In the last six months, forwardED’s research team has embarked on an intensive study of reading instruction, engaging with 134 teachers across five major school districts. These districts have embraced the “science of reading,” prioritizing phonics-based instruction, a method supported by decades of research as essential for foundational literacy (Ehri, 2020). However, our findings reveal that while the science of reading provides a crucial framework, it cannot stand alone. Teaching reading is not merely about imparting a set of technical skills; it is about teaching students to read in a way that resonates with their individual experiences and needs. This insight compels us to rethink reading instruction, moving beyond the binaries of the reading wars to consider the broader sociocultural context in which students engage with text.
The Science of Reading and Vulnerable Learners: A Complex Landscape
The “science of reading” has been lauded for its evidence-based approach, which emphasizes systematic phonics as a critical component of effective reading instruction. Research consistently supports the effectiveness of phonics, particularly for early readers and those with reading difficulties (Castles, Rastle, & Nation, 2018). However, the efficacy of phonics instruction alone is not uniform across all student populations. Vulnerable learners—students from low-income families, multilingual learners, students of color, and students with dis/abilities—often require more than a one-size-fits-all approach.
The persistence of reading disparities among vulnerable populations underscores the limitations of a narrow focus on phonics. According to the 2019 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), only 18 percent of Black fourth graders and 23 percent of Hispanic fourth graders scored at or above the proficient level in reading, compared to 45 percent of their White peers (National Center for Education Statistics, 2019). These gaps have persisted for decades, reflecting deeper systemic inequities that simple technical solutions like phonics cannot resolve on their own. As Reardon (2013) notes, “Achievement gaps are the product of a wide array of social and economic conditions that shape children’s experiences both inside and outside of school.”
The science of reading, while essential, must be contextualized within a broader understanding of the social determinants of literacy. For vulnerable learners, factors such as access to books, exposure to language-rich environments, and socio-emotional support are equally critical. Research by Allington and McGill-Franzen (2021) highlights the importance of these factors, noting that “children from affluent homes tend to enter school having heard millions more words than their less affluent peers, a gap that phonics instruction alone cannot bridge.”
Faith, Fidelity, and the Complexities of Reading Instruction: Insights from the Field
Our interviews with teachers reveal an array of beliefs and practices that go beyond the binary debates of phonics versus whole language. Teachers, whether veterans with decades of experience or novices in their first year, spoke of reading instruction as something deeply personal—a blend of science, art, and, for many, faith. One teacher shared, “I teach what I believe will work with my kids, what I saw work with me,” capturing the intersection of personal experience and professional practice that characterizes much of reading instruction.
This notion of faith—faith in methods, in students, and in the transformative power of reading—emerged as a central theme in our research. For some teachers, faith was grounded in a belief in the cognitive science behind phonics, while for others, it was rooted in the more holistic, student-centered approaches of whole language or balanced literacy. Yet, despite their different methodologies, all teachers we spoke with acknowledged the difficulties inherent in teaching certain students to read. “No matter how good the method,” one teacher reflected, “there are always students who challenge everything we think we know about reading.”
This acknowledgment speaks to a critical gap in the current discourse on reading instruction: the role of belief and trust in pedagogical practice. As Grossman and McDonald (2008) argue, teaching is the enactment of technical skills and the expression of deeply held beliefs about learning, knowledge, and human potential. The teachers in our study repeatedly pointed out that reading instruction must account for the “whole child”—their identities, their histories, and the socio-emotional contexts in which they learn. This perspective aligns with the growing body of literature that advocates for culturally responsive-sustaining education as a necessary complement to scientifically grounded methods like phonics (cf. Gay, 2018; Ladson-Billings, 1995).
The Sociology of Reading: Understanding the Broader Context
The challenges of teaching reading are magnified for students who face significant barriers outside the classroom. Many of these students are multilingual learners, live in poverty, or struggle with housing instability. Others may be neurodivergent or have dis/abilities that require specialized instructional approaches. Teachers in our study emphasized that effective reading instruction must extend beyond the mechanics of decoding words; it must engage with the broader sociocultural realities that shape students’ lives.
One teacher poignantly captured this sentiment: “I can’t teach reading to a kid who doesn’t see reading as relevant to their life.” This insight is supported by research on the role of cultural relevance in literacy instruction. Ladson-Billings (1995) asserts that culturally relevant pedagogy, for example, is crucial for engaging students who have been historically marginalized in educational systems. For these students, reading instruction must connect with their lived experiences and cultural identities, making reading not just a skill to be mastered but a meaningful and empowering practice that can be lived.
However, the barriers to culturally relevant pedagogy are significant. One teacher shared the disturbing reality that many of his colleagues “don’t believe that some of these kids will ever be able to read,” revealing a deep-seated bias that undermines instructional efforts. These biases, whether conscious or unconscious, can lead to what Tatum (2007) describes as “cultural dissonance,” where students’ home cultures conflict with the dominant culture and social perceptions pervasive in the school. Addressing these biases is not just a matter of professional development but of fundamentally rethinking how we approach reading instruction for all students.
