBrea says: "I look at the pictures and I read it."

Courtesy of Margaret Goldberg, Oakland Unified School District

It was clear to Goldberg after just a few months of teaching both approaches that the students learning phonics were doing better. "One of the things that I still struggle with is a lot of guilt," she said.

She thinks the students who learned three cueing were actually harmed by the approach. "I did lasting damage to these kids. It was so hard to ever get them to stop looking at a picture to guess what a word would be. It was so hard to ever get them to slow down and sound a word out because they had had this experience of knowing that you predict what you read before you read it."

Goldberg soon discovered the decades of scientific evidence against cueing. 25 She was shocked. She had never come across any of this science in her teacher preparation or on the job.

And she started to wonder why not.

Balanced Literacy

People have been arguing for centuries about how children should be taught to read. The fight has mostly focused on whether to teach phonics.

The whole language movement of the late 20th century was perhaps the zenith of the anti-phonics argument. 26 Phonics instruction was seen as tedious, time-consuming and ultimately unnecessary. Why? Because - according to the three-cueing theory - readers can use other, more reliable cues to figure out what the words say. 27

Marilyn Adams came across this belief in the early 1990s. She's a cognitive and developmental psychologist who had just written a book summarizing the research on how children learn to read. 28 One big takeaway from the book is that becoming a skilled reader of English requires knowledge of sound-spelling correspondences. 29 Another big takeaway is that many kids were not being taught this in school.

Soon after the book was published, Adams was describing her findings to a group of teachers and state education officials in Sacramento, California. She was sensing discomfort and confusion in the room. "And I just stopped and said, 'What is it that I'm missing?'" she recalled. "'What is it that we need to talk about? Help me.'"

A woman raised her hand and asked: "What does this have to do with the three-cueing system?" Marilyn didn't know what the three-cueing system was. "I think I blew all of their fuses that I did not [know what it was] since this was so fundamental to being an elementary reading teacher," she said. "How could I present myself to them as an expert on reading and not know about this?"

The teachers drew her a Venn diagram of the three-cueing system. It looked something like this:

Adams thought this diagram made perfect sense. The research clearly shows that readers use all of these cues to understand what they're reading.

But Adams soon figured out the disconnect. Teachers understood these cues not just as the way readers construct meaning from text, but as the way readers actually identify the words on the page. And they thought that teaching kids to decode or sound out words was not necessary.

"The most important thing was for the children to understand and enjoy the text," Adams said. "And from that understanding and joy of reading, the words on the page would just pop out at them."

She would explain to teachers at every opportunity that explicitly teaching children about the relationships between sounds and letters is essential to ensure all kids get off to a good start in reading. But she got tons of pushback from teachers. "They didn't want to teach phonics!" she recalled in frustration.

In 1998, Adams wrote a book chapter about how the three-cueing system conflicts with what researchers have figured out about reading. She hoped it would help put three cueing to rest. 30

By this time, the scientific research on reading was gaining traction. In 2000, a national panel convened by Congress to review the evidence on how to teach reading came out with a report. 31 It identified several essential components of reading instruction, including vocabulary, comprehension and phonics. The evidence that phonics instruction enhances children's success in learning how to read was clear and compelling. National reports on reading a few years later in the United Kingdom and Australia came to the same conclusion. 32

"When I got into the classroom and someone told me to use this practice, I didn't question it."-Stacey Cherny

Eventually, many whole language supporters accepted the weight of the scientific evidence about the importance of phonics instruction. They started adding phonics to their books and materials and renamed their approach "balanced literacy."

But they didn't get rid of the three-cueing system.

Balanced literacy proponents will tell you their approach is a mix of phonics instruction with plenty of time for kids to read and enjoy books. But look carefully at the materials and you'll see that's not really what balanced literacy is mixing. Instead, it's mixing a bunch of different ideas about how kids learn to read. It's a little bit of whole word instruction with long lists of words for kids to memorize. It's a little bit of phonics. And fundamentally, it's the idea that children should be taught to read using the three-cueing system.

And it turns out cueing may actually prevent kids from focusing on words in the way they need to become skilled readers.

Mapping the words

To understand why cueing can get in the way of children's reading development, it's essential to understand how our brains process the words we see.

Reading scientists have known for decades that the hallmark of being a skilled reader is the ability to instantly and accurately recognize words. 33 If you're a skilled reader, your brain has gotten so good at reading words that you process the word "chair" faster than you process a picture of a chair. 34 You know tens of thousands of words instantly, on sight. How did you learn to do that?

It happens through a process called "orthographic mapping." 35 This occurs when you pay attention to the details of a written word and link the word's pronunciation and meaning with its sequence of letters. 36 A child knows the meaning and pronunciation of "pony." The word gets mapped to his memory when he links the sounds /p/ /o/ /n/ /y/ to the written word "pony."

That requires an awareness of the speech sounds in words and an understanding of how those sounds are represented by letters. 37 In other words, you need phonics skills.

Here's what happens when a reader who has good phonics skills comes to a word she doesn't recognize in print. She stops at the word and sounds it out. If it's a word she knows the meaning of, she has now linked the spelling of the word with its pronunciation. If she doesn't know the meaning of the word, she can use context to try to figure it out.

By about second grade, a typically developing reader needs just a few exposures to a word through understanding both the pronunciation and the spelling for that word to be stored in her memory. 38 She doesn't know that word because she memorized it as a visual image. She knows that word because at some point she successfully sounded it out.

The more words she stores in her memory this way, the more she can focus on the meaning of what she's reading; she'll eventually be using less brain power to identify words and will be able to devote more brain power to comprehending what she's reading. 39

But when children don't have good phonics skills, the process is different.

"They sample from the letters because they're not good at sounding them out," said David Kilpatrick, a psychology professor at SUNY Cortland and the author of a book about preventing reading difficulties. 40 "And they use context."

In other words, when people don't have good phonics skills, they use the cueing system.

"The three-cueing system is the way poor readers read," said Kilpatrick.

And if teachers use the cueing system to teach reading, Kilpatrick says they're not just teaching children the habits of poor readers, they are actually impeding the orthographic mapping process. 41

"The minute you ask them just to pay attention to the first letter or look at the picture, look at the context, you're drawing their attention away from the very thing that they need to interact with in order for them to read the word [and] remember the word," Kilpatrick said. In this way, he said, three cueing can actually prevent the critical learning that's necessary for a child to become a skilled reader.

In many balanced literacy classrooms, children are taught phonics and the cueing system. Some kids who are taught both approaches realize pretty quickly that sounding out a word is the most efficient and reliable way to know what it is. Those kids tend to have an easier time understanding the ways that sounds and letters relate. They'll drop the cueing strategies and begin building that big bank of instantly known words that is so necessary for skilled reading.

But some children will skip the sounding out if they're taught they have other options. Phonics is challenging for many kids. The cueing strategies seem quicker and easier at first. And by using context and memorizing a bunch of words, many children can look like good readers - until they get to about third grade, when their books begin to have more words, longer words, and fewer pictures. Then they're stuck. They haven't developed their sounding-out skills. Their bank of known words is limited. Reading is slow and laborious and they don't like it, so they don't do it if they don't have to. While their peers who mastered decoding early are reading and teaching themselves new words every day, the kids who clung to the cueing approach are falling further and further behind. 42

These poor reading habits, once ingrained at a young age, can follow kids into high school. Some kids who were taught the cueing approach never become good readers. Not because they're incapable of learning to read well but because they were taught the strategies of struggling readers.

'So what if they use the picture?'

Once Margaret Goldberg discovered the cognitive science evidence against cueing, she wanted her colleagues in the Oakland school district to know about it too.

Over the past two years, Goldberg and a fellow literacy coach named Lani Mednick have been leading a grant-funded pilot project to improve reading achievement in the Oakland schools. 43

They have their work cut out for them. Nearly half the district's third-graders are below grade level in reading. Goldberg and Mednick want to raise questions about how kids in Oakland are being taught to read.

They meet every couple weeks with literacy coaches from the 10 elementary schools in the pilot program. They read and discuss articles about the scientific research on reading. At a meeting in March, the coaches watched the video of the "picture power" lesson.

"This teacher meant well," Mednick said to the coaches after they watched the lesson. "It seemed like she believed this lesson would ensure her students would be on the road toward reading."

Mednick wanted the coaches to consider the beliefs about reading that would lead to the creation of a lesson like "picture power." The Oakland schools purchased the Units of Study for Teaching Reading series, which includes the "picture power" lesson, as part of a balanced literacy initiative the district began about 10 years ago. The district also bought the Fountas and Pinnell assessment system.

The coaches saw right away that "picture power" was designed to teach kids the cueing system. But they said many teachers don't see any problem with cueing. After all, one of the cues is to look at the letters in the word. What's wrong with teaching kids lots of different strategies to figure out unknown words? 44

"I remember before we started looking at the science and everything, I thought to myself, 'Reading is so hard for kids, so what if they use the picture?'" said Soraya Sajous-Brooks, the early literacy coach at Prescott Elementary School in West Oakland. "Like, use everything you've got."

But she's come to understand that cueing sends the message to kids that they don't need to sound out words. Her students would get phonics instruction in one part of the day. Then they'd go reader's workshop and be taught that when they come to a word they don't know, they have lots of strategies. They can sound it out. They can also check the first letter, look at the picture, think of a word that makes sense.

Teaching cueing and phonics doesn't work, Sajous-Brooks said. "One negates the other."

Goldberg and Mednick want to show the district there's a better way to teach reading. Schools in the pilot project used grant money to buy new materials that steer clear of the three-cueing idea. Two charter school networks in Oakland are working on similar projects to move their schools away from cueing.

To see what it looks like, I visited a first-grade classroom at a charter school in Oakland called Achieve Academy. 45

One part of the day was explicit phonics instruction. 46 The students were divided into small groups based on their skill level. They met with their teacher, Andrea Ruiz, at a kidney-shaped table in a corner of the classroom. The lowest-level group worked on identifying the speech sounds in words like "skin" and "skip." The highest-level group learned how verbs like "spy" and "cry" are spelled as "spied' and 'cried" in the past tense.

There were also vocabulary lessons. 47 The entire class gathered on a rug at the front of the classroom to talk about a book Ms. Ruiz read out loud to them. One of the words in the book was "prey."

"What animals are a chameleon's prey?" Ms. Ruiz asked the children. "Or we can also ask, what animals do chameleons hunt for food?"

The kids turned and talked to each other. "A chameleon's prey are bugs and insects and other chameleons and mice and birds," a little boy explained to his classmate. "That's it."

Other vocabulary words these first-graders had learned were posted on cards around the classroom. They included: wander, persevere, squint and scrumptious. The kids weren't expected to read those words yet. The idea is to build their oral vocabulary so that when they can read those words, they know what the words mean.

This comes straight from the scientific research, which shows that reading comprehension is the product of two things. 48 First, a child needs to be able to sound out a word. Second, the child needs to know the meaning of the word she just sounded out. So, in a first-grade classroom that's following the research, you will see explicit phonics instruction and also lessons that build oral vocabulary and background knowledge. And you will see kids practicing what they've been taught.

After their vocabulary lesson, the kids did "buddy reading." They retreated to various spots around the classroom to read books to each other. I found Belinda sitting on an adult chair at the back of the classroom, her little legs swinging. Across from her was her buddy Steven, decked out in a yellow and blue plaid shirt tucked neatly into his jeans. He held the book and pointed to the words while Belinda read.

"Ellen /m/," Belinda paused, sounding out the word "meets." She was reading a decodable book about some kids who visit a farm. Almost all of the words in the book contain spelling patterns she'd been taught in her phonics lessons.

"I am a farm here," Belinda read.

