Reading Policy, the Wind and the Sun

There is a well-known tale about the Wind and the Sun who once debated who was stronger. They agreed that whoever could make a traveler remove his coat would win. The Wind went first, blowing with all his might, but the harder he blew, the tighter the man wrapped his coat. Exhausted, the Wind gave up. Then the Sun shone warmly on the traveler, and as the air around him grew warmer, the man loosened his coat and eventually removed it entirely.

What does this story have to do with reading policy?

At the Shanker Institute, we have been cataloging literacy laws enacted since 2019. Over the years, we have observed an increase in the prescriptiveness of these laws—for example, states are increasingly banning three cueing -- at least 14 states include such language in their laws. Simultaneously, and perhaps relatedly, opposition to the science of reading seems to be on the rise. I find myself thinking that perhaps these attempts to change instruction with the force of the law are akin to the Wind in the story, causing some educators to feel their professional autonomy is challenged, leading them to rely more heavily on familiar practices. Are there sun-like influences shaping the discourse in ways that might help teachers to lower their fences and become more receptive to new knowledge? I believe so. 

Scholars such as Claude Goldenberg and Sharon Vaughn have helped clarify misconceptions and added nuance where others have tended to oversimplify. Nell Duke and Kelly Cartwright as well as Maryanne Wolf have each developed new conceptual models about how reading works. These models are characterized by greater richness, interactivity, and permeability, and bridge approaches that have traditionally been viewed as opposed and/or competing. 

Wolf is emerging as a uniting figure, arguing that every teacher brings valuable expertise to reading instruction and that, importantly, every teacher also has something new to learn. This means recognizing that many teachers are already applying science-based methods in their classrooms, and their experiences can serve as valuable insights for others.

In an upcoming paper, Wolf discusses how both structured and balanced literacy emphasize aspects that are necessary for children to learn to read. Specifically, structured literacy places "heavy emphasis on explicit teaching of phoneme awareness, phonics, fluency, and decoding," while balanced literacy places "heavy emphasis through implicit learning of vocabulary, meaning, and comprehension of stories and literature." Teachers who identify with either approach can and should expand their knowledge within and across perspectives. In other words, these approaches are 1) continuously evolving, and 2) not in competition; instead, they should be understood in terms of the strengths and weaknesses that they bring to reading instruction. 

In our upcoming update on reading legislation, my coauthors and I also acknowledge that balanced literacy has something valuable to offer. While students clearly need explicit and systematic instruction in foundational skills, “they also need opportunities to practice and to engage in independent reading based on their interests and desire to learn more.” 

These efforts are more likely to be warmly received by educators, encouraging them to explore new evidence-based practices. How can reading legislation adopt a tone that fosters this kind of engagement? Next, I offer three recommendations for legislators as well as programs and material developers that draw on our larger set of policy proposals.

• Guide and support better choices: Laws can facilitate the development of curated lists of high-quality curricula, assessments, and professional learning programs. By incentivizing—rather than mandating—selection from these lists, legislation can encourage school districts to make better-informed choices.
• Differentiate professional learning: Recognize that some teachers may need more intensive support than others; teachers are not a monolith. Many educators are already effectively implementing science of reading principles. Therefore, it's important to avoid mandating one-size-fits-all approaches to professional development.
• Create room for teacher input: Take curriculum for instance, for effective implementation teachers should be encouraged to make their curriculum their own, attending to guidelines on what should and should not be adapted. But beyond curriculum, generally speaking, teachers’ knowledge and practical experiences are often left out of the legislative discourse.

The dominant message has often placed blame on teachers for poor reading outcomes due to ineffective instruction. This narrative not only obscures other critical factors—such as school funding disparities, poverty, and increased digital media use—but also puts teachers on the defensive, making it harder to engage them in constructive change. As Kata Solow argues, the best science of reading messengers are teachers, particularly those who have taken a leap and expanded their knowledge. We can support a culture where teachers share insights and learn from one another's experiences with new instructional approaches. 

While this approach might seem soft or time-consuming, it may be also be only path to deep and lasting change. We can reframe differences and learn to talk so teachers will listen. Let's waste no more time. Let’s strive to be more like the sun and less like the wind in how we go about reading reform. These seemingly small course corrections could tip the balance toward finally moving past the reading wars.