Reveal Podcast Summary

Episode: Teaching Kids to Read: How One School District Gets It Right

Original Air Date: February 28, 2026
Host: Al Letson
Reported by: Emily Hanford & Christopher Peek

Episode Overview

This episode investigates how one high-poverty school district—Steubenville, Ohio—consistently succeeds in teaching nearly every child to become a strong reader. As national debate and legislation reshape reading instruction based on the “science of reading,” the story highlights Steubenville’s success, why it works, and the unexpected challenges it faced when state mandates threatened the district’s proven approach.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

The National Reading Crisis and the Push for Reform

• Staggering Statistics: Nearly 70% of U.S. fourth graders are not proficient readers, sparking waves of policy changes (“Close to 70% of fourth graders in the US are not proficient readers.” [01:40])
• Policy Response: Over half the states, influenced by podcasts like "Sold a Story," have passed new reading laws, aiming to move away from outdated or disproven instructional methods.
• Podcast Influence: "Sold a Story" (Emily Hanford, APM Reports) played a central role in exposing ineffective reading philosophies and energizing legislative action ([02:05]–[03:04]).

Discovering Steubenville's Success

• Unlikely Outlier: Despite poverty and economic decline, Steubenville Elementary schools outperformed similar districts in national achievement data ([06:28]–[06:45]).
• Historical Context: Steubenville’s success story began in the early 2000s and has continued for over two decades ([05:17],[25:16]).
• Community Support: Staff respond proactively to students’ basic needs—fixing hair, providing clothes, and supporting children from unstable homes ([07:27]–[09:50]).

Foundations of Steubenville’s Approach

• Universal Preschool: Roughly 80% of local children attend preschool—far exceeding national averages ([11:28]); costs are kept low or free for low-income families.
• Emphasis on Language: Early grades prioritize oral language development, with constant nudges to use full sentences, building vocabulary and grammar essential for reading and writing ([09:50]–[11:14], [16:25]).
• Sounds-First Phonics: Letter sounds are taught before letter names—a practice based on cognitive science to prevent confusion and expedite decoding ([12:20]–[13:59]).
  • Quote: “To read the word, it’s more important for them to know the sound first.” – Amy Crow, Kindergarten Teacher ([14:04])
• Direct and Cooperative Instruction: Blend of traditional teacher-led lessons and “cooperative learning” where students work together, reinforcing skills ([18:39]–[19:27]).
  • Memorable Moment: Third grader encourages classmate to “reread the sentence because you’re just kind of reading like a robot and we want to have perfect fluency.” ([18:13])

Structural Innovations

• Every Teacher Teaches Reading: All staff (including gym and music teachers) run small reading groups during a designated morning block, ensuring individualized attention ([21:00]–[21:40]).
• Flexible Skill-Based Grouping: Students attend reading classes suited to their skill level rather than strictly by age/grade, a controversial but effective move bolstered by granular data tracking ([21:42]–[24:16]).
  • Quote: “If you have a lot of teachers to teach reading, the reading classes can be really small.” ([21:14])
• Relentless Tutoring: Students below grade level receive daily, even twice-daily, tutoring administered by staff, college students, and high school volunteers ([24:16]–[25:13]).

Cultural and Operational Details

• Laser Focus on Attendance: Administrators use daily calls, door-knocking, and student contests to drive attendance, as missing instruction is seen as a critical barrier ([25:44]–[27:50]).
  • Quote: “I have attendance contests. It’s called ‘stay in the game.’” – Dr. Allen, Dean of Students ([26:38])

Steubenville Faces Unintended Consequences

• State Mandates Threaten Success: After Ohio’s adoption of a new “science of reading” law, approved program lists omitted Steubenville’s core curriculum—Success for All—because it hadn’t been reviewed by the influential nonprofit EdReports ([29:42]–[34:09]).
• The EdReports Influence: EdReports, initially designed for reviewing Common Core alignment, becomes a de facto curriculum gatekeeper, though not focused on scientific research or outcomes ([37:03]–[38:47]).
  • Quote: “Ed Reports is a place to start.” – Eric Hirsch, CEO of Ed Reports ([47:02])
• Research-Based Effectiveness Overlooked: Success for All, backed by decades of strong evidence, was temporarily sidelined because it did not fit new procedural criteria—not because of ineffectiveness ([33:04]–[34:09], [41:47]–[42:55]).

