Why the 5 Pillars of Reading Are Holding Us Back

One of the most popular models of reading instruction out there is the image of “the 5 pillars.”  In fact, we’ve spent over two decades treating these five pillars of reading as the foundation for instruction. But what if the pillars themselves are part of the problem? Is this model actually holding us back?

The pillars are the five big things that the National Reading Panel deemed, from the research available at the time, to be most important to reading instruction.  It looks like a nice, neat model.  It looks a lot like a checklist.  It looks doable. 

The problem with this thinking?  

A few things, actually.

First, the five pillars were never meant to be seen as separate.  

They were meant to be integrated together, because reading is a highly integrated process.  The Panel just needed a way to report that was easy to digest.  Really, the pillars symbolize all five elements working together.  Stephanie Stollar explains this, pointing out “how important it is to integrate instruction across these essential components.”  She says more on this in the video below.  

Which leads to the second reason the five pillars image is problematic.  

All the pillars appear to be of equal “weight.”  

So phonics and phonological awareness look to be exactly as important as comprehension.  In reality, phonological awareness and phonics work together to support comprehension.  Comprehension is always the ultimate overall goal. Sometimes there will be a need to focus more heavily on, say, vocabulary, but less on phonics (because it’s not an issue).  It all depends on the text, the purpose, and most importantly, the kids.  It’s not a matter of equal time allocation.  It’s a matter of allocating the time you have for what’s most needed.  

Third, the pillars make it appear that there’s a specific sequence of steps.

This leaves it open to the interpretation that one component must be “mastered” before the next.  First, phonological awareness, then phonics, then fluency, etc.  Unfortunately, “[S]tates, districts, and schools interpret this as a framework for reading instruction,” which literacy expert Sharon Vaughn cites is a misinterpretation of the pillars. Because in reality, they all work together to support comprehension.

Finally, the 5 pillars that were deemed most important for reading are based on the limited research that was available at the time–and is now outdated.

The National Reading Panel was also under a tight time constraint, had limited human resources to dig into the research, and…was a very long time ago.  At that time, there were a very limited number of studies that met the guidelines the Panel was looking for.  Much was left out.  For a pretty in-depth look into this, this report from from NCTE (2008) really explains it.  (Skip to page 75 for a one-pager brief on the whole report).

In reality, there’s of course a lot more that matters.  What about oral language, or the importance of writing, for instance?  Motivation? Or background knowledge? Genre knowledge? I could go on.  It’s easy to see how much each pillar actually entails.  

Better models—but still not enough

Which is why the better model, Scarborough’s Reading Rope, is helpful.  It’s more realistic about what reading instruction actually requires.  But still…it doesn’t include writing.  Writing instruction is crucial for reading.  Nor does it include the roles of self-regulation or motivation.  Also very important pieces.  

The Active View of Reading is much more robust than the Reading Rope, with its additional elements of self-regulation.  With the added elements that these two models bring to the picture, it starts to feel pretty overwhelming, knowing that there’s only so much time in the day to get to it all.  

To make matters even more daunting, as helpful as these models are, they have a major limitation, as Tim Shahahan points out.  And that is “these are models of reading, not of reading instruction or learning to read. They describe the process of reading, the abilities one must marshal to read. But they have little to say about what a school district or even a classroom teacher needs to do to raise reading achievement.” (Emphasis mine). In other words, there’s still a lot for a teacher to figure out.

And, most glaringly, neither of these models include the crucial component of writing.  

We must make time for it, too.

The Real Problem: Lack of Time and Siloed Instruction

Writing’s impact on reading can’t be ignored.  Over 20 years ago, the National Commission on Writing in America’s Schools and Colleges sounded the alarm about this, calling writing “the most neglected of the three R’s.” They called for writing to be included in every content area, and advised that the time we spend on writing instruction ought to be doubled.  But time has always been this issue.  Even 20 years ago, there just wasn’t much time to fit it in.  Coupled with the fact that so many teachers are uncomfortable teaching it, writing tends to be put on the back burner.  

“Writing, always time-consuming for student and teacher, is today hard-pressed in the American classroom.” 

National Commission on Writing in America’s Schools and Colleges 

For guidance on what’s all involved with teaching writing, we can look to Sedita’s Writing Rope.  It’s quite comprehensive, as writing is complex.  But just like unravelling any robust reading model, unravelling this writing model can just add to the feeling of overwhelm.  The list of things to teach feels impossibly long.  

While the teaching day remains short.  Which isn’t going to change.  

To compound the time challenge, teachers have far more on their plates now than they did 20 years ago.  Having started my career in 1999, I can fully attest to that.  It’s no wonder teachers are so frustrated.  

So what’s the solution?  

How can teachers realistically fit in all that the 5 pillars reading model advises?  

And how can they also fit it in the parts that the newer reading models advise, plus writing–and that that entails?  

Models matter—but only when they translate into instructional decisions. The truth is, we don’t have time for fragmented literacy instruction. Integrating reading and writing and weaving literacy through content isn’t just best practice—it’s a way to help make it all fit. It’s how we give every student the full literacy experience they deserve.

Integration of literacy into content is a big step in the right direction.  I’ve written about this here. I also walk you through a literacy-integrated day here.  

This is a fantastic first step.  An important one.

But to truly get to it all, we have to stop siloing reading and writing lessons. 

As they are two sides of the same coin, it just makes sense that lessons seamlessly flow together. It’s also a tremendous time-saver.  In today’s time-crunched reality, with a million things to weave together, streamlining is the only way to go.  

This is something I’ve written about before, too, and I’ve created a mini course to help you get started with it.   Check it out!

If you’re ready to really get combined reading and writing lessons started, reach out for a coaching call.  I’m here to help!

---

For more support, 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!  

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!