Embracing Change in Reading Education. Why can’t we have the best of both worlds?
In my 24 years as an educator, I’ve witnessed the pendulum of reading education swing back and forth between whole language and phonics multiple times. Through it all, a few names held steady in the field: Fountas and Pinnell, and Lucy Calkins. These names were my go-to during job interviews, revered and respected in the literacy community. Having been out of the brick-and-mortar world for awhile I, of course, dropped their names in my interview. However, once hired, I was shocked to discover that their methods are now discredited.
During a recent Professional Learning Community (PLC) meeting, the podcast Sold A Story was mentioned. Intrigued, I went home and started listening. To my amazement, the podcast discussed the ineffectiveness of the “three-cueing” system, and how these Big Names were now out! This left me wondering how I even got the job!
Listening to the podcast made me realize that I’ve never fully committed to any single reading or literacy program. Instead, I’ve always picked the best components from each and adapted the rest. One episode mentioned George W. Bush’s visit to an elementary classroom in Florida, which was described as an old-fashioned setting with students participating in a call-and-response routine. This immediately brought back memories of the SRA Reading Mastery program I taught in first grade. This program is strictly scripted, with specific responses to errors and cues for students to respond. I remember my hands not snapping very loudly and was given a dog clicker to cue my students. While not a fan of the program’s rigidity, I couldn’t deny its effectiveness in teaching students to decode words.
In another episode, a teacher spoke about the beauty of whole language programs—dimly lit classrooms with comfy beanbags and students curled up with good books, lost in their reading. But why can’t we have both? When I taught SRA, I pulled small groups for instruction while the rest of the class completed independent work at their desks. Once finished, why couldn’t they curl up with a good book? Direct phonics instruction can certainly coexist with the authentic reading experiences that whole language programs promote.
We are often presented with a false dichotomy: it’s either phonics or whole language. This either-or mentality doesn’t serve our students well. I was also surprised that many teachers in the podcast admitted to never trying different strategies when the three-cueing system failed. In college, one of the key lessons from my methods courses was that all students are different; if something isn’t working, stop and try something else. This was drilled into us 24 years ago. Hearing about students reaching second grade without being able to read was shocking—why weren’t alternative strategies employed?
In my experience, flexibility and adaptation are crucial. No single program is perfect, and each student’s needs are unique. By blending the strengths of different approaches and continuously adjusting our methods, we can provide a more effective and enriching reading education for our students. The journey of learning and growth is ongoing, for both teachers and students alike.