Beyond the Reading Wars: Strategies for a New Era of Reading Instruction
The teachers we interviewed made it clear that effective reading instruction requires more than adherence to any single methodology. While the science of reading provides valuable insights, it must be integrated with a deep understanding of the social, emotional, and cultural contexts in which students learn. Here are three strategies that emerged from our research, which we believe offer a path forward:
1. Habit Stacking: Reading, like any skill, is built on habits. James Clear’s concept of habit stacking—where new habits are linked to existing routines—can be a powerful tool in reading instruction (Clear, 2018). For example, teachers can encourage students to read immediately after a routine activity, such as breakfast or recess. This approach helps to normalize reading as a part of daily life, and stacking reading with our most enjoyable habits that include pleasure, play, creativity, and curiosity creates an inspiring incentive to read. Research supports the idea that consistent reading routines can significantly improve reading outcomes, particularly for vulnerable students (Pressley & Allington, 2014).
2. Healing-Centered Care: Vulnerable students often carry emotional scars that impede their ability to engage with text. They are not the problem; the society inflicting these scars is. Moreover, we become complicit when we know that inequities exist and do nothing to address them or the harm caused by them. As Ginwright (2018) proposed, healing-centered care offers a framework for addressing these emotional barriers. This approach shifts the focus from pathology to healing, asking not “What’s wrong with you?” but “What happened to you?” For students who have experienced trauma, creating a safe and supportive environment is critical to their reading development. This might involve starting with small, manageable reading tasks that build confidence, gradually increasing in complexity as students begin to heal. This method aligns with Vygotsky’s concept of the “zone of proximal development,” where instruction follows the path of a student’s needs and capabilities (Vygotsky, 1978).
3. The Matching Principle: Charles Duhigg’s concept of the matching principle, which involves tailoring learning strategies to individual needs, is particularly relevant in reading instruction (Duhigg, 2012). Reading teachers must be adept at identifying each student’s learning styles and preferences and matching their instruction to these needs. This might involve using multisensory approaches for some students, while others might benefit from visual aids or kinesthetic activities. Research by Torgesen (2004) underscores the importance of differentiated instruction in closing reading gaps, particularly for students with reading dis/abilities.
The persistence of reading disparities demands urgent action, not just at the level of individual classrooms but across entire systems. We cannot afford to continue with business as usual, clinging to the dogmas of the past while our most vulnerable students fall further behind. The stakes could not be higher. Reading is not just an academic skill but a gateway to opportunity, a determinant of future success, and a foundation for lifelong learning. If we fail to teach our students to read—truly read, in a way that connects with their lives and identities—then we are failing not just them but society as a whole. But if we can embrace a more holistic, human-centered approach to reading instruction, we have the potential to transform not only our classrooms but the futures of the students who depend on us. This is the work that lies ahead, and it is nothing less than a moral imperative.
References
Allington, R. L., & McGill-Franzen, A. (2021). Classrooms that Work: They Can All Read and Write. Pearson.
Castles, A., Rastle, K., & Nation, K. (2018). Ending the reading wars: Reading acquisition from novice to expert. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 19(1), 5-51.
Clear, J. (2018). Atomic Habits: An Easy & Proven Way to Build Good Habits & Break Bad Ones. Avery.
Duhigg, C. (2012). The Power of Habit: Why We Do What We Do in Life and Business. Random House.
Ehri, L. C. (2020). The science of learning to read words: A case for systematic phonics instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1), S9-S28.
Ginwright, S. (2018). The future of healing: Shifting from trauma-informed care to healing-centered engagement. Medium. Retrieved from https://medium.com/@ginwright/the-future-of-healing-shifting-from-trauma-informed-care-to-healing-centered-engagement-634f557ce69c
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465-491.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2019). The Nation’s Report Card: Reading 2019. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/reading/
Pressley, M., & Allington, R. L. (2014). Reading Instruction That Works: The Case for Balanced Teaching. Guilford Press.
Reardon, S. F. (2013). The widening income achievement gap. Educational Leadership, 70(8), 10-16.
Tatum, B. D. (2007). Can We Talk About Race? And Other Conversations in an Era of School Resegregation. Beacon Press.
Torgesen, J. K. (2004). Preventing early reading failure and its devastating downward spiral. American Educator, 28(3), 6-19.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press.
______________________________________
Suggested citation: Kirkland, D.E. (2024). Strategies for a New Era of Reading Instruction. forwardED Perspectives, https://www.forward-ed.com/post/strategies-for-a-new-era-of-reading-instruction.
David E. Kirkland, PhD, is the founder and CEO of forwardED. He is a nationally renowned scholar of education equity. He can be reached via email at: david@forward-ed.com.
Comments