Media

Selections from the extensive coverage of reading instruction

Emily Hanford's 2018 media report that started a national movement of questioning how students are taught to read. "Scientific research has shown how children learn to read and how they should be taught. But many educators don't know the science and, in some cases, actively resist it. As a result, millions of kids are being set up to fail."

Emily Hanford, from 2020: "A false assumption about what it takes to be a skilled reader has created deep inequalities among U.S. children, putting many on a difficult path in life."

Emily Hanford: For decades, schools have taught children the strategies of struggling readers, using a theory about reading that cognitive scientists have repeatedly debunked. And many teachers and parents don't know there's anything wrong with it.

Prof. Marc Siedenberg: Some Reliable Resources about the Science and Its Connection to Reading. Sidenberg is a leading cognitive science researcher on how reading is done at a brain pathway level. His book "Reading at the Speed of Sight"

EdWeek: States are passing new laws that require teachers to master reading instruction that’s solidly grounded in research.

EdWeek: The debate on how to teach early reading has raged for a century. But for the last few decades, the cognitive science has been clear: Teaching young kids how to crack the code—teaching systematic phonics—is the most reliable way to make sure that they learn how to read words.

EdWeek: Flawed methods for teaching reading are passed down through cherished mentors, popular literacy programs, and respected professional groups.

EdWeek: An analysis of the five most-used programs for early reading shows that they often diverge from evidence-based practices.

EdWeek: Good (long) summary of reading research from an educator's perspective

Next Ed: In the end, parental demand for effective reading instruction may be the most potent long-term lever for change.

Forbes: From Natalie Wexler

Science News: Many U.S. teachers are not using the most science-based