麻豆传媒入口

Eight years ago, journalist Emily Hanford met a college student with dyslexia who could barely read. 鈥淪he described to me how she got through text鈥攚ithout really being able to read very well at all,鈥� Hanford recalls. 鈥淭his woman was clearly bright. How did this happen?鈥�

Her curiosity piqued, Hanford, a senior correspondent and producer at American Public Media (APM) Reports, dug into the research on reading and reading disabilities and produced podcast episodes such as 鈥溾�� in 2018 and 鈥溾�� in 2020. The shows garnered moderate interest. 

Then came 鈥�,鈥� Hanford鈥檚 2022 blockbuster podcast episode examining how disproven ideas about reading had made their way into the country鈥檚 most popular reading curricula, downloaded more than 3.5 million times last year. 鈥溾�楽old a Story鈥� really hit a new audience. It reached the general public,鈥� Hanford says. 鈥淚鈥檝e gotten notes from people who say, 鈥業鈥檓 not in education, I鈥檓 not a teacher, I don鈥檛 even have kids. But I found this really interesting.鈥欌��

Hanford鈥檚 reporting tapped into decades of research in cognitive science, educational psychology, and neuroscience about how the brain learns to read鈥攁 body of evidence often referred to as 鈥渢he science of reading鈥濃�攁nd made the case that many schools used debunked strategies to teach the skill. Fluent readers, , must develop a deep understanding of phonics, allowing them to sound out and make sense of words鈥攕omething that children must be explicitly taught. Many schools, Hanford鈥檚 reporting revealed, were using programs that weren鈥檛 aligned with the research and relied on methods like teaching kids to look for 鈥渃ontext cues鈥� to help guess words, instead of sounding them out phonetically. 

In schools, the podcast was a shot across the bow in a long-standing battle over the best way to teach young children how to read. 鈥淎 lot of teachers 诲颈诲苍鈥檛 know about this research. It was very clear to them, when they started to learn about it, that it has huge implications,鈥� says Hanford. 鈥淭eachers don鈥檛 actually need someone to connect the dots; many just needed someone to explain to them some basic things about how people learn to read, and then they said, 鈥極h my God, why have I been doing it this other way?鈥欌��

Forty-five states and the District of Columbia have according to the science of reading since 2019鈥攁nd about 15, according to Hanford鈥檚 count, are directly in response to her reporting. In 2022, Lucy Calkins, creator of the Units of Study reading curriculum investigated in 鈥淪old a Story鈥� and used by , revised her curricula to include more phonics. Meanwhile, sales at Heinemann, one of the biggest publishers of reading curricula, including Fountas & Pinnell, declined 75 percent in 2023, , as schools have opted to invest in more evidence-aligned approaches.

We spoke with Hanford about the tectonic shifts created by 鈥淪old a Story,鈥� her take on the criticism of her work, and what she thinks lies ahead after the dust settles. 

HOLLY KORBEY: Your thesis that students are being taught to read using disproven methods hit a nerve鈥斺�淪old a Story鈥� has been downloaded millions of times. What are some of the measurable, concrete outcomes in response to the podcast that you鈥檝e been able to track? 

EMILY HANFORD: The outcomes that mean the most to me are the thousands of emails and social media posts I got from teachers鈥攐verwhelmingly, these have been positive. Not positive like 鈥淲e鈥檙e so happy about this.鈥� It鈥檚 more like 鈥淥h, wow, this is really important stuff that I needed to know. Thank you for putting this out there.鈥� Those notes are often full of emotion, but many are also characterized with 鈥淲e can do this, I鈥檓 psyched. I want to learn more about this.鈥�

At our last count, about 15 pieces of legislation had actually passed. I have mixed feelings about the legislation; obviously, it鈥檚 a way to show the impact of journalism, and I hear from teachers that legislative changes are needed, so there鈥檚 a role for policy here. 

But one of the problems with policies is they have lots of different impacts. For example, they make it possible to galvanize a certain kind of resistance; they give critics something to shoot at. I don鈥檛 disagree with some of the points being made, like the criticism of bans on three-cueing. I think policies like the three-cueing bans give detractors an opening to say, 鈥淎ll of this science of reading stuff, we just need to move on.鈥� And I think that鈥檚 disingenuous at best.

KORBEY: What do you wish people would focus on? What do you think the important takeaway is from 鈥淪old a Story鈥�?