Steven did a double-take. "A farmer here," he said gently. Steven's job as Belinda's reading buddy was to help her if she missed a word or got stuck. But that didn't happen much because Belinda had been taught how to read the words. She didn't need any help from the pictures, either. She barely glanced at them as she read.

To be clear, there's nothing wrong with pictures. They're great to look at and talk about, and they can help a child comprehend the meaning of a story. Context - including a picture if there is one - helps us understand what we're reading all the time. But if a child is being taught to use context to identify words, she's being taught to read like a poor reader.

Many educators don't know this because the cognitive science research has not made its way into many schools and schools of education. 49

Ruiz didn't know about this research until the Oakland pilot project. "I didn't really know anything about how kids learn to read when I started teaching," she said. It was a relief when she came to Oakland and the curriculum spelled out that kids use meaning, structure and visual cues to figure out words. "Because I came from not having anything, I was like, 'Oh, there's a way we should teach this,'" she said.

I heard this from other educators. Cueing was appealing because they didn't know what else to do.

"When I got into the classroom and someone told me to use this practice, I didn't question it," said Stacey Cherny, a former teacher who's now principal of an elementary school in Pennsylvania. She says many teachers aren't taught what they need to know about the structure of the English language to be able to teach phonics well. She says phonics can be intimidating; three cueing isn't.

Another reason cueing holds on is that it seems to work for some children. But researchers estimate there's a percentage of kids - perhaps about 40 percent - who will learn to read no matter how they're taught. 50 According to Kilpatrick, children who learn to read with cueing are succeeding in spite of the instruction, not because of it.

Goldberg hopes the pilot project in Oakland will convince the district to drop all instructional materials that include cueing.

When asked about this, the Oakland superintendent's office responded with a written statement that there isn't enough evidence from the pilot project to make curriculum changes for the entire district and that the Oakland schools remain committed to balanced literacy.

Oakland's situation is no different from many other districts across the country that have invested millions of dollars in materials that include cueing.

"It feels like everyone's trusting somebody else to have done their due diligence," Goldberg said. "Classroom teachers are trusting that the materials they're being handed will work. The people who purchase the materials are trusting if they were on the market, that they will work. We're all trusting, and it's a system that is broken."

'My science is different'

If cueing was debunked decades ago by cognitive scientists, why is the idea still in materials that are being sold to schools?

One answer to that question is that school districts still buy the materials. Heinemann, the company that publishes the Fountas and Pinnell and Lucy Calkins' products that the Oakland schools use, earned somewhere in the neighborhood of $500 million in 2018, according to earnings reports. 51

I wanted to know what the authors of those materials make of the cognitive science research. And I wanted to give them a chance to explain the ideas behind their work. I wrote to Calkins, Fountas and Pinnell and asked for interviews. They all declined. Heinemann sent a statement that said every product the company sells is informed by extensive research.

I also asked Ken Goodman for an interview. It's been more than 50 years since he first laid out the three-cueing theory in that 1967 paper. I wanted to know what he thinks of the cognitive science research. Of the major proponents of three cueing I reached out to, he was the only one who agreed to an interview.

I visited Goodman at his home in Tucson, Arizona. He's 91. He uses a scooter to get around, but he's still working. He just finished a new edition of one of his books.

When I asked him what he makes of the cognitive science research, he told me he thinks scientists focus too much on word recognition. He still doesn't believe accurate word recognition is necessary for reading comprehension.

"Word recognition is a preoccupation," he said. "I don't teach word recognition. I teach people to make sense of language. And learning the words is incidental to that."

He brought up the example of a child who comes to the word "horse" and says "pony" instead. His argument is that a child will still understand the meaning of the story because horse and pony are the same concept.

I pressed him on this. First of all, a pony isn't the same thing as a horse. Second, don't you want to make sure that when a child is learning to read, he understands that /p/ /o/ /n/ /y/ says "pony"? And different letters say "horse"?

He dismissed my question.

"The purpose is not to learn words," he said. "The purpose is to make sense."

Cognitive scientists don't dispute that the purpose of reading is to make sense of the text. But the question is: How can you understand what you are reading if you can't accurately read the words? And if quick and accurate word recognition is the hallmark of being a skilled reader, how does a little kid get there?

Goodman rejected the idea that you can make a distinction between skilled readers and unskilled readers; he doesn't like the value judgment that implies. He said dyslexia does not exist - despite lots of evidence that it does. 52 And he said the three-cueing theory is based on years of observational research. In his view, three cueing is perfectly valid, drawn from a different kind of evidence than what scientists collect in their labs.

"My science is different," Goodman said.

This idea that there are different kinds of evidence that lead to different conclusions about how reading works is one reason people continue to disagree about how children should be taught to read. It's important for educators to understand that three cueing is based on theory and observational research and that there's decades of scientific evidence from labs all over the world that converges on a very different idea about skilled reading.

The cognitive science does not provide all the answers about how to teach children to read, but on the question of how skilled readers read words, scientists have amassed a huge body of evidence.

Goldberg thinks it's time for educators across the country to take a close look at all the materials they use to teach reading.

"We should look through the materials and search for evidence of cueing," she said. "And if it's there, don't touch it. Don't let it get near our kids, don't let it get near our classrooms, our teachers."

Share and discuss on Facebook
Support for this program comes from the Spencer Foundation and Lumina Foundation.
Sign up for email notifications
We're interested in hearing what impact APM Reports programs have on you. Has one of our documentaries or podcasts changed how you think about an issue? Has it led you to do something, like start a conversation or try to do something new in your community? Share your impact story.

Enter your address below and we'll let you know when we publish new stories.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How a flawed idea is teaching millions of kids to be poor readers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For decades, schools have taught children the strategies of struggling readers, using a theory about reading that cognitive scientists have repeatedly debunked. And many teachers and parents don't know there's anything wrong with it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Science of Reading: The Podcast, hosted by Susan Lambert, delivers the latest insights from researchers and practitioners in early reading. Listen today!

# data[].attributes.body
Website of literacy specialist, Tim Shanahan

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Teacher question: Our reading program has us evaluating students on several strategies and reading skills (e.g., orienting, predicting, monitoring, story elements, identifying point of view, word solving, retelling, inferring character traits, determining theme). It provides grade level rubrics so that we can tell the difference between whether students are doing 4th grade or 5th grade work. We are also encouraged to have the students themselves self-assess their progress on these elements. The idea is that we are to use these evaluations to help students see where they are. Is this kind of t...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Literacy Education | Shanahan on Literacy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Tim Shanahan is a premier literacy educator in reading instruction and comprehension. He is a Public Speaker and Advocate for Literacy Education. Contact us for more information!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Learning how to read is not easy - especially in English. But Blaire White, a first-grade teacher at Jenny Lind Elementary, makes it look not just easy, but fun.

During a recent lesson, she encouraged students to "tap out" words by focusing on the sound each individual letter makes. She's spent a long time teaching them the relationship between sounds and letters. Now they're taking the next step: decoding those letter patterns to correctly pronounce words.

White started working with this group of children last year when they were in kindergarten. First, she helped them learn how to listen and build phonemic awareness or recognition of the smallest units of sounds in English. Then, she worked with them on letter recognition, letter sounds, and writing and building words.

It's a systematic and explicit approach to teaching reading, with a heavy emphasis on phonics. White says it's working better than anything she's ever tried.

"They are light years ahead of my first group that was in my first first-grade class," White said. "Having this phonics program, I have seen students just be encouraged."

This way of teaching reading is part of a science-based approach to literacy that White's school has been working on for a year and a half.

Before, White said, her reading instruction was more haphazard. It's not that her lessons ignored phonics. It's more that she wasn't teaching phonics in a structured way. She would introduce letter sounds as they came up in texts she was reading to her class. And she was giving her struggling students unhelpful strategies: things like guessing words in books based on pictures, instead of decoding them.

She'd gleaned these techniques from her teacher prep course and curriculum materials she'd been given. Like many Minnesota teachers, she'd never been introduced to the science of reading in a meaningful way.

The result of this haphazard approach?

"My students, they weren't learning ... it was definitely a mixed ability level. I had students that were at or exceeding the grade-level expectations. And I had students that are at a kindergarten level of reading that are about to enter second grade," White said. "For me as an educator and also working with students of color, it was not OK with me. And I'm just very thankful that we finally have a program that has a systematic approach."

White's experience is not unusual. According to the National Council on Teacher Quality, the majority of the nation's teacher prep programs had not actually acknowledged the science of reading until a few years ago. And according to a survey by Education Week, the five most popular reading programs used in American schools aren't backed by science.

Jenny Lind Elementary is working to change that.

Two years ago, the school started working with the Institute for Professional Learning at Groves Academy.

The school introduced a new reading curriculum, gave teachers training in the science of reading and began a three-year process of intensive one-on-one literacy coaching for instructors.

Teachers constantly assess their students to see how well they're doing. And they don't move on to a new area of reading instruction until 80 percent of their students have mastered the material.

This approach is getting results. White said she's eliminating gaps in her classroom.

"When we started seeing the success of our students we were like, 'OK. This works. We're going to stick to this,'" White said.

It's not just at Jenny Lind. Katharine Campbell is the director of the Groves Institute for Professional Learning. In addition to Jenny Lind, her organization is currently partnering with 29 other Minnesota schools in three-year programs to completely change the way they teach reading.

"What we're seeing in the data that we're collecting ... is that we are closing the achievement gap in the buildings that we're going into," Campbell said.

According to Campbell, the high risk first through third grade students in the programs her institute oversees have advanced at better than twice the national average rate.

That's really good news for schools in a state like Minnesota, where only about one-third of eighth graders are proficient in reading, according to national standards. And where socioeconomic and racial disparities in education are worse than almost anywhere else in the country.

"The students are fine and they're learning and I think that we need to respect the way students learn, and having this foundational phonics approach is working," White said.

According to White, there's nothing wrong with Minnesota students. And there's nothing wrong with Minnesota teachers.

But getting the right tools into the hands of those teachers and students is going to make all the difference when it comes to making sure future Minnesotans can read.
Correction (Jan. 30, 2020): Blaire White's name was misspelled in an earlier version of this story

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Science helps Minneapolis school turn the page on reading skills

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learning how to read is not easy - especially in English. But Blaire White, a first-grade teacher at Jenny Lind Elementary, makes it look not just easy, but fun. During a recent lesson, she encouraged students to "tap out" words by focusing on the sound each individual letter makes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Instruction that promotes equity in reading acquisition (12:45)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Preventing literacy failure and shifting the whole Bell Curve up

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Teaching children to read is the most important task teachers undertake. Over the past 60 years, scientists from many fields have worked to determine how people learn to read and why some struggle. This science of reading has led to breakthroughs that can dramatically reduce the number of children destined to become functionally illiterate or barely literate adults, identifying five components of effective instruction. In fact, most reading failure can be avoided by routinely applying the lessons learned from the scientific findings in the classroom. Estimates indicate that the current failure rate of 20 to 30 percent could be reduced to 2 to 10 percent.

Scientific research has shown that there are five essential components of effective reading instruction: explicit and systematic instruction in phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. Many states' policies still do not reflect the strong research consensus in reading instruction that has emerged over the last few decades. Many teacher preparation programs resist teaching scientifically-based reading instruction. Reports by NCTQ on teacher preparation, beginning with What Education Schools Aren't Teaching about Reading and What Elementary Teachers Aren't Learning in 2006 and continuing through the Teacher Prep Review in 2016 have consistently found the overwhelming majority of teacher preparation programs across the country do not train teachers in the science of reading, although the most recent Teacher Prep Review did find signs of improvement. Whether through standards or coursework requirements, states must direct programs to provide this critical training. But relying on programs alone is insufficient; states must only grant licenses to new elementary teachers who can demonstrate they have the knowledge and skills to teach children to read.

