In October of 2023, The Reading Council of North America filed a lawsuit against Ohio, attempting to reverse the state’s move to align classroom instruction to the science of reading principles and practices. In this episode of Literacy Talks, our hosts discuss the growing momentum behind instruction based in the science of reading and the importance of looking closely, carefully, and analytically at the research that supports any approach. Listeners will hear common sense, clear thinking, and data-informed perspectives about choosing curricula and staying involved in legislative initiatives. Educator voices matter! Let’s get started.
Subscribe to our Literacy Talks podcast digest and never miss an episode! We’ll send you summaries of every session, links to the resources discussed on each show, and some extra goodies so that your learning never stops.
Subscribe to our podcast digest.
Download the new Reading Horizons Discovery Product Guide.
Access the show notes.
Read the transcripts.
In October of 2023, The Reading Council of North America filed a lawsuit against Ohio, attempting to reverse the state’s move to align classroom instruction to the science of reading principles and practices. In this episode of Literacy Talks, our hosts discuss the growing momentum behind instruction based in the science of reading and the importance of looking closely, carefully, and analytically at the research that supports any approach. Listeners will hear common sense, clear thinking, and data-informed perspectives about choosing curricula and staying involved in legislative initiatives. Educator voices matter! Let’s get started.
Subscribe to our Literacy Talks podcast digest and never miss an episode! We’ll send you summaries of every session, links to the resources discussed on each show, and some extra goodies so that your learning never stops.
Subscribe to our podcast digest.
Download the new Reading Horizons Discovery Product Guide.
Access the show notes.
Read the transcripts.
Welcome to Literacy Talks, the podcast for literacy leaders and champions everywhere. Brought to you by Reading Horizons, Literacy Talks is the place to discover new ideas, trends, insights and practical strategies that will help all learners retreating proficiency. Our series host is Stacy Hurst, a professor at Southern Utah University and Chief Academic Advisor for Reading Horizons. Joining Stacy are Donell Pons, a recognized expert in literacy and special education. And Lindsay Kemeny, an elementary classroom teacher, author and speaker. This episode unpack some recent and consequential information about literacy legislation and how it's impacting the way foundational literacy is taught in the classroom, now, both the changes and the challenges. At the center of the discussion is the three cueing system and how research is both conducted and interpreted. It's the information and insight we all need. So let's get started.
Stacy Hurst:Welcome to another episode of Literacy Talks. My name is Stacy Hurst. I'm the host and I'm joined by my co-hosts, Donell Pons and Lindsay Kemeny. And this week, we have a really exciting(question mark) conversation we have. It's Donell's turn to choose. And I thought you chose really well done, I'm I'm looking forward to the conversation. So we won't spend any more time introducing it, just turn it right over to you tell us what we're going to be talking about today.
Donell Pons:So this definitely falls into that category of things you'd love to talk about with some people that are intuitive, like you are, and this is definitely one of those subjects. So we've talked a little bit in the past about legislating literacy, and a big key piece of what we see happening in order to change our reading instruction in this country and follow more of the science of reading, that there's legislation that goes along with that. And those legislative pieces vary by state. And they've had a lot of different moving parts. And some states are further ahead in the process than other states. But one thing that came up I know I think we've talked in the past a little bit, we kind of forecasted, this could be a possibility. And at now it's happening, there's a lawsuit that has come about as a result of some of this legislation around literacy. And just to give you a little bit of a background in this article is from Education Week, but if you Googled reading, recovery sues Ohio, over ban on queueing, you're gonna get a bunch of different articles, it's appearing in a lot of places. But there's a link also, if folks want to be familiar with this particular article. And just as before we get into the conversation, which I think will be really interesting the gist is is that a popular reading organization Reading Recovery, I'm sure a lot of folks have heard of them, has has sued the state of Ohio and this article is October 20/23. So this is ongoing, and it's new, has sued the state of Ohio in an attempt to block changes that the governor's administration recently made to how early literacy and reading is taught in the state. The gist of the whole thing is the Reading Recovery Council of North America filed a lawsuit against the state, partly prompted by a bill that attempted to as they say stamp out a teaching practice that it uses in its own teacher training program. And that is this queueing system that we've talked about a bit three queuing. And it seems to be one of the first major challenges legal challenges to a wave of recent state legislation that's a lot trying to align the classroom instruction to the science of reading. And this will be really interesting to see it how play how it plays out. That's why I think this is a good topic for us to discuss, because no matter what state you're living in, there's probably been some form of legislation around reading. And we'll see how this proceeds in the future. So the basic gist of the lawsuit is that reading recovery is saying that it was unconstitutional for the state of Ohio to use the format