Over the past five decades, the consensus on best practices for effective reading instruction has gradually evolved into a debate over whether young children, in kindergarten and primary grades, learn to read more successfully through a phonics[1] or whole language[2] based curriculum.[3]
The whole language approach instructs through real life experiences and breaks down the barriers between reading, writing, listening, and speaking, fostering seamless integration of these skills through meaningful communication and context.[4] Supporters of this method use practices such as repeated exposure to words, memorization of sight words (i.e. that, now, have)[5], and providing cues to recognize words.[6] The cuing method, commonly referred to as “three-cueing,” consists of the following: (1) semantic cues, which hint at the meaning of a word via connecting words in a sentence; (2) syntax cues, which reduces the word to what grammatically would make sense; (3) and graphophonic cues, consisting of spelling patterns a child may recognize.[7]
In her 2022 ten-part podcast, Sold a Story, journalist Emily Hanford examines the influential work of literacy education scholars such as Marie Clay, Lucy Calkins, Irene Fountas, and Gay Su Pinnell—along with their publisher, Heinemann Publishing—who collectively championed the whole language approach.[8] Drawing on findings from cognitive science, educational psychology, and neuroscience about how the brain learns, Hanford argues that the misguided insistence of Heinemann and its authors resulted in the failure to properly teach countless students the skills necessary to become fluent readers.[9] Until recently, many teachers were unaware of the ineffective methods promoted by whole language textbooks, including those from Heinemann, as well as the harmful habits these methods often encouraged, especially in students with learning disabilities.[10]
The downfall of the whole language began in 2000, when the National Reading Panel report reviewed empirical studies on instructional strategies and concluded that children must learn letter-sound relationships to decode new words, known as phonics.[11] Phonics refers to the connection between the sounds of spoken language (phonemes) and the letters or spelling that represent those sounds in writing (graphemes).[12] Findings of this report influenced the goals of President George Bush’s Reading First Initiative,[13] which Sold a Story relays as the beginning of bipartisan political opposition to whole language.[14] However, despite the scientific research and political support for the inclusion of direct phonics instruction, Heinemann and its contributing authors continued to back whole language.[15] Hanford reports that Heinemann was aware of the importance of explicit, systematic phonics and failed to accurately incorporate it into their curricular programs.[16] She insinuates this was a result of both the financial and reputational stakes at risk.[17]
About two years following the release of the podcast, on December 4, 2024, a class of Massachusetts parents filed a lawsuit against HMH, Heinemann’s parent company, and several related individuals and entities.[18] An attorney from the case stated that he listened to Sold a Story and knew it was “an injustice that cried out for redress.”[19] The suit claims that the defendant’s “deceptive” and “defective” curriculum failed to “include systematic instruction or practice with the phonetic tools that undisputed research long has shown allows children to learn to read.”[20] Plaintiffs Karrie Conley and Michele Hudak claim that the whole language curriculum negligently sold to schools nationwide resulted in developmental and emotional injuries to their children, as well as financial loss for tutoring and private school tuition to make up for literacy deficiencies.[21]
This Massachusetts lawsuit raises an important question: at what point will we hold companies liable for their negative influence on education and the extent to which they profit from it? It is important to note that both strategies can and should work in tandem; students need both a strong curriculum in phonics and language/comprehension skills.[22] A reading researcher at Stanford, Claude Goldenberg, suggests the “lawsuit could undo opportunities to come to agreement on the factors that matter for student success in reading,” noting how deeply partisan the issue has become.[23] He suggests that the best solution for the never-ending war on reading ideologies is for professionals with expertise to call out misinformation,[24] and come to find common ground in their research.[25]
The reality is that many teachers, especially novice ones, rely heavily on publishing companies to produce curriculum consisting of strategies that work and content that is factually correct.[26] This lawsuit will not stifle research, innovation, or consensus, but rather will ensure companies are promoting products that are backed by the most up-to-date research and encourage scrutiny on the consumer end of education. While esteemed educators contend this issue does not belong in the courtroom,[27] they fail to consider: (1) the lack of accountability on publishing companies, or (2) explain why the whole-language approach persisted for an entire generation of students. This lawsuit will hopefully shed some light on these two points.
[1] See infra notes 3-5 and accompanying text.
[2] See infra note 11 and accompanying text.
[3] James S. Kim, Research and the Reading Wars, 89 Pʜɪ Dᴇʟᴛᴀ Kᴀᴘᴘᴀɴ 372.
[4] Kᴀʀᴇɴ E. Pᴀᴛᴢᴇʟᴛ, Pʀɪɴᴄɪᴘʟᴇs ᴏғ Wʜᴏʟᴇ Lᴀɴɢᴜᴀɢᴇ ᴀɴᴅ Iᴍᴘʟɪᴄᴀᴛɪᴏɴs ғᴏʀ ESL Lᴇᴀʀɴᴇʀs, 2 (1995).
[5] Deborah K. Reed & Michelle Hinzman, Teaching Sight Words as a Part of Comprehensive Reading Instruction, Iᴏᴡᴀ Rᴇᴀᴅɪɴɢ Rsᴄʜ. Cᴛʀ. (Jun. 12, 2018), https://irrc.education.uiowa.edu/blog/2018/06/teaching-sight-words-part-comprehensive-reading-instruction [https://perma.cc/8DUA-5WSX] (Sight words are words that are recognized automatically, which allows a beginning reader to invest time to decoding more challenging vocabulary).