Most current reading tests do not offer assurance that teachers know the science of reading. A growing number of states, such as Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Virginia, require strong, stand-alone assessments entirely focused on the science of reading. Other states rely on either pedagogy tests or content tests that include items on reading instruction. However, since reading instruction is addressed only in one small part of most of these tests, it is often not necessary to know the science of reading to pass. States need to make sure that a teacher candidate cannot pass a test that purportedly covers reading instruction without knowing the critical material.

College- and career-readiness standards require significant shifts in literacy instruction. College- and career-readiness standards for K-12 students adopted by nearly all states require from teachers a different focus on literacy integrated into all subject areas. The standards demand that teachers are prepared to bring complex text and academic language into regular use, emphasize the use of evidence from informational and literary texts and build knowledge and vocabulary through content-rich text. While most states have not ignored teachers' need for training and professional development related to these instructional shifts, few states have attended to the parallel need to align teacher competencies and requirements for teacher preparation so that new teachers will enter the classroom ready to help students meet the expectations of these standards.

Walsh, K., Glaser, D., & Wilcox, D. D. (2006). What education schools aren't teaching about reading and what elementary teachers aren't learning. National Council on Teacher Quality. Retrieved from http://www.nctq.org/nctq/images/nctq_reading_study_app.pdf; Torgesen, J.K. (2005, November). Preventing reading disabilities in young children: Requirements at the classroom and school level. Presented at the Western North Carolina LD/ADD Symposium. Retrieved from http://www.fcrr.org/science/pdf/torgesen/NC-interventions.pdf
National Reading Panel (US), National Institute of Child Health, & Human Development (US). (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health. Retrieved from https://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/pubs/nrp/Documents/report.pdf; To review further indications of the affirmation of the previously-mentioned research, see: Foorman, B., Beyler, N., Borradaile, K., Coyne, M., Denton, C. A., Dimino, J., ... & Keating, B. (2016). Foundational skills to support reading for understanding in kindergarten through 3rd grade: Educator's practice guide (NCEE 2016-4008). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/wwc_foundationalreading_040717.pdf
National Council on Teacher Quality. (2016, December). Landscapes in teacher prep: Undergraduate elementary. National Council on Teacher Quality's Teacher Prep Review. Retrieved from http://www.nctq.org/dmsView/UE_2016_Landscape_653385_656245; To review past TPR materials on teacher prep programs: Walsh, K., Glaser, D., & Wilcox, D. D. (2006). What education schools aren't teaching about reading and what elementary teachers aren't learning. National Council on Teacher Quality. Retrieved from http://www.nctq.org/nctq/images/nctq_reading_study_app.pdf
For problems with many existing reading tests, see: Stotsky, S. (2006). Why American students do not learn to read very well: The unintended consequences of Title II and teacher testing. Third Education Group Review, 2(2), 1-37.; Rigden, D. (2006). Report on licensure alignment with the essential components of effective reading instruction. National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, Reading First Teacher Education Network.
National Council on Teacher Quality. (2011). Recommendations for the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Retrieved from http://www.nctq.org/p/publications/docs/nctq_eseaReauthorization.pdf
Student Achievement Partners. (2015). Research supporting the Common Core ELA/literacy shifts and standards. Retrieved from https://achievethecore.org/content/upload/Research%20Supporting%20the%20ELA%20Standards%20and%20Shifts%20Final.pdf

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
state policy education; state teacher policy; state teacher evaluation; state teacher pay; state teacher training

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
NCTQ: Yearbook: Teaching Reading: Minnesota

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Teaching children to read is the most important task teachers undertake. Over the past 60 years, scientists from many fields have worked to determine how people learn to read and why some struggle. This science of reading has led to breakthroughs that can dramatically reduce the number of children destined to become functionally illiterate or barely literate adults, identifying five components of effective instruction.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Find current MN reading achievement data

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What's New in NAEP?

HOW HAS YOUR STATE PERFORMED?

Find key data for state/jurisdiction performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) assessments in mathematics, reading, writing, and science at grades 4, 8 and 12 (where applicable).

NAEP RESULTS AND COVID-19 DISRUPTIONS

NAEP results provide insights on the performance of students and from the pandemic.

Read more about

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
provides national results about students' performance; access to state and district results, data explorer, questions tool, item maps, and other NAEP resources

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Payeur was one of the teachers seeking this kind of instruction. Her education training emphasized reading and writing workshops. The idea was that if you gave students time to read and write, they'd develop those skills and become strong readers and writers. "I was actually super passionate about that idea and so were my colleagues," she says. But the results didn't match. In fact, Payeur points to National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) scores showing stagnant reading scores since the 1970s. "It just shows that the methods we're using to teach reading are inadequate," she says.

Then "At a Loss for Words," an American Public Media's audio documentary, brought issues around reading to the forefront, sparking new conversations in the education community. For teachers like Payeur, this outlined the challenges they'd experienced. Soon, Reading Research Quarterly devoted it's entire September issue to reading science, while American Educator also highlighted the issue. "It has national attention right now," Payeur says.

This latest movement aims to help educators implement teaching methods that match how the brain learns. Part of the problem has been that the education leaders and education psychology specialists have often been siloed, not sharing ideas and best practices. Thanks to technological advances, scientists can see what's happening in the brain when someone is reading. Such science equips teachers to blend cognitive science with reading best practices. If teachers know how students' brains acquire reading skills, they will become more critical consumers of curriculum, Payeur notes. "We know so much more now and that knowledge needs to get to teachers," she says.

Some students struggle with reading because they have dyslexia or because they weren't exposed to adequate amounts of oral language as preschoolers. Those students' brains need explicit instruction to build the processors and strengthen the pathways in the brain to acquire reading at a strong level. While science-driven approaches to reading greatly help students with dyslexia of other challenges, the same tactics apply to all readers-all students benefit if lessons are more systematic in providing students with reading skills. Struggling readers and students with dyslexia are going to crawl through that sequence of skills, while others will walk or run through the same lessons. "It's the same sequence for everyone," Payeur says. "It's just that those who aren't exposed to literacy as much or those who have the neurological wiring of somebody who's dyslexic, they need longer time, they need more practice, they need more repetition with it than the typical learner does."

Silmser and Payeur see improvements in literacy education having wide-reaching effects. Structured literacy methods are important for all students, but Silmser calls it a game-changer for students of color and students in poverty. Socioeconomic factors often play a role in literacy, and then literacy affects much of a students' education and life. "We know that reading is critical to learning and later success in life, and therefore quality reading instruction is equity work!" Silmser says. "When kids become readers, a world of opportunity opens up to them. Structured literacy provides teachers with tools for reaching every single child in their classroom." While affluent parents are more likely to secure additional reading help for their children, families that can't access or afford assistance are often left behind. Strong reading education can better set up all students for success. "We're really hoping it will help with the achievement gap or the opportunity gap," Payeur says. "Minnesota, we're known as a great state for education, but we have one of the largest achievement gaps, which I prefer to call opportunity gaps, between students of color and white students."

Reading ability is also often tied to behavioral issues. Payeur witnessed this as a teacher because students would rather act out or become the class clown than appear dumb if they're struggling with reading. "In fourth grade when you can't read, it starts affecting every subject because you can't do science or social studies without reading the text that goes with it," she says. "You can't do math without reading the instructions for the problem. So it's just a snowballing issue."

But Silmser and Payeur are confident educators are moving in the right direction. They see efforts like Structured Literacy and the Science of Reading as promising steps in empowering teachers to give their students the tools for success. "I think that our program offers a great avenue for those who want to be leaders in literacy, whether that's just a team lead in the school or whether that's an instructional literacy coach for their district or maybe they want to work in choosing the curriculum for the district. Our program will help those people gain the skills that they need in order to advance their careers," Payeur says.

And Bethel undergrad students are also being prepared to meet these challenges. "Our undergrads, I'm confident, are going to have the skills so they won't have to feel that frustration that I did," Payeur says.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Payeur was one of the teachers seeking this kind of instruction. Her education training emphasized reading and writing workshops. The idea was that if you gave students time to read and write, they'd develop those skills and become strong readers and writers. "I was actually super passionate about that idea and so were my colleagues," she says.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Minnesota Reading to Ensure Academic Development Act, known as the READ Act, was passed and signed into law by Governor Tim Walz on May 24, 2023. The goal of this legislation is to have every Minnesota child reading at or above grade level every year, beginning in kindergarten, and to support multilingual learner and students receiving special education services in achieving their individualized reading goals. The READ Act replaces Read Well by Third Grade (RWBTG) in Minnesota Statutes 2022, section 120B.12, effective July 1, 2023.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

MDE has compiled the most frequently asked questions on the READ Act FAQ - Updated August, 2023

MDE Approved State Funded Professional Development Offerings

The READ Act requires MDE to partner with the Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement (CAREI) to identify at least three professional development programs that focus on the five pillars of literacy and the components of structured literacy by August 15, 2023.

The approved list of professional development programs will meet the statutory requirement of ensuring educators are trained to offer evidence-based reading instruction that includes phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary development, reading fluency, reading comprehension, and culturally and linguistically responsive pedagogy (Minnesota Statutes, section 120B.12, The READ Act).

Professional Development Requirements in The READ Act

Beginning July 1, 2024, each district must provide teachers and instructional support staff with responsibility for teaching reading with training on evidence-based reading instruction that is approved by the Department of Education.

District staff required to complete approved professional development include:

intervention teachers working with students in grades K-12;

all classroom teachers of students in kindergarten through grade three and children in prekindergarten programs;

special education teachers;

curriculum directors;

instructional support staff who provide reading instruction; and

employees who select literacy instructional materials for a district.

All other teachers and instructional staff required to receive training under the Read Act must complete the training no later than July 1, 2027.

Approved State Funded Professional Development Programs

Next Steps:

MDE will execute contracts with each of the three training vendors.
Anticipated start date to register will be dependent on contract execution with a goal of offering trainings as soon as possible.

Once the contracts are executed, MDE will provide districts direction for registering. Please do not contact the vendor as registration methods will not be determined until contracts are in place.

The goal of distributing training slots will be to ensure an equitable geographic balance of available slots throughout the state.

Once the Regional Literacy Networks in each Minnesota Service Cooperative are staffed, administrative supports will be offered via these Networks in each region of the state, including the metro area.

MDE Approved Literacy Screening Tools

The READ Act requires school districts and charters to adopt and implement a K-3 literacy screener from the list of MDE Approved Literacy Screening Tools. Screening tools approved by MDE include subtests to measure foundational reading skills as well as characteristics of dyslexia. Literacy screening tools were reviewed to ensure adequate classification accuracy, reliability, validity, sample representativeness (norms), bias analysis, and ease of administration and scoring.

The MDE has approved a list of literacy screening tools to support school districts and charters in conducting universal literacy and dyslexia screening in grades K-3, as required by Minnesota Statutes 2022, section 120B.12, The READ Act.

MDE Approved Literacy Screening Tools for Grades K-3:

DIBELS 8th Edition

FastBridge
earlyReading (K-1) and CBMReading (Grades 1-3) (Renaissance)

MDE Approved Literacy Screening Tools

The READ Act requires school districts and charters to adopt and implement a K-3 literacy screener from the list of MDE Approved Literacy Screening Tools. Screening tools approved by MDE include subtests to measure foundational reading skills as well as characteristics of dyslexia. Literacy screening tools were reviewed to ensure adequate classification accuracy, reliability, validity, sample representativeness (norms), bias analysis, and ease of administration and scoring. For more information about this review process see READ Act: K-3 Universal and Dyslexia Literacy Screening Tool Review Criteria and Process.