Resolution and Lessons Learned

• Victory for Evidence: After considerable advocacy and procedural review, Success for All was reinstated to Ohio’s approved list ([45:18]–[45:37]).
• Missed Opportunity: Despite its reinstatement, other districts did not request information about adopting Success for All, due to the prevailing influence of EdReports’ initial list and significant funding tied to those first-approved curricula ([46:01]–[46:25]).
• Need for Better Review Systems: The episode highlights the importance of reviewing not just alignment with standards, but actual outcomes and evidence of effectiveness ([49:03]).
  • Quote: “We need to judge what’s the outcome. We need to look at what is the evidence of effectiveness.” – Nancy Madden, Success for All co-creator ([49:03])
• Sustaining High Expectations: The episode closes with an appeal to maintain belief in every child’s capacity to read and to scrutinize reforms based on data, not just trends or procedural shortcuts ([49:30]).

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Students’ Social Support:
  “She doesn’t get it done at home…So we make time.” – Nancy Beatty, teacher ([08:06])
• On Universal Teacher Participation:
  “Get out your collection of readings…in the mornings, he’s not in the gym. He’s teaching a second grade reading class.” ([21:00])
• On Skill Grouping:
  “Having all the kids in a school in reading instruction at the same time means students can be assigned to a reading class based on their skill level, regardless of what grade they’re in.” ([21:46])
• On Testing and Results:
  “This is the lowest level English class at the middle school, and they’re all reading on grade level. There are no kids here who are behind.” ([28:27])
• On the Dangers of Narrow Metrics:
  “Success [in EdReports] is dependent upon how we align with standards as opposed to how we align with the science of reading.” – David Lieben ([41:47])
• On Pressure for Change:
  “A lesson here seems to be that our reporting has been put pressure on the system to try to do better, to do more, to make sure that reading instruction lines up with research.” ([48:33])
• On High Expectations:
  “We have to maintain the expectation that kids really can succeed. We have to remember that kids can learn. We can do better. There’s a way to do it. You could be Steubenville.” – Nancy Madden ([49:30])

Important Timestamps

• 01:40: National reading proficiency statistics and legislative response
• 05:00–06:45: Introduction to Steubenville’s outlier status and unique success
• 11:14–12:04: Role and scale of preschool in Steubenville; affordability
• 13:59–15:12: “Sounds first” phonics approach and cognitive research background
• 19:27–20:04: Cooperative learning and why it matters for reading fluency
• 21:00–21:46: All teachers (including gym/music) teach reading in small groups
• 22:47–24:16: Data-driven skill grouping and intensive in-school tutoring model
• 25:44–27:50: Intensive attendance initiatives and their necessity
• 28:18–28:55: Middle school reading proficiency and absence of “strugglers”
• 33:04–34:09: Success for All program—a whole school reform and its research backing
• 37:03–39:00: EdReports’ role and conflict between standards alignment vs. research evidence
• 45:18–45:37: Success for All reinstated in Ohio due to direct review

Conclusion

Steubenville’s story demonstrates that with community support, consistent philosophy, data-driven instruction, and a willingness to focus on how children learn, even high-poverty districts can achieve universal reading proficiency. However, effective programs risk being sidelined under well-meaning reforms if policymakers substitute procedural checklists and gatekeeping organizations for evidence of real outcomes. The imperative: judge programs by their results, not just their alignment with shifting trends, and never lose sight of the belief that all children can learn to read.

Recommended Further Listening:
For more detail on the national reading debate and its impact, listen to Emily Hanford’s "Sold a Story" podcast ([49:48]).