that it did used as financial, it was a piece of financial legislation that went through in the summer, when many they have different sessions and they had a financial legislation. And they said, Hey, you can only you can only tackle one topic at a time when you do that. And you dragged Reading Recovery into it. And that was tackling a different topic. So that's been what's falling down around. However, it's brought up the conversation about well, you know, we think that three queueing has plenty of science behind it. So we don't even know why it's on the table. And that brought up a discussion about research. So within this conversation, I'm going to ask a few things and get you guys thinking about a few things that came up for me about this. And that is one the legislation will discuss that. But then the other piece is research and your interpretation of research because that's the heart of a lot of this too is somebody arguing Well, hey, look, we've got research. Research says this is great. Does it really though, and how well do we interpret research? And how well do people in the field interpret research and how are they asked to do that? I think all of this is at play because we're gonna get into the nitty gritty over the years, this has just begun, I think, in a lot of ways, these conversations. So my first question out of the gate is, and I know that you too, were aware of this as well, when you kind of seen the headlines. What did you think of it being this particular lawsuit? Did you think it would have been something else? Or is this not surprising to find that it's this group filing this lawsuit? At this particular time? What did you guys think? Well,
Lindsay Kemeny:I kind of rolled my eyes because I was thinking, Well, of course, reading recovery is going to fight this because they're, I mean, three cueing is a huge part of what they do. And I think, you know, we all know that. And so for me, I'm like, Yeah, they've got some skin in the game. And they're losing money. And they're kind of on the wrong side of this, fight, I guess. And so to me, I'm not that surprised that they would go after they're gonna find any way to fight this.
Stacy Hurst:They've made me think of the cost of that fight for them, which made me wonder how much money they have, right? How many resources are at their disposal? And how they acquired those resources? Yeah, I thought it was an interesting avenue to take, however, they don't seem to be able to, for lack of a better word, when in any other arena, like if we're talking about high quality research, there's plenty in my opinion, from what I've heard of evidence that their research is not high quality, and is bias. So maybe they think they have a chance in this venue. I also Donell was you were reading from the article, I thought it interesting, I caught the term teacher training program, because they described it as three queueing, which is being taught to your pre-service teachers. And so if it's okay to teach pre-service teachers than should be okay to sell it or to use it in schools. And so, to me, I thought that was an interesting correlation. So the outcome of this lawsuit will impact what those teacher prep programs they're doing one way or the other, right? Yeah.
Donell Pons:I thought this was a route that this is a really good case to keep your eyes on. Because for a lot of Lindsay, things that you said, Stacy, things that you said to this is going to dive into areas that will impact a lot of different things that we may do going forward, right, we're gonna have a lot of conversations coming out of this one. Something interesting that you both brought up the three queuing pace and the research. So within the article, right away, there's a quote from Reading Recovery about, you know, the research that's available, educators have long debated how best to reach students. But when an educational practice has scientific evidence supporting it, a legislative enactment that prohibits the practice suggests motives entirely outside of educational best practices. And this is from the executive director of Reading Recovery. Billy Molasso, I thought that was really interesting is to get into that research piece, because isn't going to stand up. I've
Lindsay Kemeny:never seen any research any high quality research that supports three cueing. So I'm very curious about what they are, you know, referring to. So this is
Stacy Hurst:not a new topic. And I'm hopeful. I don't know if Steve Dykstra listens to our podcast, but I feel like we should invite him on here, because he is where I learned about most of what goes on with Reading Recovery behind the scenes. And he is, as many of you who are familiar with him. He is in the state of Wisconsin, where they have this kind of a battle with reading, recovery is not new to them. And I learned from him that reading recovery will not publish research. If it doesn't, they didn't allow anyone actually to conduct research except for themselves for a long time. And then apparently, I think it was in the state of Wisconsin, and I am saying all of this with a big disclaimer that if I'm wrong, we need to find out and communicate that. And hopefully we can have Dr. Dykstra on to do that better than I could. But what I, as I recall, Reading Recovery, would not let any other entity do research about their program or publish it. And then when they finally did, and I believe it was someone in the state of Wisconsin, whether it was a university or whatever, it did not prove to be efficacious to use the program. The other thing is, there's so many flaws with their practices. They don't accept every first grader into their programs so they can actually kick out students who are resisting the treatment, right? So even if they did have data, it would be skewed it's not really randomized And so sort of fraught with issues with that. And so I wonder how it's gonna play out in in the legal system? How is that going to be communicated? And interpreted? I don't know.