Additional Literacy Screening Guidance is Forthcoming

MDE will provide detailed guidance for districts related to literacy and dyslexia screening including specific measures to use at each grade for each tool. Future guidance and supports will include the following:

Information about the READ Act and how it applies to the universal screening required for school districts and charters;

Guidance to support districts in the selection of an approved screening tool; the annual reporting process; and analysis of the data to inform instruction; professional development; and resource deployment;

Guidance to support the implementation of universal literacy and dyslexia screening; and

Guidance on screening for characteristics of dyslexia for struggling readers in grades 4 and above .

The READ Act Implementation Timeline:

Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) and Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement (CAREI)

July 1, 2023 - MDE to post an approved list of Universal and Dyslexia Screening Tools for Grades K-3

August 15, 2023 - In partnership, CAREI and MDE are to identify at least three professional development programs that focus on the five pillars of literacy and the components of structured literacy and post them on the MDE website.

Curriculum: January 1, 2024 - In partnership, CAREI and MDE, must identify at least five evidence-based literacy curricula and supporting materials and post them on the MDE website.

Reimbursement: A process for reimbursement of approved evidence-based structured literacy curriculum and supporting materials and intervention materials purchased after July 1, 2021 by districts, charter schools and cooperatives will be developed and communicated on the MDE website. Guidance on this process will be forthcoming.

Reconsideration: MDE and CAREI must provide districts an opportunity to request reconsideration for approved curricula and professional development programs and must publish the request for reconsideration procedures on the department website. The request must demonstrate the curriculum or professional development program meets the requirements of the READ Act, is evidence-based, and has structured literacy components. Guidance on this process will be forthcoming.

Districts and Charter School

District and Charter Schools will have the 2023-2024 school year to transition to using an approved literacy screening tool. Beginning with the 2024-2025 school year- Districts and charter schools must annually administer an evidence-based reading screener that is approved by MDE to all students in K-3 within the first six weeks and last six weeks of school, including multilingual learners and students receiving special education services.

July 1, 2024 - A district must provide access to training on approved evidence-based reading instruction required in the READ Act to the following staff:

K-12 Intervention Teachers

PreK - Grade 3 Classroom Teachers

Special Education Teachers

Curriculum Leaders

Instructional Support Staff who provide reading instruction

Employees who select literacy instructional material

July 1, 2023 - Starting on this date, when a district purchases new literacy curriculum, intervention or supplementary materials, the resources purchased must be evidence-based as defined in Curriculum: Minnesota Statutes 2022, section 120B.1118. A district must use evidence-based curriculum and intervention materials at each grade level that are designed to ensure student mastery of phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary development, reading fluency and reading comprehension.

Reading Data and Local Literacy Plan Submissions

Minnesota districts and charter schools are required to annually submit data to MDE on student performance in Kindergarten, Grade 1, 2, and 3 on foundational reading skills including phonemic awareness, phonics, decoding, fluency, and oral language, in addition to their Local Literacy Plan.

Districts and charter schools will submit their Local Literacy Plan using the newly developed template on June 15, 2024. Universal screening data submission will be included the following year, June 15, 2025 to allow a full school year to transition to the new universal screening process and data submission.

Those districts who are already using an approved screening tool may be asked to pilot the data submission for the 2023-2024 school year. Guidance on the submission process and a template for submission will be forthcoming.

Resources

Updated resources and information will be made available for Minnesota districts, schools and educators to use in developing comprehensive literacy programs that use evidence-based practices and are aligned with the READ Act legislation. Please watch this webpage for updates.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Minnesota Reading to Ensure Academic Development Act, known as the READ Act, was passed and signed into law by Governor Tim Walz on May 24, 2023. The goal of this legislation is to have every Minnesota child reading at or above grade level every year, beginning in kindergarten, and to support multilingual learner and students receiving special education services in achieving their individualized reading goals.

# data[].attributes.headline
MN Joins Push Towards Science of Reading

# data[].attributes.subject
MN Joins Push Towards Science of Reading

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Gift this Article Send this article to anyone, no subscription is necessary to view it

The bulletin board in Krista Sorgatz's first-grade classroom at Wilshire Park Elementary is adorned with an array of paired letters, each representing a different sound. Illustrations of padlocks also decorate the wall, signifying lessons the kids still need to "unlock" - as soon as they master the prerequisites.

This orderly approach to reading lessons is uniform across every classroom in the St. Anthony school and will soon be standard across the St. Anthony-New Brighton district.

"When I got here, we didn't have alignment around reading," first-year Principal Maria Roberts said. "And I told my superintendent that I needed a literacy coach, an instructor for my teachers."

The school's efforts are exactly what Minnesota legislators are hoping to replicate across the state under the sweeping education bill Gov. Tim Walz signed into law. The literacy-education elements of that measure drew bipartisan support and ushered Minnesota into a growing movement nationwide that overhauls efforts to teach kids to read.

It requires schools to adopt a type of instruction known as the "science of reading" to qualify for state funding. The research-backed method is often understood as a return to an emphasis on phonics and phonemic awareness - how words are made up of a series of sounds - for all students, not just struggling readers.

"What you're going to hear is that we're going back to the basics somewhat in how students are learning," said Bobbie Burnham, assistant commissioner for the Office of Teaching and Learning at the Minnesota Department of Education.

The plan will require Minnesota school districts to choose from a list of at least five Department of Education-approved literacy programs and provides funding for educator training and classroom materials.

It also requires schools to screen every student at the beginning and end of their first four years in school, a practice that has been reserved for children identified as struggling readers. And it encourages schools to develop a variety of plans to support students, regardless of their reading ability.

Most important, lawmakers and educators say, the bill standardizes the approach Minnesota's teachers take in tackling one of the thorniest and persistent issues in American education.
'Unacceptable' reading scores
About half of U.S. fourth-graders scored below proficient on a widely administered national reading assessment last year. In Minnesota, nearly half of public school students also missed their reading benchmarks last year, according to state testing data.

That worries Kim Gibbons, director of the Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement at the University of Minnesota. The center is tasked with identifying which classroom materials and trainings will qualify for state funding by the end of the year.

"We've got almost 500,000 kids that aren't proficient, and that would fill up the U.S. Bank Stadium 7 ½ times," Gibbons said. "That's unacceptable."

Until now, Minnesota districts were largely left to adopt whatever trainings and classroom materials they wanted - some of which have since fallen out of favor. But shifting to the "science of reading" could be costly, with some programs coming with a price tag of up to $1,000 per teacher license.

Gibbons, who spent two decades working for the St. Croix River Education District, said Minnesota's literacy legislation follows what several states have already done. Places like Mississippi and Alabama have made headlines for the gains children have made in reading proficiency using similar tactics.

In the last decade, 31 states and Washington, D.C. have passed legislation or adopted policies to revamp the way young children learn how to read, according to a tally by news organization EducationWeek.

Minnesota was one of three states considering bills to centralize reading supports at the state level this year. Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine has pushed a $64 million investment in the "science of reading." In Oregon, a push to fund a similar effort remains in limbo.

But while lawmakers in some states have focused on prescribing specific programs, Gibbons advised politicians in St. Paul to ensure funding for professional development and support specialists to help Minnesota teachers.

That's why the bill provides $35 million for teacher training, in addition to $35 million to reimburse districts for new classroom materials if they need to replace recently purchased books and lesson plans that don't align with the new state standards.

"The research is pretty clear that you need all of these elements working together," Gibbons said.
Bipartisan support
Minnesota's new literacy efforts stand out from those of other states in the emphasis on data collection, said Rep. Heather Edelson, DFL-Edina, who authored the literacy portion of the education bill. Districts will be required to report the curriculum they use to the state, which Edelson said will offer insights on which classroom materials are most effective.

"We will have comprehensive data on what's happening throughout our state - who's using which curriculum, which interventions they're using. And maybe we can identify some trends," Edelson said.

All but one Republican voted against the larger education bill, but the literacy provisions received bipartisan support throughout the Legislative session.

Sen. Zach Duckworth, R-Lakeville, said he is often against mandates for schools because they leave little room to provide support for individual students who may be struggling.

"If we are pulling you and your staff in so many directions, something's got to give," said Duckworth, who voted against the larger education bill.

But as literacy rates in Minnesota and across the country have steadily declined over the years, Duckworth has heard a consensus - from school boards to the governor's office - that educators needed help. And he supports the new literacy efforts.

"When we see those rates begin to slip, whether you're a Republican or Democrat, you know there's something we have to do at the state Legislature," he said.

Roberts, the Wilshire Park Elementary principal, said it was reassuring to see that lawmakers provided funding for instructional coaches and also mandated state coordination of districts' efforts.

Gibbons, the university researcher, agreed with the multi-pronged approach, saying policymakers have too often looked to individual teacher training programs or curricula as a silver bullet for anemic gains in literacy.

"There's not one simple fix. It's not a matter of just picking curriculum off a list," Gibbons said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Minnesota joins states adopting research-backed approach to literacy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The requirements push the state toward the "science of reading" and an emphasis on phonics.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Lexia Learning Systems https://www.lexialearning.com/Assets/img/logo.svg 1984 978-405-6232 info@lexialearning.com 300 Baker Avenue, Suite 320 Concord MA 01742 USA

Minnesota LETRS®
Science of Reading Professional Learning Courses

Great news, Minnesota!

The Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) is excited to announce a new initiative to offer LETRS professional learning to educators across the state.

The Minnesota LETRS® Science of Reading Professional Learning Courses will provide sustained and job-embedded professional learning about the science of reading, at no cost to educators. These impactful courses will be based on Lexia's LETRS (Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling) literacy professional learning and are being offered to thousands of educators.

Who is eligible?

Funding is available for licensed Minnesota educators. Priority will be given to educators in the following roles:

K-5 classroom teachers (including EL and immersion)

Elementary and secondary reading specialists and intervention teachers

Elementary and secondary literacy coaches

Elementary and secondary special educators responsible for reading instruction

Elementary and secondary administrators

Literacy professors in MN institute of higher education

LETRS® is accredited by the International Dyslexia Association®

The Minnesota LETRS Science of Reading Professional Learning Courses are part of the state's comprehensive plan to apply millions of dollars in federal relief to improve student literacy. The LETRS course of study gives teachers the skills they need to teach language and literacy to every student, even those with reading challenges like dyslexia.

Participation is on a first-come, first-served basis. Reserve your seat now-space is limited. Participants will earn valuable CEUs or PLUs.

What is LETRS?

LETRS® (Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling) is comprehensive professional learning designed to provide elementary educators and administrators with deep knowledge to be literacy and language experts in the science of reading. Developed by Dr. Louisa Moats and leaders in the field of literacy, LETRS teaches the skills needed to master the foundation and fundamentals of reading and writing instruction-phonological awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension, and written language.

View Brochure

What Minnesota educators are saying about LETRS

"Through LETRS training, I am able to explain to my students what we are learning, why we are learning it, and-if students get stuck-how to figure out what part of the puzzle they are missing and fill it in. Seeing a student's eyes light up when they finally understand how words work is one of the most rewarding things about being a teacher."

Elementary Special Education Teacher

"The knowledge I gained from the LETRS training has greatly enriched my communication arts methods, K-6 course for elementary education majors at my institution. I use the resources and knowledge to meet the new dyslexia standards as well as numerous other standards addressed by the course."

"LETRS gave me a research-based scope and sequence to help students be successful with their reading! The huge takeaway that I have gotten from the program was the in depth knowledge, strategies, and instruction of phonological awareness. After implementing the phonological awareness strategies and interventions, my students began to bloom."