HANFORD: 鈥淪old a Story鈥� took on one really small question about reading: the idea that kids don鈥檛 have to be taught how to sound out words. They can, but they don鈥檛 have to, because they have all these other strategies they can use to figure out the words. If you look at what it takes for kids to read, decoding is just one little part. The podcast took on that one small idea because I think it鈥檚 at the foundation of the problem we are having with how we teach reading. 

I try very hard to stay in my lane. I鈥檓 a journalist, I鈥檓 not an advocate or a policy expert. But one of the things I think a lot about are , for example. I think cueing bans partly exist because people got a message鈥攐ne I wanted them to get from 鈥淪old a Story鈥濃�攖hat you have to take some stuff away. Improving reading instruction isn鈥檛 just about adding phonics, it鈥檚 about taking something away. Whether or not it鈥檚 right to do that through a ban, I don鈥檛 know. 

KORBEY: Can you define what three-cueing means? 

HANFORD: The idea with cueing is that kids don鈥檛 need to be taught how to sound out written words. Instead, they can be given a whole bunch of different strategies to figure out what the words are. [Editor鈥檚 note: Popular three-cueing strategies include looking at a picture, looking at the first letter of the word, and guessing what word would make sense in context.] Three-cueing is a misunderstanding of how people learn to read, and you can trace it way back to the 1960s, before a lot of the research was done revealing how reading really works.

As many balanced literacy defenders will say鈥攁nd they鈥檙e right鈥攂alanced literacy usually includes some phonics instruction, but phonics is often presented as just one way for kids to read the words. They can also do all these other [three-cueing] things to read the words. But that鈥檚 not necessarily making sure kids get good at looking at written words; sounding them out; coming up with the pronunciation of the word; then connecting the pronunciation of that word, the spelling, and the meaning. 罢丑补迟鈥檚 the way we get words into our brain鈥攕o that we know how to read lots of words, tens of thousands of them, in a split second.

KORBEY: But with three-cueing, kids are getting cues from the book that aren鈥檛 necessarily connecting the sounds and the letters? 

HANFORD: It鈥檚 a pretty subtle idea. People who are up in arms about cueing bans are saying things like 鈥淭hey鈥檙e making it illegal for kids to look at a picture!鈥� 罢丑补迟鈥檚 one of my worries; it shouldn鈥檛 be illegal to do those things. My concern with cueing bans is that they鈥檙e easily misunderstood because this is something subtle, and people are saying things like 鈥淜ids can no longer use context when they鈥檙e reading.鈥� Of course they can!

The point is that when kids are first learning how to read, the most important thing to make the transition from speaking a language to reading a language is to look closely at the words and understand that those words and spellings connect to a pronunciation of words that they know, or maybe they don鈥檛 know, yet. That is how you are going to get to be a good reader. Even a beginning reader is using context all the time to try to understand the meanings of new words.

KORBEY: At first, Lucy Calkins pushed back at criticism that the Units of Study program you reported on 诲颈诲苍鈥檛 focus enough on phonics鈥攖hen she . Did her adjustments have anything to do with 鈥淪old a Story鈥�? 

HANFORD: The first part of your question is all stuff that happened before 鈥淪old a Story鈥� even came out. She responded to my earlier reporting calling out problems with Units of Study in terms of its foundational ideas about how kids learn to read. 

I think she eventually learned some new things from the larger conversation about the science of reading鈥擟alkins told me she said that to the New York Times. I think she was genuine; she 诲颈诲苍鈥檛 know some of this. She is a leading teacher in the United States, and her reaction to some of this reporting was similar to the reaction that I got from many teachers: 鈥淚 诲颈诲苍鈥檛 know this. Why 诲颈诲苍鈥檛 I?鈥�

Of course, the question for Lucy Calkins is: Why 诲颈诲苍鈥檛 she know it? It鈥檚 a question that comes with a certain amount of accountability, because she has been so influential in guiding teachers over the past several decades. I think she should have known. 

KORBEY: Cognitive scientist Mark Seidenberg, who you have used as a source, expressed concern about the rush to create 鈥渟cience of reading products,鈥� , 鈥淣ow you have a huge demand for science-based practices pursued by advocacy groups and people who don鈥檛 have a great understanding of the science.鈥� Do you agree with his assessment? 

HANFORD: He really knows the science, and he鈥檚 thinking hard about the implications. I can understand some of his critiques. But he isn鈥檛 an expert in curriculum or instruction; he doesn鈥檛 always know what it means to translate all of this into classroom practice. I always listen to his criticism, but I don鈥檛 think he has a 360 view. At the same time, I think he鈥檚 raising some very important questions. 

