A few weeks ago, I wrote about how hard it is for people to change their mind about anything, let alone a deeply-entrenched practice that they believe to be effective. I argued, among other things, that “we must seek to understand the conditions under which teachers are more likely to change their minds about literacy.”

In this blog, I want to explore this idea further and consider a few ways in which the Science of Reading movement can make it easier, safer, and more comfortable for teachers to change their literacy practice. 

_____

The Dos and Don’ts of Literacy Change

DO SHARE your story.  
Are you a teacher or a school leader who shifted your literacy practice? 

We want to hear from you. We want to hear the story of your change. Tell us about your curriculum, your professional development, the hard conversations you had with colleagues, parents, and supervisors, how your class has changed; how it’s stayed the same. We want to hear all of the little details. 

You are our best messenger. You should be leading this movement and conversation. Not professors, nor journalists, nor parents, nor foundation leaders (ahem). We need teachers to share their stories, so that other teachers have a path to follow AND so that they know they are not alone on this journey. 

Storytelling is our most powerful tool. Stories build movements. They strengthen communities. They forge relationships. These are things we need to cultivate and grow in the Science of Reading movement.

Keep telling your story. 

DON’T CITE data and studies. 

Sounds counterintuitive, right? We’re the Science of Reading movement, we have to talk about data! We’re driven by data! 

While data might activate and persuade people who don’t already have strong opinions about reading instruction, it’s not going to work on teachers and administrators who already have their own methods and lived experiences that seemingly contradict your data.  Likewise, citing a bunch of studies you’ve read isn’t going to persuade anyone either. More likely than not, you’ll just make the topic seem inaccessible and impenetrable or just boring. 

So skip the stats, and if you really, really, really must cite data, do it in the context of a story. Tell us about your reading curriculum, and then show-off your kids ORF scores. Keep it personal and context-specific.

DO CHALLENGE the “Reading Wars” framing. 

Wars have sides. Every time someone talks about the “Reading Wars,” we are making teachers choose a side. Once you choose a side, your side becomes part of your identity, and the other side becomes your enemy. This framing, though exciting and dramatic, makes it hard for teachers to see the good and the humanity in the “other side,” let alone contemplate changing their teaching approach. 

So let’s stop talking about the Reading Wars. And more importantly, let’s start challenging and dismissing the war narrative when we encounter it. I’m pretty sure we’re all on the side of helping children learn how to read. Let’s remember that.  

(And before you ask, yes, I would argue that there’s plenty to learn from balanced literacy.)

DON’T ARGUE with Paul Thomas and his acolytes.

I get it. Paul Thomas once compared Emily Hanford and Mark Seidenberg to Donald Trump and Ruby Payne. But I think it’s both unhelpful and ineffective to engage with people like Paul on and offline for a few different reasons. 

For one, when we argue with folks like Paul, we reinforce the war narrative (see above) that we need to dismantle. Similarly, getting involved in a jargon-ful debate on Twitter isn’t going to move minds; it’s more likely to confuse and deter onlookers from asking questions and getting involved. 

Secondly, you’re not going to change his mind. You’re just not. Luckily, Paul Thomas and his acolytes are not elementary school teachers. They’re pundits. They’re not teaching 1st graders how to read every year. They’re not leading schools. They’re not worth your time. 

So instead of wasting your time arguing with him, show that new teacher down the hall your favorite decodable texts or tell them about that amazing workshop you did last year. Invest your time in people who really matter here: teachers.  

DO SHARE concrete examples of teaching. 

If I’ve developed a professional manta over the last year and a half, it’s “show me what XYZ looks like in the classroom.” (See SoRClassroom project. See Goyen Literacy Fellowship). 

I keep beating this drum because when we get specific about what literacy instruction could or should look like in the classroom, we stop having these vague debates about the “reading wars” and start digging into how to actually do the hard work of changing and improving instructional practices. 

I believe that teachers who want to change or alter their teaching practice NEED to see models and examples. This is way more important than reading their LETRS manual for the third time. 

I believe that skeptical teachers, who may believe that phonics is drudgery or knowledge building is a waste of time, might just start to reconsider when they see clips like this or this. 

I believe that researchers, especially those who have no experience teaching a classroom of 5 years old how to read, might be able to translate their work more effectively when they see what teaching 5 years old actually looks like. 

DON’T DISMISS Heggerty. 

Every time I see a brilliant teacher or researcher or tutor making fun of Heggerty, I cringe. 

Look, I’m not going to defend Heggerty as the gold standard. Nothing like that. But I am going to defend its accessibility and usability. 

If you’ve never heard of phonemic awareness before, if you’re completely overwhelmed and not sure where or how to begin, Heggerty is a good and accessible starting place. Heggerty shouldn’t be the end point, but I think it’s a perfectly fine gateway to structured literacy. And while I don’t support phonemic awareness in the dark, I’m guessing that phonemic awareness in the dark is better than no phonemic awareness at all. 

Finally, I would ask those of us who are dismissing Heggerty, to consider how our words might impact the many, many teachers who use Heggerty. Will these teachers be more or less likely to ask questions and reach out to you for help? Will these teachers be more or less likely to share their work and teaching? Will these teachers feel included in the science of reading movement, which you are a part of, whether you like it or not?

_____

Like teaching a child how to read, changing teachers’ minds and practices about literacy isn’t just going to happen naturally or through osmosis. 

But if we are strategic and sensitive to understanding and cultivating the conditions that will make that mind-changing easier, then we’ll be able to support more teachers and ultimately help more children learn how to read.

___

Author’s note: This article was updated to 1. clarify that Paul Thomas is not an ELEMENTARY school teacher and 2. to temper descriptive language around the linked article.