"LETRS has completely changed how I think of teaching reading. It has given me the tools to use with my students along with research and science to help me understand why and how a code-based system to reading works."

"The science of reading is a step-by-step process that yields results and gives teachers the tools to teach reading."

"LETRS should be for all elementary teachers and interventionists!"

"Teachers are the most important factor in student success. Informed teachers can explain language to students, including sounds, spellings, and word meanings that might be confusing. They use lessons based on reading science and understand the process of learning to read and write. Research proves it. Science matters."

Louisa Moats, Ed.D., Author of LETRS

Resources for Literacy Learning

A host of resources related to LETRS, the science of reading, and Structured Literacy is available to give you additional insight.

How Can We Help?

A Cambium Learning® Group Company

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
LETRS professional learning for Minnesota K-5 teachers and literacy professors!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Lexia Learning Systems https://www.lexialearning.com/Assets/img/logo.svg 1984 978-405-6232 info@lexialearning.com 300 Baker Avenue, Suite 320 Concord MA 01742 USA Minnesota LETRS® Science of Reading Professional Learning Courses The Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) is excited to announce a new initiative to offer LETRS professional learning to educators across the state.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Falcon Heights Elementary teacher Laurie Schlossmacher stands at the front of her classroom and points at an oversized flashcard of the letter "A."

The kindergarten students repeat "A, A, Apple," after her.

Schlossmacher has been teaching preschool and kindergarten for decades. But in the last few years, she's completely transformed the way she teaches reading.

Literacy is Schlossmacher's passion. Her daughter has dyslexia and struggled to learn to read, even with a tutor's help. Schlossmacher blames balanced literacy - an approach to teaching reading that combines minimal phonics instruction with getting kids to memorize words and use pictures, guessing and word placement.

It works for some kids, Schlossmacher said, but it leaves many children behind.

"This balanced literacy prevailed really for most of my career and it never really sat right with me," Schlossmacher said.

It was only a few years ago, while on her district's curriculum committee that Schlossmacher started looking into research behind the so-called 'science of reading,' which emphasizes rigorous phonics instruction that leads learners into sounding words out.

The approach Schlossmacher is taking in her classroom is one that Minnesota legislators recently voted to mandate in elementary schools throughout the state.

The recently passed education omnibus bill includes something DFL lawmakers have called the Read Act. It includes requirements that kindergarteners through third graders be taught phonics and decoding, and it requires districts to purchase curriculum in line with these methods and train their teachers in what's known as 'structured literacy.'

What is in the Read Act?

"The Read Act is a comprehensive look at how we transform and pivot and meet what we know about science today on how people learn to read," said Rep. Heather Edelson, DFL-Edina, who sponsored the bill.

It appropriates more than $70 million and includes mandated changes at colleges and universities to train future teachers, specifications that the education department partner with applied research specialists at the University of Minnesota, and funding for literacy specialists to run teacher training and help districts identify appropriate reading curriculum.

The bill is similar to legislation in dozens of other states that have enacted so-called ' science of reading ' laws. It was opposed by some Republicans, including Rep. Patricia Mueller from Austin.

Mueller is a strong supporter of the methods kindergarten teacher Schlossmacher is using, but she wanted to see the Read Act go further than it did by using the phrase 'the science of reading' and by appropriating more money to help schools make changes in the classroom.

"The bill is designed to push our districts from removing the failed balanced literacy, whole literacy curriculum that we have and push us towards 'the science of reading.' The problem is, the bill goes out of its way to not ever use the word 'science of reading,'" Mueller said, adding she would have liked less ambiguous language used in the legislation.

The state teacher union has thrown its support behind the bill, but voiced concerns about the testing measures included.

"Screenings are less onerous than formal standardized testing, but our union remains highly concerned about the amount of instructional time lost to assessments," Education Minnesota said in a statement.

Historic investment in literacy

Katie Pekel, who is executive director of educational leadership at the University of Minnesota, said the bill is the largest investment she's seen the state make in literacy.

When it comes to how the bill aligns with what the body of research says on how kids learn to read, Pekel had only praise:

"It's really clear in laying out that we're first going to identify what research and experts actually say work ... that has not happened in my time as an educator in Minnesota," Pekel said. "This is how to teach kids to read, not what to teach kids."

The key, Pekel said, will be for lawmakers to continue investing money in the initiative in two years when she thinks more districts will want to transition their classrooms and their text books to look more like what Schlossmacher is doing at Falcon Heights Elementary School.

What Schlossmacher is doing - emphasizing phonics and sounding words out - appears to be paying off with students.

"When you teach a five year old the sounds and then you teach them that you put the M and the A and the T together and they sound out 'mat', they're actually learning that that word is 'mat' instead of them looking for a picture of a mat on a page," Schlossmacher said.

Schlossmacher reflects on the struggles her daughter with dyslexia had trying to learn to read under the 'balanced literacy' method. And it brings tears to her eyes.

"Because my daughter - if we knew then what we know now, in my opinion she would've been reading much, much younger."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Experts say Read Act is a major investment in literacy education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The education spending bill Minnesota lawmakers passed this week includes $70 million on a policy provision meant to change the way educators teach reading in schools throughout the state.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Literacy Learning for Leaders is a video series accompanied by professional development modules meant to provide support for leaders in understanding effective reading instruction and the systems needed to support it. It has been prepared for principals and other school leaders by the Minnesota Principals Academy at the University of Minnesota and HELP, the Higher Education Literacy Partnership of Minnesota.

Facilitator Training Available!

While you can easily access the full content of all of the videos on this site, we have also worked to create free accompanying professional development resources, including video guides, templates for communications with participants, facilitator guides, slide decks, reflection and discussion guides for participants, and collections of relevant links and resources! In order to access these, you will need to attend one of our "Leader of Leaders" cohorts. In you are interested in attending one of our future cohorts, or would like access to the free professional development resources to lead your own cohort, please using the form below (the "sign up here" button).

Here are the dates and times for our summer cohorts:

Summer Cohort 1
May 22 - 10-10:30 - Intro Session
June 6 - 10-11:15 - Unit 1
Jun 26 - 10-11:15 - Unit 2
July 10 - 10-11:15 - Unit 3
July 17 - 10-11:15 - Unit 4

Summer Cohort 2
July 17 - 10-10:30 - Intro Session
July 31 - 10-11:15 - Unit 1
Aug 14 - 10-11:15 - Unit 2
Aug 21 - 10-11:15 - Unit 3
Aug 28 - 10-11:15 - Unit 4

Interested in participating in a summer cohort and/or leading your own?

How can I, or my district, get involved in an LLL Cohort? There are a few options:

Inquire with your local service cooperative of Regional Center of Excellence and see if/when they are planning to offer a cohort locally.

Inquire with your district to see if they are planning to hold a cohort internally.

Join one of our 'Statewide" cohorts this summer facilitated by the U of M. More information on these summer cohorts can be found here, and you can sign up using the form below.

While those cohorts are open to anyone, we are also offering a cohort specific to charter schools:
Charter School Cohort
May 22, 2-2:30-Intro Session
Jun 6, 2-3:15-Unit 1
Jun 26, 2-3:15-Unit 2
Jul 10, 2-3:15-Unit 3
July 17, 2-3:15-Unit 4

Click this link to sign up for the charter school-specific cohort.

A Conversation with Emily Hanford (Recorded 02/01/2023)

Additionally, the slides from the session are available here.

Community-Based Literacy Support

When Emily Hanford visited the University of Minnesota, she highlighted how community support needs to be part of the full solution for producing successful readers. That's what AmeriCorps programs, like Reading Corps, do best! This evidence-based program is proven to accelerate student achievement in literacy. Explore Reading Corps as part of your school or district's holistic approach to the Science of Reading. Here's the link. To host Reading Corps tutors, elementary schools apply at this link.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Literacy Learning for Leaders - Department of Organizational Leadership, Policy, and Development

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Literacy Learning for Leaders is a video series accompanied by professional development modules meant to provide support for leaders in understanding effective reading instruction and the systems needed to support it. It has been prepared for principals and other school leaders by the Minnesota Principals Academy at the University of Minnesota and HELP, the Higher Education Literacy Partnership of Minnesota.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Interview with neuroscientist Guinevere Eden (article and audio 51:51)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Guinevere Eden: The last 15 years or so in neuroscience research have uncovered this really interesting idea about how our brain learns to read. Reading is not a natural skill. We use brain areas that have properties that make them suitable to be involved in reading, but they weren't actually designed to do that. What they were designed to do is object recognition.

Listen to this audio documentary on the Educate podcast. Subscribe now.

Emily Hanford: So, the part of the brain that our ancient ancestors used to see a tree or a lion coming at them - that's the part of the brain we now use to understand letters and words on the page?

Eden: Yes. When children learn to read, sometimes they reverse letters that look similar, like "b" and "d." That's because our visual system has a property to make sure that when we see a mirror image of an object we still know it's the same object. When I see a chair that's oriented one way and I see it again when it's oriented slightly differently, I don't go, "What's that object?" I know it's the same object. Our visual system has to be flexible otherwise we're going to have infinite numbers of objects to recognize. So, a kindergartener will think "b" and "d" are the same letter. We have to teach them that they're not the same objects. And the child has to override that particular property of the visual system that was designed to make us good at object recognition.

When we learn to read we also use the oral language structures of the brain, and we blend that with the object recognition pathway. When children see words for the first time, they go through them very carefully and try to match the sounds to the letters. But once most people have done that a few times the word moves to this visual pathway where it's treated more like an object; you recognize the word by sight. As a skilled reader, you don't have to sound out words unless you come across a word you've never seen before, perhaps when you go to university and encounter new vocabulary. That's when you're sounding out words again.

Hanford: What's different in the brain of a person with dyslexia?

Eden: There are certain skills that if you have them, make you more successful at learning to read. One of them is phonemic awareness. That's basically having an understanding of how words are made up of sounds. People with dyslexia don't have good phonemic awareness. The process of decoding is very hard for them and the difficulty largely stems from understanding how words are broken up into sounds.

Hanford: Give an example.

Eden: Take the word "cat" or "bat." Those words are made up of three sounds. And those three sounds happen to be represented by three letters. People with dyslexia have a hard time understanding that. If every time you see a word you struggle again and again with how the sounds and the letters correspond, it's difficult to move to that next stage of reading that's more automatic where you recognize words by sight. And so, it becomes very hard to grow your sight word vocabulary that allows you to recognize a word quickly, move on, read fluently, and derive meaning from the words and the sentence that you're reading. If every word is an obstacle and you have to decode it in a very laborious way, it's hard at the end of the sentence to know what the sentence was about. When it comes to describing children with dyslexia you have to remember they are like other children in all other areas, but they have a very isolated difficulty when it comes to learning to read.

Main Story

Hard to Read: How American schools fail kids with dyslexia.

Hanford: What causes dyslexia?

Eden: Dyslexia runs in families. If one parent has dyslexia there's about a 40 percent chance their child will have dyslexia. We now know it's not due to one gene but to many genes. It's multi-genetic and that means there are a number of things that can happen to bring about dyslexia. When scientists do studies on the brains of people with dyslexia we find underactivity in the part of the visual system that helps people recognize words by sight and we see underactivity in the areas that help people sound out words.

Now what exactly is happening, we don't know yet. Getting back to the "b" and "d" example. Mixing up letters is not what dyslexia is, but people with dyslexia do often mix up letters. Why? They are manifesting what is a typical profile for a beginning reader. In other words, people with dyslexia are beginning readers for much longer than most readers.

Hanford: You're talking about people with dyslexia having something different going on in the visual system of their brains. Is it true that people with dyslexia tend to be more creative or artistic?