[6] Whole Language Vs Structured Language Approach to Teaching Reading, Sᴛᴇʀɴ Cᴛʀ. (Apr. 6, 2023), https://sterncenter.org/whole-language-vs-structured-language-approach-to-teaching-reading/ [https://perma.cc/CRG5-6HX4].
[7] Timothy Shanahan, Three-Cueing and the Law, Sʜᴀɴᴀʜᴀɴ ᴏɴ Lɪᴛᴇʀᴀᴄʏ (Nov. 16, 2024), https://www.shanahanonliteracy.com/blog/three-cueing-and-the-law [https://perma.cc/EF8V-CF6P].
[8] Emily Hanford, Sold a Story, Aᴍ. Pᴜʙ. Mᴇᴅɪᴀ, (Oct. 20, 2022), https://features.apmreports.org/sold-a-story/.
[9] Holly Korbey, How a Podcast Toppled the Reading Instruction Canon, Eᴅᴜᴛᴏᴘɪᴀ, (Aug. 9, 2024), https://www.edutopia.org/article/how-a-podcast-toppled-the-reading-instruction-canon/ [https://perma.cc/RWK7-897S].
[10] Emily Hanford, Transcript of Sold a Story E1: The Problem, Aᴍ. Pᴜʙ. Mᴇᴅɪᴀ (Oct. 20, 2022), https://www.apmreports.org/episode/2022/10/20/sold-a-story-e1-the-problem [https://perma.cc/WYJ4-WDLD].
[11] Kim, supra note 3, at 373.
[12] Atika Salman Paris, The Effectiveness of Phonics Approach in Teaching Reading, 1 Iɴᴛ’ʟ J. Eᴅᴜᴄ. & Cᴜʀʀɪᴄᴜʟᴜᴍ Aᴘᴘʟɪᴄᴀᴛɪᴏɴ, 52, 53 (2018).
[13] Kim, supra note 3, at 373 (President Bush’s Reading First Initiative was a part of the No Child Left Behind Act. This piece of legislation required Title I schools, which received federal funding, to adopt literacy instructional practices based on scientific research).
[14] Emily Hanford, Transcript of Sold a Story E3: The Problem, Aᴍ. Pᴜʙ. Mᴇᴅɪᴀ (Oct. 27, 2022), https://www.apmreports.org/episode/2022/10/27/sold-a-story-e3-the-battle [https://perma.cc/5LPD-FXP6].
[15] Emily Hanford, Transcript of Sold a Story E6: The Problem, Aᴍ. Pᴜʙ. Mᴇᴅɪᴀ (Nov. 17, 2022), https://www.apmreports.org/episode/2022/11/17/sold-a-story-e6-the-reckoning [https://perma.cc/FD5Q-ZJMP].
[16] Id.
[17] Hanford, supra note 14.
[18] Evie Blad, 4 Things to Know About the Literacy Lawsuit Targeting Lucky Calkins and Fountas and Pinnell, Eᴅᴜᴄ. Wᴇᴇᴋ (Dec. 5, 2024) https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/4-things-to-know-about-the-literacy-lawsuit-targeting-lucy-calkins-and-fountas-pinnell/2024/12 [https://perma.cc/Z6C9-QSY4].
[19] Christopher Peak, Lawsuit Calls Reading Curriculum ‘Deceptive’ and ‘Defective’, APM Rᴇᴘs. (Dec. 4, 2024), https://www.apmreports.org/story/2024/12/04/lawsuit-calls-heinemann-reading-curriculum-deceptive-defective [https://perma.cc/G49F-UJ5J].
[20] Karrie Conley et. al. v. Calkins et. al., Complaint, No. 2484-cv-03147, at 9 (Mass. Super. Ct. Suffolk Cnty. Dec. 4, 2024).
[21] Id. at 4.
[22] Elizabeth M. Ross, What Exactly Is the Science of Reading?, Hᴀʀᴠ. (June 25, 2024), https://www.gse.harvard.edu/ideas/usable-knowledge/24/06/what-exactly-science-reading [https://perma.cc/C97H-R6G2].
[23] Evie Blad, Parents Sue Lucy Calkins, Fountas and Pinnell, and Others Over Reading Curricula, Eᴅᴜᴄ. Wᴇᴇᴋ (Dec. 4, 2024), https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/parents-sue-lucy-calkins-fountas-and-pinnell-and-others-over-reading-curricula/2024/12 [https://perma.cc/UTH6-M9QJ].
[24] Id.
[25] Finding Common Ground Among the Many Sides of the Reading Wars with Dr. Claude Goldenberg, Lᴇxɪᴀ Lᴇᴀʀɴɪɴɢ (Jul. 5, 2023) https://literacy.lexialearning.com/all-for-literacy-podcast/episode-6.
[26] Deborah Loewenberg Ball & Sharon Feiman-Nemser, Using Textbooks and Teachers’ Guides: A Dilemma for Beginning Teachers and Teacher Educators, 18 Cᴜʀʀɪᴄᴜʟᴜᴍ Iɴᴏ̨ᴜɪʀʏ, 401 (1988) (“[S]tudent teachers lack the knowledge and experience needed to develop their own curriculum.”).
[27] Diane Ravitch, Massachusetts: Angry Parents Sue Lucy Calkins and Others for Promoting Whole Language Instead of Phonics, Dɪᴀɴᴇ Rᴀᴠɪᴛᴄʜ’s Bʟᴏɢ (Dec. 5, 2024) https://dianeravitch.net/2024/12/05/massachusetts-angry-parents-sue-lucy-calkins-and-others-for-promoting-whole-language-instead-of-phonics/ [https://perma.cc/2VVQ-923E].
Comments