Lindsay Kemeny:Well, in this article, it does refer to a federally funded study of Reading Recovery. Now, that's really huge right there that it's federally funded. This is not like, done by reading recovery or done by a private organization with, you know, some, like bias, right. It's a federally funded study, that found by third and fourth grades. The students who are in Reading Recovery performed significantly worse than peers who did not participate in the program. And it's comparing students who had similar first grade reading scores. And so it's not that they just did a little bit worse, the ones in reading, reading recovery did significantly worse. That is huge. And to me, that is also not surprising at all, with a program that is centered around the three queueing because we see that those kids who depend on the three cueing that gets them by when they're in those easier texts, and they can guess from the pictures are guessing from the context. They're just kind of memorizing words rather than decoding. And what happens when they get in third or fourth grade, those texts are much harder. They can't guess from context. They can't guess from pictures, there aren't pictures. And then those teachers find out, Oh, my goodness, this child can't read. And so to me, of course, those Reading Recovery students did worse. It's a huge red flag. And it also really shows the issue with three cueing.
Donell Pons:So I appreciate you brought that up. And if anybody wants a deeper dive into the research, because both Stacy and Lindsey have been referring to research, and there has been quite a bit, there's a great article, we'll provide the link as well, in the Thomas Fordham Institute, and it was called, it's time to dump Reading Recovery. And that was July 27 2023. So it's pretty up to date. It mentions a lot of this research in depth. So if you'd like to take a look at it, it would probably be helpful if that's of interest to you. But the thing that did come out that Lindsay was referencing you have been referencing is the fact that maybe you saw short term gains. But when they did a long term study, and that was the one that was lacking priors, they wanted to see long term down the road, even two, three years, in that same students cycle of learning to read, did they hold those gains hold? Did they go on to make even greater gains? And what they found is that no, largely, they did not. And that is the proof is in the pudding, as they say, we had evidence there that for long term gains for a student overall, to really become a good solid reader. There was no evidence that this was great for students or good for students.
Lindsay Kemeny:That also goes along with what I saw in kindergarten. And when I taught kindergarten, and yes, I used to use the three cueing strategies. That's what I was taught. And before I knew any better, that's what I did. And the kindergarten students who use three cueing, and they use those predictable texts. So they're memorizing the pattern, they look at the picture to figure it out. They sound and they seem like they're reading better than the other kids who would sound it out using their phonics, and it takes a lot longer, and it's a lot slower. So I can see why that study said, Oh, it seemed like it was working in the short term, you know, and that's also what I had to tell myself like, Oh, these these kids might seem like they're going slower than the ones using three queueing. But they're actually it's, we're in the long game here. And they're going to do way better, because they've gotten in the habit of decoding the words. Now they're solidifying those sound spelling correspondences. And that's just one thing I hear from teachers, because it's like, oh, my gosh, it's easier to use three cueing it is, but it's worse for them. And they're going to be worse off if you're using three cueing.
Donell Pons:Another thing does making an excellent point there, Lindsay. And what's also interesting in a lot of the studies, one of the flaws was that they would oftentimes compare another group of students who are receiving absolutely no extra support or additional instruction against the students who are reading recovery. So of course, in that situation, they would look or appear as if, oh, wow, look, this is doing tremendous things when you make a comparison like that. So again, diving in on the data was important to make sure you understood what it was you were looking at. Right? That'll be very important. So Stacy, it brings me back to your thing about why if you knew this about your research, would you want someone shining a light on it in a courtroom situation? Would that be a good idea? To me this turns out like it's going to be very much in the data when we get to the court, which will be very interesting.
Stacy Hurst:Yeah. And again, it's going to come back to that conversation about how much does the average person know about data and I, I don't always think data, the numbers don't always tell the story. It's the way you went interpret the data that becomes critical. And many people have heard both Lindsey and I say this, I mean, we've fully embraced the three gearing system and I have defended it before I knew better. So maybe it's just that bias, right and, and you just don't take that opportunity to look outside of what you have been conditioned to think.
