What’s Really Behind the Divide in Reading Instruction?

Think about the last disagreement you had with someone.  Without knowing a single detail about your disagreement, I’m pretty confident that the root cause, the way-down-deep-what- started-it-all cause, was miscommunication. Every person has their own thoughts, their own understanding, their own expectations, and their own vision, whatever the subject.  And more often than not, one person’s vision isn’t the same as someone else’s.  That’s what’s really behind the divide in reading and writing instruction. Because it’s the root of nearly every argument, including literacy instruction.  

The way I see it, this latest wave of argument is actually rooted in misalignment of some of the more basic terminology.  There’s a different vision, expectation, and understanding of even the most seemingly basic literacy terms. It’s why we seem to never find a way to end the “reading wars.”

What’s going on right now, most heavily on social media but also in the news media, is that no conversation is taking place.  It’s a back and forth, I’m-right-and-you’re wrong, endless argument.  

An argument that the majority of those who care about literacy–teachers, administrators, and parents–would like to see come to an end. (Notice I did not include journalists or politicians in the list of those who care about literacy.  They’re in it for different reasons).  

But we’ll never, ever get to consensus if more of us aren’t willing to have the conversations that are needed most.

Consensus begins with clarity.  And clarity starts with open and honest dialogue. 

Not gaslighting.  Not shouting into echo chambers.  Real conversation.

For my part in this tiny corner of online space, I’m going to name what I believe some of the biggest misaligned–and even maligned–terms in literacy instruction are.  No doubt I’ll get a fair amount of hate mail for it. But hopefully, you’re with me.  Hopefully, you and I can work together to shift the back and forth arguing and move toward real conversation.  Real progress.

So, what’s really behind the divide in reading and writing instruction? Let’s dig in. 

Reading

Yes, we must start with the word “reading” itself.  For some, it means simply interpreting the printed code in order to blend sounds together to form a word.  It could be just a list of words, real or nonsense.  More often than not, those who define reading this way never consider students beyond the early acquisition phase.  

Others believe that reading is more than this.  For this camp, the interpretation of the letter-sound code is only the first step.  As L. Moats and C. Tolman say in their LETRS training manual (2019, pg 121), the goal is to actually get to a place where “The reader who is paying attention to what the text says does more than process the words at a surface level.” 

This is the belief is that reading is transactional (Rosenblatt, 1938), where the reader makes meaning of the text alongside their own schema. This kind of reading means that the reader makes sense of it, drawing upon their background and vocabulary knowledge, yes, but also their understanding of text structure and figurative language, among other literary devices.

Importantly, in this view of reading, the reader remains focused on making meaning of the text, knows when it has broken down, and not only has known “fix up” strategies to employ, but uses them.  In this view, the reader has a big role.  This kind of reading has a purpose: to gain information, to be entertained, or to be transported. This kind of reading goes far beyond the early acquisition stage.  

So what is reading, then?  

It’s both.  Certainly, without a strong foundation, including phonics, phonemic awareness, understanding of print concepts, and vocabulary, it makes getting to the deeper work awfully hard, if not impossible.  But it doesn’t stop at just interpreting the letter-sound code.  Reading involves a whole host of things.  It’s both/and. 

“The recent “science of reading” push can lead to an overemphasis on phonics, [say the authors,] “to the point that it makes up the majority of the daily reading lessons, thus sacrificing time from other critical areas of instruction such as vocabulary, background knowledge, and opportunities for reading practice” 

S. Vaughn & N. Clemons,The Reading League Journal, Sep/Oct 2024

Writing

Much like reading, writing is being talked about in very narrow ways.  Some say it’s only transcription of graphemes.  Some say it’s only writing perfectly constructed sentences.  Many believe it must follow a formula. 

Like reading, there is another view. 

One that includes self-generated, not just prompted, ideas.  One where students have the agency and permission to craft their own interesting sentences, play around with word order, and find their voice. One where students are not limited to a few sentences (or less) at a time.  One where everyone is encouraged to step outside their comfort zone, with much support and feedback, to discover the power of their words.  To feel, as L. Moats and C. Tolman (LETRS 2019, pg 245) advise, as if they’re part of “an engaged community of writers.” This writing camp believes that writing, like reading, serves a bigger purpose.  Not just to put words on a page, but to say something.  

So then what is writing, really?

Again, it’s both/and.  Just like reading, there must be a strong foundation.  We absolutely must teach the skills:  handwriting, sentence formation and complexity, paragraph writing, punctuation, and the rules of grammar.  We might even provide sentence stems and formulas to give kids a foothold at  first, but then encourage students to go well beyond it. 

Will everyone be the next poet laureate, songwriter, or novelist?  The next great speech writer of our time?  Of course not.  But there’s not a chance of it happening at all if teachers never allow it to cultivate from the beginning.  Because next to skills, part of the foundation of success in writing is to also build confidence and agency, choice and voice.

We can’t talk about reading or writing instruction without also stepping into two of the very most misaligned  terms.