Curriculum is an important thing to look at鈥攖here are ideas about how people learn to read that are in the curriculum. In our reporting, we looked at very influential curricula鈥擴nits of Study, Reading Recovery, Fountas & Pinnell鈥攂ecause we were trying to understand what teachers are learning about how kids learn to read, where they鈥檙e learning it, and what鈥檚 wrong with it. But curriculum is just one piece鈥攁nd maybe not the most important piece. When you walk in the door, it can be the first thing you see鈥攁nd the first thing to get rid of or replace. 

We looked at curriculum for a reason, and people have mistakenly taken away from that that the curriculum is the thing to fix. That wasn鈥檛 actually the message of the podcast. Materials matter; teachers deserve and need good materials. But you can also teach kids to read with a whiteboard and some books and a marker.

KORBEY: Your critics say you鈥檙e pushing 鈥渇alse and divisive claims鈥� about their methods. You鈥檝e also been accused of 鈥渞eigniting the reading wars鈥� and politicizing teaching kids to read. Can you talk about the pushback? 

HANFORD: There鈥檚 been a few waves of pushback. I would say that I got a fair amount of criticism publicly on social media and in my email inbox from teachers and professors in schools of education, who were really upset about the reporting. Criticism I got from professors in schools of education was defensive; teachers were more shocked. 

More recent criticism came from within the reading science world. 鈥淏ut she鈥檚 only talking about phonics! There鈥檚 so much more to it!鈥� A lot of that came from people who are already really engaged and knew a lot about how kids learn to read. And now there鈥檚 a lot of criticism and fear about the legislation: 鈥淭here鈥檚 a bad law over here, and that鈥檚 your fault.鈥�

KORBEY: Timothy Shanahan, who鈥檚 been a teacher and reading researcher for 50 years, says he鈥檚 between phonics and whole-word reading methods. Where鈥檚 the pendulum at now, and is there anything different about the swing this time? 

HANFORD: I was hoping that the reporting would help this time be different. I don鈥檛 like the analogy of the pendulum; it swings back and forth, with no sense of progress.

What I want people to understand is why phonics matter, not just that you have to teach phonics. Why is it so important that all good readers have good phonics skills? If the pendulum is phonics鈥攚e teach some phonics, we don鈥檛 teach any phonics鈥擨 hope that never happens again. The whole point is, let鈥檚 not make phonics the thing that鈥檚 swinging here. Instead, let鈥檚 help people understand why that is one really crucial skill that kids need to have. If there鈥檚 something that children need to know, I think we should commit as a society to teaching it.

KORBEY: Hearing from kids and adults who struggled to read in 鈥淪old a Story鈥� is a reminder that real lives are affected when kids don鈥檛 learn to read well. What have you learned about the kids who aren鈥檛 learning to read well? 

HANFORD: I think that鈥檚 one reason why this has been so eye-opening to so many people. It cuts a very wide swath through society. 

I think people have misunderstood the reading problem in the United States as something that is mostly a problem in poor schools or among poor kids. It鈥檚 very clear that there are lots of kids from affluent homes who struggle with reading, but those kids are more likely to have parents as a backup plan. 

We can鈥檛 disentangle the role poverty and family income play when it comes to education outcomes in general. There鈥檚 clearly a connection. If you understand something about how kids learn to read, it鈥檚 very clear why kids in poverty are more likely to struggle. But that doesn鈥檛 mean that kids who aren鈥檛 in poverty won鈥檛 also struggle. It also doesn鈥檛 mean that kids in poverty can鈥檛 learn to be good readers and can鈥檛 be taught to be good readers鈥攖hey can.

KORBEY: What鈥檚 next in your reporting? Are you going to continue investigating reading? 

HANFORD: One of the things I鈥檓 really interested in looking at are school districts that are getting good results with kids, often against the odds. 

I think we鈥檙e going to see that a common element is the long haul. Things don鈥檛 completely change in two or three years. Sometimes you can make changes over two or three years and then realize you鈥檙e getting some good results, but not enough, so you have to make more changes. 

In terms of what鈥檚 next for me, it鈥檚 going out there to see what鈥檚 working and what鈥檚 not. I really want to go into schools and districts and be able to see some schools figuring that out.

This interview has been edited for brevity, clarity, and flow.