Eden: That's one of the questions that people have been asking for a long time. We can think of the question in several ways. First of all, perhaps whatever caused or interfered with their reading process may have some beneficial effect in another area of the brain. Or it could be that because they haven't read as much, their brain hasn't changed as much. Remember, when people learn to read they are taking over areas of the brain that were not intended for reading. Reading changes the brain and those brain changes may have some deleterious effect. Because of not reading as much, people with dyslexia may be protected from those effects. Those are all really interesting questions that people in science are grappling with.

Hanford: If you were a parent determined to raise a great artist, maybe you wouldn't want your child to learn to read?

Eden: I don't think you'd want to go that far. Learning to read cannot be underestimated in terms of our need for it in today's world. But I think it's really important to recognize that children with dyslexia have to become aware of their strengths and weaknesses at a much earlier age. It's tough, but I think it's also a good thing because as they go through life they begin to understand, "I may not be great at reading but I'm good at this other thing. Let's try and do more of this." I think children don't often have to think about themselves in those ways. Kids with dyslexia might then be advancing or making use of another skill, training that skill more, which means they get really good at that skill, better than their non-dyslexic peers.

Upper Arlington

Read about the Ohio school district that changed its approach to reading instruction.

Hanford: Reading is a skill that we prize now. But thousands of years ago it didn't really matter if your brain could make sense of words on the page. It mattered more that you could see a lion coming at you.

Eden: That's right. It's an issue of how we adapt to our environment and what's important to be able to do. Right now, it's important for everybody to be a skilled reader so they can succeed at school. But at another time or in another life other things are more important - that you run really fast or that you're very strong. Reading is like any other skill. You might be really good at tennis; your husband may be really good at playing the piano. But those aren't skills that get you through elementary school or into university. They're not the gateway to knowledge the way learning to read is. We all have to get good at reading because it's how we acquire knowledge.

Hanford: Will reading always be important?

Eden: From an evolutionary perspective, we haven't been reading for very long. We've had oral language for hundreds of thousands of years, but written language was invented somewhere between four and six thousand years ago. For a long time, it was a very small sliver of society that was reading, like the monks and so on were taught to read. Before reading became important to our society you wouldn't know who had dyslexia and who didn't because it never became an issue. But now, of course, reading is something we want everybody to be able to do because reading is so powerful as a tool to acquire knowledge. One of the questions that often comes up is, what's it going to look like in the future? Because we're getting our information in very different ways now. What role will print play in a thousand, 2000, 3000 years? We just don't know.

This interview was edited and condensed for clarity and length.

The fall season of four education documentaries can be heard via the Educate podcast.
Subscribe now: Apple Podcasts | RadioPublic

BACK TO MAIN STORY How American schools fail kids with dyslexia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is dyslexia? An interview with neuroscientist Guinevere Eden

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Guinevere Eden directs the Center for the Study of Learning at Georgetown University Medical Center. In this interview with APM Reports correspondent Emily Hanford, she explains what scientists are learning about what happens in the brain when a child learns to read - and what's different in the brain of someone with dyslexia.

# data[].attributes.body
(4:34)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is dyslexia? - Kelli Sandman-Hurley

# data[].attributes.body
(1:24)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
John Gabrieli: How are the brains of people with dyslexia different?

# data[].attributes.body
(3:48)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Dyslexia Simulation--What it's Like to Be Dyslexic.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
True story of a boy with dyslexia (19:49)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Mical (2020) | OFFICIAL FILM | Dyslexia Film

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
1. Home

2. Our Impact

3. About Universal Design for Learning

Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is a framework to improve and optimize teaching and learning for all people based on scientific insights into how humans learn.

UDL at a Glance

Find out how the UDL framework guides the design of instructional goals, assessments, methods, and materials that can be customized and adjusted to meet individual needs.

UDL to Change the World

CAST created the Universal Design for Learning framework, and it remains one of our core levers of change to help make learning inclusive and transformative for everyone.

Universal Design for Learning Guidelines

The UDL Guidelines are a tool used in the implementation of Universal Design for Learning. These guidelines offer a set of concrete suggestions that can be applied to any discipline or domain to ensure that all learners can access and participate in meaningful, challenging learning opportunities.

Visit the UDL Guidelines

Engagement

For purposeful, motivated learners, stimulate interest and motivation for learning.

Explore Engagement

Representation

For resourceful, knowledgeable learners, present information and content in different ways.

Explore Representation

Action & Expression

For strategic, goal-directed learners, differentiate the ways that students can express what they know.

Explore Action & Expression

Top of Page

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
About Universal Design for Learning - CAST

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn more about the UDL framework and the UDL Guidelines, developed and maintained by CAST.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Reading disabilities are a type of learning disorder that can make reading a challenge. The most well-known type of reading disability is dyslexia.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The bipartisan READ Act aims to improve reading scores through a fundamental change in reading curriculum and teaching

ROSEVILLE, Minn. - Reading proficiency scores across the state of Minnesota dipped below 50% last year, marking a nearly 10% drop since before the pandemic. But the new data - provided by the Minnesota Department of Education - comes as the state begins a major investment in re-training teachers on the "science of reading."

The bipartisan READ Act, passed earlier this year, will dedicate $70 million in state funds to help fund literacy assessments for K-3 students, re-train teachers and reimburse schools for new reading curriculum that helps student de-code words through phonics and improve comprehension.

"The lack of consistent exposure to phonics is what we're seeing in kids who struggle mastering reading," said Katie Pekel, Executive Director of Educational Leadership at the University of Minnesota College of Education and Human Development. "We actually know that kids need about 20 minutes of phonics instruction each day, until they have mastered that."

Roseville Area Schools has already invested in new curriculum for all elementary schools, emphasizing the "Science of Reading" approach.

"This is an example from our kindergarten curriculum," said Dr. Mary Bussman, Equity Advancement Principal for Roseville Area Schools. "These are books that (students) can read 95% of the words all by themselves."

The principals in the new materials aren't new themselves, but Bussman says the emphasis on phonics and comprehension gave way to other teaching strategies over the years, which have been shown to be ineffective.

Dr. Mary Bussman: "We thought if we just flooded them with enough beautiful books, they will want to read and so the more practice they have, they'll just get better at reading. But that's kind of like sending a kid out on the baseball field with a baseball, thinking that they're going to get better at hitting.

We used some principals of phonics but also told young readers to look for context clues, like pictures. We've taught our kids how to kind of systematically guess, without actually being able to sound out all of those letters."

Kent Erdahl: "Now you're essentially re-teaching teachers how to teach reading. How much of an undertaking is that going to be for schools across this state?"

Bussman: "It's a big undertaking, but there's a lot of emotion to it as well, because we have to recognize if we do things differently in the future, we have to recognize that maybe we weren't doing the best on behalf of the kids we've been teaching in the last five, 10, 25 years."

Roseville was among the first districts to begin re-training teachers on the "Science of Reading" principals a year-and-a-half ago, and Bussman says they now have 230 K-4 teachers ready to begin implementing the new approach.

"Some of our teachers who piloted, using this new curriculum are already seeing huge gains in their kindergarten and first grade classrooms," Bussman said.

Pekel says Roseville is among the bright spots state leaders are watching, while they work to get many more districts on board in the year to come.

Erdahl: "How long do you think it will be before we start seeing this reflected in reading scores."

Pekel: "I think we're looking at at least 3, closer to five, years until we see some significant changes."

About half of the $70 million provided by the READ Act will fund all the extra teacher training, the other half will help reimburse schools that purchase new curriculum.

But Roseville remains an outlier so far, because MDE is still narrowing down the list of five approved curriculum providers, which will qualify for state reimbursement.

Pekel says a committee of stakeholders will finalize the list in January, and many districts are holding off on new curriculum until then.

"I know every school leader across the state of Minnesota wishes that list was out last week," she said.
Watch all of the latest stories from Breaking The News in our YouTube playlist:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
As literacy scores fall, Minnesota pumps $70M into 'Science of Reading'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Roseville Area Schools has already invested in new curriculum for all elementary schools, emphasizing the "Science of Reading" approach.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Teacher Professional Learning | Literacy, Math | MTSS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Curriculum Implementation

Literacy Coaching & Site Implementation Support

Early Literacy Planning & Implementation Collaboration

Publisher Approved Professional Learning

Online Elementary Reading Academy

Adolescent Literacy Solutions

Curriculum Implementation

Rise in Math

Math Coaching

Online Math Academy

Onsite Math Academy

Teaching Reading Sourcebook 3rd Edition

Curriculum Implementation

Literacy Coaching & Site Implementation Support

Early Literacy Planning & Implementation Collaboration

Publisher Approved Professional Learning

Online Elementary Reading Academy

Adolescent Literacy Solutions

Curriculum Implementation

Rise in Math

Math Coaching

Online Math Academy

Onsite Math Academy

Teaching Reading Sourcebook 3rd Edition

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
10 Things Teachers Should Know About the Science of Reading

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Curriculum Implementation Literacy Coaching & Site Implementation Support Early Literacy Planning & Implementation Collaboration Publisher Approved Professional Learning Online Elementary Reading Academy Adolescent Literacy Solutions Curriculum Implementation Rise in Math Math Coaching Online Math Academy Onsite Math Academy Teaching Reading Sourcebook 3rd Edition Curriculum Implementation Literacy Coaching & Site Implementation Support Early Literacy Planning & Implementation Collaboration Publisher Approved Professional Learning Online Elementary Reading Academy Adolescent Literacy Solutions Curriculum Implementation Rise in Math Math Coaching Online Math Academy Onsite Math Academy Teaching Reading Sourcebook 3rd Edition

# data[].attributes.headline
Can We Afford to Ignore the Science of Reading?

# data[].attributes.subject
Can We Afford to Ignore the Science of Reading?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Can we Afford to Ignore the Science of Reading? | Melissa Hostetter | TEDxUofISpringfield

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
11/30/2023

The three-cueing system, also known as MSV (Meaning, Syntax, Visual), has been utilized widely across classrooms for teaching reading skills. However, in light of the increasing focus on research behind effective reading instruction (also known as the science of reading), there have been legislative shifts and a reassessment of the role of three cueing in literacy instruction.

This blog post guides educational leaders through the three-cueing system's relevance today, examining its constraints against modern research and legislative shifts. It delves into an evidence-based alternative tailored for educators' challenges, ensuring strategies that benefit all students, especially those with learning difficulties.

What is Three Cueing?

The three-cueing system was once a common instructional framework in literacy education. It emerged from the whole language movement and later found its way into balanced literacy approaches.

Advocates for three-cuing believe they're referencing the idea that the brain can use multiple sources of information to solve unknown words. But as the Reading League points out, three-cueing evolved into a method of literacy instruction, one NOT supported by research.

Developed with the aim of providing educators with tools to foster a love of reading in their students, this method is reminiscent of the well-intentioned educational theories that gave rise to it. The system comprises three cues to help students decode written text:

1. Semantic cues: Focus on gaining meaning from context and sentence-level cues.

2. Syntactic cues: Involve the grammatical features of the language.

3. Grapho-phonic cues: Deal with spelling patterns.

If a student, Dora, misreads the word "horse" as "house" in the sentence "The horse eats the hay in the barn," here's how the three-cueing system cues could be applied:

Semantic cues (Meaning): The teacher asks Dora, "Does 'house' make sense in this sentence? What would be in the barn and eat hay?" This prompt encourages Dora to consider the overall context and realize that "house" might not be the correct word.

Syntactic cues (Structure): The teacher says, "Look at the sentence again. What word would fit best grammatically as the subject here?" This guides Dora to consider the structure of the sentence, prompting her to re-evaluate her choice of the word "house."