Science of Reading

Although it’s often quoted in the back and forth arguing heard round the social media world, parts of its definition are also very ignored.  Taken straight from the Reading League’s definition, that quote says (emphasis mine):

“The science of reading is a vast, interdisciplinary body of scientifically-based research about reading and issues related to reading and writing. This research has been conducted over the last five decades across the world, and it is derived from thousands of studies conducted in multiple languages. The science of reading has culminated in a preponderance of evidence to inform how proficient reading and writing develop; why some have difficulty; and how we can most effectively assess and teach and, therefore, improve student outcomes through prevention of and intervention for reading difficulties.”

-The Reading League

It’s not just phonics, and it’s not just “the big 5” that the National Reading Panel (NRP) reported on all those years ago.  Yes, phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension most certainly very much matter, but so does early exposure to print, background knowledge, strategy use, and, most glaringly missing from the report, writing.  Writing’s impact on reading is massive.

The science of reading goes well beyond “the big 5,” which is why I encourage everyone to learn about The Active View of Reading by Duke and Cartwright.  It encompasses so much more of the current research around reading than the NRP wrote about nearly three decades ago. 

This broader view is essential if we want to understand what’s really behind the reading instruction divide.

“A narrow focus on the NRP findings has also prevented some schools from integrating other important areas of reading, including background knowledge, spelling, writing, language development, and deliberate practice.“ 

S. Vaughn & N. Clemons, The Reading League Journal, Sep/Oct 2024

The science of reading also doesn’t dictate exactly how  or how much to teach. It’s not a curriculum.  It’s not a program.  You don’t “do” the science of reading.  As S. Vaughn and N. Clemens (2024) state so clearly,  “Any prescribed standardization and over-mechanization of reading instruction for all students will not adequately meet the needs of each student. Customization is necessary as learning is acquired differently by different students. Stating that ‘we are following the science of reading’ will never replace the impact of well educated and knowledgeable teachers who both understand the science of reading and the instructional practices that are most effective.” 

You don’t “do” the science of reading. You understand it, and incorporate what research has shown into your instruction, as needed for your students.  Keeping in mind, of course, that this body of knowledge is more than five decades old, and that it comes from a vast, interdisciplinary body of scientifically-based research.”  There’s a lot to learn.

More than what certain Facebook groups or news media reports so often cite.  Much more.  For a quick read that shares more of the science than is popularly spread, check out Fact-Checking the Science of Reading by Pearson & Tierney. (And here’s a really quick and dirty rundown of what it says).      

Which brings me to the biggest misaligned…and very much maligned term of all…balanced literacy.

All over social media, phrases like “balanced literacy is malpractice,” balanced literacy teaches guessing,” and “balanced literacy doesn’t teach phonics” abound.  Why are they said?  People’s past experience, certainly, but also a whole lot of conjecture.  

I’ve written about this topic already, but if anyone claiming to be a balanced literacy teacher does not teach phonics, it’s not balanced instruction.  While it may be very true that some teachers weren’t, unfortunately, teaching phonics in a systematic way, it’s not true for everyone. It’s sheer conjecture to claim anything more.  While some ill-informed teachers may well have prompted students to “guess the word,” this is again certainly not true for everyone.  

Because here’s the thing.  In order to really understand balanced literacy instruction, you have to understand the science of reading.  This is most likely why the National Reading Panel (pg 113) called for a balanced approach, reminding educators that the goal is “to create a balanced reading program.” Any practitioner who cares deeply about literacy instruction also deeply cares about the science behind it.  All of the science.  And what is learned is incorporated into their practice, layered in over the years.

Which has nothing to do with whether someone calls themself an “SOR” teacher or a balanced literacy teacher.

It’s just informed teaching.

All those teachers out there who are overdoing phonemic awareness and/or phonics instruction, limiting kids to only decodable texts, aren’t including writing as a core piece of instruction, and aren’t providing kids the time and space to apply their learning (D. Share’s (1995) self-teaching hypothesis or set for variability) aren’t following the science.  Just as anyone who skips phonics instruction isn’t, either.

In order to come to a consensus, we must have real conversation.  We must listen to what others are doing, trying, and learning.  Then, after listening, we might perhaps be in a better position to offer a wider lens.  Deepen the conversation. Even shift our own thinking.

But simply shutting people out because they believe in a balanced approach to literacy, or because they don’t define reading or writing in exactly the same way that you do, doesn’t get us anywhere. 

Only open, honest conversation will do that.  And that means digging into what’s behind the misalignment in the first place.

---

Who is Coach from the Couch??  I’m Michelle Ruhe, a 25-year veteran educator, currently a K-5 literacy coach.  I continue to learn alongside teachers in classrooms each and every day, and it’s my mission to support as many teachers as I can.  Because no one can do this work alone. I’m available to you, too, through virtual coaching calls!  Could use a thinking partner to help you incorporate your growing understanding about literacy into your practice? I’m here for you!  Just reach out for a coaching call.  I’m here to help!

Or, consider joining my Facebook community–a safe, supportive environment (really!)  where you can ask questions, learn ideas, and share your thoughts among other literacy-loving educators.