Sold a Story: At a Loss for Words – What's Wrong with How Schools Teach Reading

Hosted by APM Reports and Emily Hanford, "Sold a Story" delves deep into the widespread issues plaguing reading instruction in American schools. In the episode titled "At a Loss for Words: What's Wrong with How Schools Teach Reading," released on March 30, 2023, Hanford investigates the persistence of outdated reading methodologies despite extensive scientific research advocating for more effective approaches.

Introduction

Emily Hanford opens the episode by recounting her previous work on a documentary titled At a Loss for Words, which focused on the "cueing" method of teaching reading—a strategy she identifies as fundamentally flawed. She introduces Molly Woodworth, a high-achieving student who secretly struggled with reading due to ineffective teaching methods rooted in cueing theory.

Emily Hanford [00:00-03:07]: "Molly couldn't read very well... 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."
[00:00 - 03:07]

The Flawed Cueing Approach

The episode elaborates on the cueing theory, which posits that readers use three types of cues—meaning (semantic), sentence structure (syntactic), and visual (graphic)—to guess words. This method, first introduced by Ken Goodman in 1967, emphasizes comprehension over precise word recognition.

Ken Goodman [10:18-24:46]: "The three cueing system is the way poor readers read... The minute you ask them just to pay attention to the first letter or look at the picture, you're drawing their attention away from the very thing that they need."
[10:18 - 24:46]

Hanford highlights that despite being debunked decades ago by cognitive scientists, cueing remains entrenched in many educational curricula, leading to ineffective reading instruction that mirrors the strategies of struggling readers rather than fostering skilled reading.

Scientific Evidence Against Cueing

Hanford presents robust scientific findings that challenge the efficacy of the cueing system. Studies indicate that skilled readers rely less on context and more on phonics and orthographic mapping—a process where readers connect letters and sounds to recognize words instantly and accurately. This evidence is bolstered by research from the University of Michigan and neuroscientific studies using fMRI scans.

David Kilpatrick [21:37-23:19]: "Orthographic mapping requires an awareness of the speech sounds in words and an understanding of how those sounds are represented by letters... This shows that phonics is essential for skilled reading."
[21:37 - 23:19]

Furthermore, experiments demonstrate that phonics-based instruction not only improves word recognition but also enhances comprehension and long-term reading proficiency.

Real-Life Impacts and Case Studies

Through personal stories, Hanford illustrates the detrimental effects of cueing-based instruction. Molly Woodworth's struggles in high school and her daughter Claire's ongoing challenges in first grade exemplify how reliance on cueing can hinder reading development.

Molly Woodworth [02:14-03:07]: "I hated reading because it was taxing. My brain hurt by the end of it... My tools were too slow."
[02:14 - 03:07]

Additionally, educators like Erica Meltzer and Margaret Goldberg share their experiences transitioning from cueing to phonics, highlighting significant improvements in student reading abilities when phonics is emphasized over cueing.

Margaret Goldberg [34:03-36:53]: "It was so hard to ever get them to stop looking at a picture to guess what a word would be... Phonics worked for everybody."
[34:03 - 36:53]

Current Efforts and Resistance to Change

Despite clear evidence supporting phonics, many schools continue to employ the three cueing system due to entrenched beliefs, lack of teacher training, and significant financial investments in existing curricula. Hanford showcases Oakland, California, as a case study where pilot projects aim to eliminate cueing in favor of phonics, yet face institutional resistance.

Margaret Goldberg [39:24-39:47]: "It's a district adopted curriculum... we're having a conversation about the core curriculum adopted by our district."
[39:24 - 39:47]

The superintendent's office in Oakland maintains adherence to the existing curriculum, citing insufficient evidence from pilot projects to warrant widespread changes, reflecting a common nationwide reluctance to overhaul proven but outdated systems.

Publisher and Author Perspectives

Hanford reaches out to key figures behind the cueing-based curricula, including Lucy Calkins, Irene Fountas, and Gae Sue Pannell. However, all declined to comment, and their publisher, Heinemann, insists that their materials are research-informed. Conversely, Ken Goodman defends the cueing theory, asserting that it stems from extensive observational research, though his views are increasingly at odds with contemporary cognitive science.

Ken Goodman [47:47-49:55]: "Word recognition is a preoccupation... the purpose is to make sense."
[47:47 - 49:55]

This divergence highlights a fundamental rift between theoretical educational practices and empirical scientific research, complicating efforts to unify reading instruction methodologies.

Conclusions and Recommendations

The episode concludes with a call to action for educators and policymakers to critically evaluate and reform reading instruction practices. Hanford emphasizes the necessity of prioritizing phonics and evidence-based methods to ensure all children develop strong reading skills, thereby breaking the cycle of poor reading proficiency leading to broader academic and social challenges.

David Kilpatrick [45:43-46:14]: "We have to get rid of ideas about reading that are faulty because those ideas result in practices that make it harder for children to learn to read."
[45:43 - 46:14]

Hanford underscores the importance of abandoning the three cueing system, advocating for a widespread adoption of phonics-based instruction to align educational practices with scientific understanding of reading development.

Key Quotes:

• Molly Woodworth [02:14]: "I hated reading because it was taxing. My brain hurt by the end of it."

• David Kilpatrick [24:11]: "The three cueing system is the way poor readers read."

• Ken Goodman [45:52]: "We have to get rid of ideas about reading that are faulty because those ideas result in practices that make it harder for children to learn to read."

Final Thoughts

"At a Loss for Words" serves as a compelling exposé on the misalignment between established educational practices and contemporary cognitive science. By intertwining personal narratives with rigorous research, Emily Hanford effectively argues for a pivotal shift in how reading is taught, urging stakeholders to prioritize methods that foster genuine literacy and comprehension over superficial word recognition strategies.