Grapho-phonic cues (Visual): The teacher points to the word "horse" and asks, "Can you sound this out? What letters do you see?" This encourages Dora to focus on the spelling and phonetic elements of the word, helping her correct her mistake.

The Legacy and Limitations of the Three-Cueing System

The three-cueing system has historically been a significant component of balanced literacy education. However, the recent attention around evidence-based instructional strategies and methods has lead more and more educational leaders and policymakers to acknowledge that three cueing is not supported by research. The science of reading clearly shows this approach does not sufficiently focus on phonics-based methods (sounding out words), essential for honing students' decoding skills.

Consequently, learners overly rely on looking at the pictures and guessing.This practice can lead to accepting errors known as miscueing. A student might guess "bunny" instead of "rabbit," or "screamed" instead of "squealed," relying on pictures in the book for clues. With the three-cueing system, these errors might be ignored, because the word is close enough in context for the story.

Then when there are no pictures, or when they come to words that are not familiar to them and recognized from previous stories or automatically, (sometimes referred to as sight words or high frequency words), they don't have a strategy to utilize. In other words, when learners only rely on context or sentence structure for word identification, it limits their ability to read unfamiliar words accurately.

Going back to the example with Dora, what if she had guessed "pony" as the unknown word? It's a thoughtful choice, which fits semantically and syntactically, and in some classrooms, her error might have been praised. But guesses like these are not reading, and once the student has moved on from level readers with pictures, their struggles will become more evident. By bypassing the essential process of sound-to-print correspondence, the brain might not develop or strengthen these crucial pathways as efficiently. Consequently, this can hinder a student's ability to quickly and accurately decode unfamiliar words, impacting their overall reading fluency and comprehension.

Without explicit instruction in phonemic awareness and phonics, many students are left guessing and memorizing under the MSV cueing system. The sound-symbol relationship allows learners to recognize words automatically, focusing their cognitive resources on comprehension. The three-cueing system, however, neglects this crucial relationship by often prompting students to guess words based on context or specific letters. This can lead to confusion, particularly with words that have similar starting and ending letters but different letters in the middle. Students may struggle with comprehending complex texts and may misinterpret words. Moreover, this approach might limit vocabulary development.

Cognitive science and educational research have highlighted limitations like these in the three-cueing system. While all students can benefit and learn from explicit instruction in phonemic awareness and phonics, some student populations, like students with learning difficulties like dyslexia, or Emergent Bilingual students, are more likely to be left behind without it. This ultimately widens the educational gap, perpetuating inequalities among diverse student populations. Instead, by adopting approaches grounded in empirical evidence, educators will be better equipped to provide targeted support, thereby fostering more equitable and inclusive learning environments. The shift away from three-cueing and toward evidence-based methodologies like Structured Literacy is an example of more inclusive educational approach.

Navigating Changing Legislation: Bans and Opportunities

As the discourse around literacy instruction evolves, so does the legislative landscape. A majority of states have already enacted laws mandating evidence-based curriculum or teacher training, while some have even explicitly prohibited the use of the three-cueing system in public schools. Others are still in deliberative stages, weighing the merits and drawbacks of such policies.

States in Motion

As of this writing, eleven states have enacted legislation that explicitly bans using the three-cueing system in public educational systems. An additional 5 states have bills under consideration, demonstrating a clear trend toward re-evaluating longstanding pedagogical practices in literacy instruction.

States That Have Banned Three Cueing (as of October 2023):

States Considering Banning Three Cueing (as of October 2023):

A Race Against the Clock

While the timeline varies by state, most of these legislative changes have been proposed or enacted within the last two years. This quickening pace underscores the urgency facing districts. Delays adapting to these changes may result in conflicts with state mandates, posing financial and ethical challenges.

Urgency and Opportunity

The changing legislative landscape offers district leaders an urgent challenge and a transformative opportunity. The urgency lies in the need to quickly retrain teachers and update curricula to comply with new state mandates. On the other hand, this is a timely opportunity for district leaders to review and renew literacy instruction methods holistically, making them more aligned with recent scientific findings and inclusive practices.

There has been a pronounced legislative shift across several states toward evidence-based literacy instruction, underscoring the importance of grounding reading practices in research-backed methods. This movement reflects a nationwide commitment to enhancing literacy outcomes based on proven methodologies.

While policies can range from rigorous evidence-based instruction/intervention requirements, to teacher-prep and certification requirements, as of July 2023, 32 states (plus Washington, D.C.) have embraced this shift in some way, including:

States with pending legislation (as of October 2023) include:

Massachusetts (bill sponsored by both parties)

Oregon (bill sponsored by both parties)

Forward: An Alternative Evidence-Based Reading Strategy Based in the Science of Reading

As a comprehensive body of research, the science of reading (SoR) includes studies that investigate how children learn to read, pinpoints the causes of reading challenges, and suggests strategies to address them. It serves as a framework for effective reading instruction.

Among the methodologies that harness the insight of the SoR, Structured Literacy stands out as one of the most effective. It demands explicit, systematic instruction tailored to cater to the diverse learning needs of all students, especially those encountering learning difficulties. By aligning the empirical findings of SoR with classroom practices, Structured Literacy paves the way for a more informed and efficient chapter in literacy education. This evidence-based approach will shape the next chapter in literacy education, aligning empirical insight with day-to-day classroom practices.

Structured Literacy: Instruction That Fosters Skilled Word Recognition

Structured Literacy is an umbrella approach coined by the International Dyslexia Association. Building on the empirical foundations established by the science of reading, Structured Literacy offers a sophisticated alternative to traditional methods like three cueing. This comprehensive framework incorporates sounds, letter patterns, word meanings, language comprehension, and background knowledge to support students. Developed through explicit, diagnostic, cumulative and systematic instruction, these interconnected systems enable word decoding (word recognition) and a deeper understanding of text.

The Need for Explicit, Systematic, Cumulative and Diagnostic Instruction

Explicit, diagnostic, systematic, and cumulative instruction is not merely pedagogical jargon but is validated by extensive research in the science of reading. This includes cognitive studies illuminating the specific brain activities involved in reading. Explicit instruction is unambiguous in both its design and delivery, ensuring a clear and direct message. A systematic approach refers to a planned sequence of skills that progress from simpler to more complex components. Cumulative instruction builds upon previously acquired knowledge, serving to foster the automatic and fluent application of language knowledge to reading for meaning. Diagnostic (or responsive) instruction is individualized, reaching each student where they are on a personal level when they need a little extra help. Research shows that such an approach is beneficial for all learners, affirming that Structured Literacy is indeed equitable and works for every student.

Structured Literacy's inclusive and thorough approach helps educators adjust in real time to individual student needs, ensuring a more effective and equitable learning experience.

Why Structured Literacy Over MSV/Three Cueing?

The MSV/three-cueing model has faced criticism for its inadequate focus on the explicit, systematic instruction of phonics and phonemic awareness-key elements grounded in reading science. This lack is not merely a matter of preference; it is a critical omission illuminated by research that advocates for a foundational approach to reading. Put more directly, three-cueing is not backed by any evidence.

In contrast, Structured Literacy zeroes in on the elemental components of words like letters, syllables, and morphemes. It adheres to a sequence that prioritizes decoding these elements before proceeding to word recognition and semantic comprehension. This nuanced focus on the foundational elements of literacy sets the stage for a more accurate and efficient recognition of words, thereby leading to a better grasp of their meaning.

This sequence-decoding first, then progressing to meaning making-is not only in alignment with the science of reading but also adheres to systematic and cumulative instructional principles. It underscores the necessity for a pedagogical approach that is grounded in a sequential, building-blocks methodology, which stands in stark contrast to the fragmented, guesswork-laden methodology that MSV/three cueing often embodies.

The Components of Structured Literacy

Research identifies several fundamental components crucial for reading proficiency, all of which are embedded in Structured Literacy:

Phonological and Phonemic Awareness: Essential skills like rhyming, blending, and segmenting are foundational for reading.

Phonics: The relationship between letters and sounds is vital for decoding words.

Syllables: These units of sound in words are critical for spelling and reading proficiency.

Morphology: Understanding word structure enables students to decode meaningful parts like prefixes, suffixes, and roots.

Syntax: This element focuses on sentence structure, essential for both reading and writing.

Semantics: Comprehension of word meaning is enhanced by employing context clues.

Evidence Supporting Structured Literacy

The efficacy of Structured Literacy is not just theoretical; it is empirically validated. The International Dyslexia Association® coined the term Structured Literacy for comprehensive, evidence-based approaches (more than just phonics) that are a scientifically-proven contrast to balanced literacy or whole language approaches. Through a Structured Literacy approach, educators can use the science of reading to help 95% of students become confident, capable readers.

Partnering for Success: Transcending Old Practices Through Evidence-Based Resources

Following recent legislative changes, it is clear time is of the essence for district leaders seeking to update reading instruction methodologies. Bans on the three-cueing system have generated a sense of urgency for finding evidence-based solutions. Structured Literacy provides an actionable alternative teachers can use. Whether through curriculum changes, supplementary SAAS literacy products, or evidence-based professional development, implementing an evidence-based approach to literacy instruction is achievable.

Directing Resources Where They Matter

Navigating the educational landscape amid legislative changes demands pinpoint accuracy in choosing instructional materials. Lexia® provides resources that align precisely with the science of reading and Structured Literacy. These tools are validated by rigorous research and are scalable across varied educational settings, offering a reliable pathway for instruction that meets ESSA standards and qualifies for ESSER funding.

Lifelong Learning for Educators

The scope of teaching literacy, especially to students with specific learning needs, makes ongoing professional development imperative. Building a culture of continuous improvement will ensure educators are always armed with the latest, most effective instructional methods.

Leveraging Lexia's Solutions

We encourage you to explore Lexia's literacy solutions to meet teacher and student needs. Backed by empirical evidence, Lexia's products offer the exact strategies for a transformative literacy instruction approach.

Support for Processing Systems: This product offers multimodal activities that help students use various processing systems for word recognition, facilitating the seamless integration of sounds, letter patterns, and word meanings.

Support for Processing Systems: PowerUp includes explicit instruction and practice in word recognition and language comprehension, bolstering the processing systems needed for skilled reading.

Support for Processing Systems: The professional development from Lexia LETRS helps teachers understand and implement processing systems for skilled word recognition in their instruction, equipping them to address individual student needs effectively.

Support for Processing Systems: Language processing skills help students understand and use language effectively. Aspire emphasizes the importance of phonological processing as well as orthographic processing in supporting automatic word recognition and accurate spelling.

Each Lexia product offers a distinct yet complementary avenue to integrate the science of reading and Structured Literacy into contemporary literacy education.

Charting the Path Forward

The goal is to ease the transition from outdated practices like three cueing to more evidence-based approaches like Structured Literacy, with the help of SAAS tools and professional learning built on the science of reading.

Don't let legislative timelines hinder the progress. The need for change is immediate, and the resources to effect that change are available now. Take advantage of Lexia's suite of solutions, built on years of evidence-based research. Your students, staff, and educational community deserve this commitment to excellence.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sound It Out: The Shifting Landscape of Literacy From Three Cueing to Science-Based Reading | Lexia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As educational policies evolve, the three-cueing system is coming under increased scrutiny and many district administrators are grappling with the shift toward evidence-based reading instruction. This blog post serves as a critical touchpoint for anyone navigating this transition.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
BONUS EPISODE 2
The Impact

For decades, schools all over the country taught reading based on a theory cognitive scientists had debunked by the 1990s. Despite research showing it made it harder for some kids to learn, the concept was widely accepted by most educators - until recent reporting by APM Reports.

Now, state legislators and other policymakers are trying to change reading instruction, requiring it to align with cognitive science research about how children learn to read. Several of them say they were motivated by APM's Sold a Story podcast.

Six states passed laws to change the way reading is taught since Sold a Story was released last fall. At least a dozen other states are considering similar efforts.

The surge in activity is part of a wave of "science of reading" bills that more than half the states passed into law over the last decade - as parents, teachers, researchers and other advocates pushed legislators to make changes. But since Sold a Story, lawmakers are taking a closer look at what curriculum schools are buying and, in some states, attempting to outlaw specific teaching methods.

Three states had already effectively banned cueing, the discredited practice covered in Sold a Story. The cueing theory holds that beginning readers don't need to learn how to sound out written words because they can rely on other "cues" to figure them out, like the pictures on a page or the context of the sentence. This year another 10 states are seeking bans, three of which have already passed.

The legislative efforts come at a time when fourth-grade reading scores in the United States have declined consistently since 2015, according to a nationwide achievement measurement conducted by the National Center for Educational Statistics.

Many parents know the struggle firsthand. Aaron Freeman grappled with why his sons were struggling to learn how to read. His youngest son, Cooper, said he felt like he was "running in the dark," directionless and alone when he opened a book. When the Freeman family listened to the Sold a Story podcast last year, Aaron Freeman was left feeling heartbroken and enraged.

But unlike others who felt helpless to do anything, Freeman had the power to make changes because he's a member of Indiana's state senate. When the legislature reconvened in January, Freeman, a Republican from Indianapolis, introduced legislation to ban cueing. His bill was rolled into a broader education package that recently became law. It requires the state to publish a list of recommended curricula, compels schools to adopt programs based on the "science of reading" and disclose what they select online. It also adds extra training requirements for future educators.

But there is pushback.

Lucy Calkins, one of the authors at the center of Sold a Story, warned that some states are going too far with curricular mandates.

During a speech in March to her training organization, Calkins said that the "science of reading" has been a vehicle for the "big commercial reading programs" to sell their materials to schools. She said it's a "threat to teachers as professionals."

Calkins, a professor at Teachers College at Columbia University who is viewed as an influential literacy expert, previously endorsed the discredited cueing theory. She has since distanced herself from it, and recently removed practices associated with cueing from her reading curriculum.

Calkins and her publisher, Heinemann, have a financial interest in the debate. If a state rejects a reading program from its list of approved curricula, millions of dollars in sales could be at stake.

In a statement released late last year, Heinemann characterized the podcast as "promoting false and divisive claims" and said it "radically oversimplifies and misrepresents complex literacy issues."

But many state lawmakers have disregarded the publisher's criticism and are continuing to push changes to reading instruction.

A 'reading reset'

Both Democrats and Republicans have been pushing efforts to base instruction on the science of reading.

For example, Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine, a Republican, wants to spend more than $160 million over the next two years to implement the science of reading statewide. The money would buy new curricula, train educators and hire 100 literacy coaches. California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, wants to put billions into reading improvements, which includes money to create a "literacy roadmap" that will help districts choose "evidence-based literacy instruction."

Bills in at least nine states - Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Ohio, Oregon, Texas and West Virginia - have been sponsored by members of both parties.

Indiana and West Virginia have been the most forceful in their overhaul of reading instruction. Both states now require schools to use curricula grounded in scientifically based reading research. And they prohibit schools from teaching based on the cueing model.

Among the 18 states considering "science of reading" bills this year, 10 are seeking to ban instruction based on cueing. They follow three states that put prohibitions in place prior to this year: Arkansas and Louisiana, which passed cueing bans legislatively, and Virginia, which rejected cueing-based programs administratively.

Despite criticism that cueing effectively trains children to guess at words, it's still widely taught in American classrooms.

In Minnesota, state Sen. Zach Duckworth said he's perplexed as to why educators have shifted away from teaching students to sound out words. He said Sold a Story spurred him to introduce a cueing ban. Calling the podcast "eye-opening," the Republican said it showed that educators deemphasized phonics instruction.

"When I say to people, 'We need to teach our kids to sound out words,' they look at me like, 'Well, of course, isn't that what we're doing?'" Duckworth said on a recent Minnesota legislative broadcast. "The thought was much like how kids learn to talk: If we simply immerse them in words and books, they'll pick it up naturally. The science of reading has shown it doesn't work that way."

Duckworth's two bills would create a "reading reset" fund for schools to overhaul their instruction. Both chambers of Minnesota's legislature passed a bill budgeting nearly $70 million for a similar purpose.

Several states are also attempting to cut support for Reading Recovery, a controversial intervention program based on cueing that has received millions of dollars from state governments since the 1990s. For example, Kentucky diverted money from a training center for Reading Recovery teachers to a new research center.

Other states, like Georgia and New Mexico, have offered funding for schools to voluntarily change their approach.

Some local school leaders are also overhauling reading instruction without any prompting from state lawmakers. New York City; Santa Barbara, California; Katy, Texas; Evanston and Skokie, Illinois; and Loudoun County, Virginia, are all planning to phase out programs that had been based on the cueing model.

School superintendent: Packaged reading programs 'not teaching'

But other educators are working to slow down efforts to overhaul reading instruction. They're worried requiring a certain type of teaching will limit lesson planning. They argue teachers should decide what approach works best.

"There's no need for the heavy hand of the state government to single out any specific instructional practices," said Scott DiMauro, the president of the Ohio Education Association.

DiMauro and the leader of another Ohio-based teachers union spoke out against a proposal that would ban cueing. The Ohio House of Representatives passed the proposal; the Senate has yet to take action.

Others are pushing back in states that passed laws in prior years, requiring teachers' pre-service training or classroom instruction to follow established scientific research.

In Connecticut, more than half the state's school superintendents are seeking waivers to be excluded from the state's new reading requirement. Several testified at a recent legislative hearing that their current approach is working for most students and they don't want to pay for a "canned, one-size-fits-all" curricula.

"A packaged program will likely come with teachers' manuals, and the ones I've experienced really encourages reading from the book. And that is not teaching," said Anna Cutaia, the superintendent in Milford. "A teacher's manual is not building teacher capacity. It's just actually ensuring one type of instruction for all children."

Many of the superintendents seeking waivers want to use a reading program authored by Calkins. Her program did not make Connecticut's approved list, even after she revised it to better align with scientific research on reading. Calkins has supported the superintendents' efforts.

"Imagine in this country - with local control of education - that states are passing laws, brushing all that aside, for expensive commercial reading programs," Calkins said during the March speech. "And as far as I can see, the only data behind those commercial reading programs is, at best, data showing that the programs can get kids reading nonsense words and lists of words in isolation faster. So of course, there's been an uproar, with people saying no."

Heinemann released updated versions of some of its best-selling materials, including Calkins' reading curriculum, and says it's planning to incorporate more phonics into other programs. In October, the company issued a statement saying its goal was "marrying the best scientific research and evidence-based instructional approaches with the expertise of classroom-based knowledge from our authors."

Mark Seidenberg, a cognitive scientist who recently retired from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said educational publishers have been aiming to serve their customers, rather than follow the science. At a legislative hearing in Wisconsin, he said many publishers included all kinds of strategies for teaching reading, including ineffective ones, so that their materials "wouldn't offend people."

But Seidenberg also warned that efforts to overhaul reading instruction might be getting ahead of the marketplace. School districts looking for an alternative curriculum don't have a wide selection of research-backed programs to choose from, he said. He also said the comprehensive programs recommended by many states usually include far too much information. That means teachers are burdened with figuring out what's important.

"The problem is we need new materials," Seidenberg said. "None of them are really great."

Seidenberg told Wisconsin lawmakers that bills to align reading instruction with research findings were really "kind of the last resort" following "several decades of resistance from the education establishment" - including education schools where future teachers are trained. "One would've liked it to have emerged from within" the teaching profession, he said, but "that hasn't happened."
Additional reporting by Emily Hanford and Eliza Billingham.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
After Sold a Story, more states spell out reading instruction

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
BONUS EPISODE 2 The Impact For decades, schools all over the country taught reading based on a theory cognitive scientists had debunked by the 1990s. Despite research showing it made it harder for some kids to learn, the concept was widely accepted by most educators - until recent reporting by APM Reports.

# data[].attributes.body
A collection of SOR references (links to articles, videos, and research papers)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Reading Research Quarterly, published by the International Literacy Association, is one of the foremost publications on literacy. They published the following two special issues on the Science of Reading. Together, these two issues include over 50 peer-reviewed articles from scholars on the Science of Reading.

When Amanda Goodwin, co-editor of Reading Research Quarterly discussed the research findings from these two journals articles, she explained that "the science of reading is a broad body of research... that includes not just alphabetics, phonics, and word reading, which receive the most attention in the media. Actual science of reading research also incorporates findings related to motivation, dyslexia, digital texts, and multilingualism. In addition, effective reading instruction does not follow a simple prescription but leaves room for teacher discretion" (summarized in Heller, 2022).

Selected articles that discuss the overall concept of the "Science of Reading" are presented below (additional articles appear in the "Research on Components of Reading" page).

The Science of Reading: Supports, Critiques, and Questions (2020)

This article includes two key findings:

1. Multiple studies focus on deepening our understanding of what typically is seen as the core of the SOR: phonics instruction. For example, Petscher et al. describe the strong evidence for explicit and systematic foundational skill instruction, providing a big‐picture view.

2. The majority of the articles in this special issue push to expand conceptualizations of the SOR. This perspective contrasts to the singular focus on phonics and word reading.

The Science of Reading: Supports, Critiques, and Questions (2021)

This issue presents four key findings:

1. Multiple studies argue for the need to extend the theories, models, and framing on which the SOR is built. New emphases on embracing complexity, equity, and multiple perspectives are advocated

2. Multiple studies confirm important SOR instructional principles, such as letter and word‐reading instruction, whereas others suggest additional important factors to consider that relate to instruction, including an emphasis on reading multiple texts, reading volume, syntax skills, play, alignment of curriculum, and use of sociohistorically situated texts

3. Multiple studies confirm the importance of teacher knowledge and teacher preparation, but methodological challenges lead to more research needed in this area. Also, the interaction between knowledge and teacher judgment (i.e., the art of teaching) is emphasized as key to improving reading outcomes

4. Multiple studies explore reading across languages, showing both the variable supports of the first language (L1) and the second language (L2) depending on the characteristics of the orthography and context. Issues of Eurocentrism and alphabetism are acknowledged

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
LibGuides: Early Childhood Education Resources: Science of Reading

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Books, articles, journals, and online resources geared towards ECE teachers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Barton | Reading & Spelling System Since 1998

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Barton System | Reading & Spelling System Since 1998 | Barton

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Barton Reading & Spelling System is a one-on-one tutoring system that will greatly improve the spelling, reading, and writing skills of children, teenagers or adults who struggle due to dyslexia or a learning disability.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Reading League's vetted decodable texts provide a starting point to explore and discover decodable text choices that best align with individual instructional goals.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When it comes to dyslexia, it can be hard to separate fact from fiction. Here are seven common dyslexia myths, debunked.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Dyslexia is a language-based learning disability that affects reading. Children with dyslexia often have poor phonological skills, resulting in difficulties with decoding, reading fluency, and spelling. Dyslexia can also impact reading comprehension and writing. Learn about the early warning signs for dyslexia, common myths, and how to help children with dyslexia become successful readers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As a parent, it's easy to feel alone when you're struggling to get the support your dyslexic child ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Schools & Districts | National Center on Improving Literacy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Your source for improving outcomes for students with literacy-related disabilities, including dyslexia.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Dyslexia is the most common learning disability in the United States. It's not about lacking comprehension, having a low IQ or being deprived of a good education. It's about having a really hard time reading.