Narrator:If you're wondering where to find proven, outcome focused ways to put the science of reading into practice, you're in the right place. Reading Horizons Discovery is the evidence based foundational literacy program educators asked for and helped create with integrated components that emphasize phonics phonemic, awareness, high frequency words, and rapid assessments that make grouping and individualized instruction, easy to manage and deliver. This is the program that makes literacy instruction streamlined and more successful for teachers and students alike. So all learners can achieve reading proficiency, go to readinghorizons.com/productguide to download complete program details today.
Donell Pons:So I've got a question for both of you and your different settings. Because I find this really interesting, Lindsay for you being in a school setting other teachers around you, what has been the conversation around three cueing that you've had with other teachers? And is there resistance? Is there understanding? What have you seen as a teacher? And then Stacy, I'm going to ask you about pre service teachers who come with their own conceptions about things. What do you think, Lindsay?
Lindsay Kemeny:I haven't had this conversation a lot with teachers at my school. So you know, whenever I talk about it, I talk about using phonics decoding, that kind of thing. And so I don't know if because I'm already so vocal about that, that people wouldn't come in and admit to me or talk to me, I don't know. So I don't have much of an answer there.
Stacy Hurst:As I've said many times on this podcast, I spend the first week or two of every semester talking about kind of the history of the reading instruction in the United States, including the psycho linguistic guessing game study that was based on three cueing, essentially, or three cue and kind of evolved as a result of that study. But when I explained to my pre service teachers what three cueing is, and we go over the research to them, it's makes sense that we don't use it, it seems kind of ridiculous that we were ever at a point that we were teaching kids to read by looking at the picture and guessing or getting your mouth ready to say the word or reading to the end of the sentence and thinking what would make sense. So to them, they have a really clear construct of what's happening in the brain, and what should we should be doing as teachers to teach reading? The interesting thing was, and Lindsay, I don't know if you have the same experience, but I remember being explicitly taught three cueing and my pre service education. And even at that point, kind of having those moments of cognitive dissonance of like, that doesn't make sense. The horse in house example, the Emily Hanford uses in one of her articles, it doesn't make sense that we're not teaching them to be exact, or it doesn't make sense that we're saying, Look at the picture. I didn't question it for long. I went with it right. And then as an educator, you see the fallout of that, especially when you're looking at data over grade levels in a school. So I just I don't know, I think it makes more sense when we say that the science of reading is a converging body of evidence. Even that federally funded study showing that three cueing doesn't work, or that Reading Recovery didn't work. That's converging with what we know about how the brain learns to read, and what actually helps develop proficient readers.
Lindsay Kemeny:Yeah, I feel like three cueing was really drilled into me in my early years of teaching, so that when I had a parent, I remember my earlier so teaching, teaching second grade, and a parent came to me concerned saying, Well, my child is looking at the pictures to figure out the word. And I immediately parrot it back. Yes, that's what good readers do. They look at the pictures to help them figure out the words. And I did not think twice about it. I didn't, I was just like, that's what I was taught. That's what I knew. Why would I question that? Also, I was teaching second grade. And to be honest, a lot of students come in reading already. You know, but I didn't really know how to help the ones that were not proficient readers, right. But I didn't put two and two together. It wasn't until I was teaching kindergarten, that I was like, Oh my gosh, like what what? Like, they've only learned the alphabet sounds and then I'm giving them this text and I'm telling them to look at the picture and guess like, now this feels really gross to me, like I'm giving them the wrong idea of what reading is. And then I just want to clarify a point because I, I will hear this argument for people for the three cueing, when we're talking about not using three cueing not using the context or the pictures, we're talking about not using them to figure out to decode the word. We're not talking about the meaning of the word, or the meaning of the story, right? What's happening? In those cases? Yes, like you use context to figure out the meaning you use context to figure out if the word is read or read, you know, but you've decoded it. And then you can, you know, try the other one, if that didn't make sense, you use the picture to solidify and confirm what you just read to make sure the meaning, but you don't use them as a strategy to decode the word. So
Donell Pons:interesting, because my experience I think, I've shared before is that I came into education and teaching, because I had children who were struggling with reading, and unbeknownst to me, I had had this husband who later we find out has dyslexia. But boy did that take a lot of work to figure that out. And a lot of personal time, money. It was an investment, it was an absolute investment to find out exactly what was going on. The effort, the all out effort it took for us to figure out why reading had been so difficult for my husband had ended a lot of his dreams. And now was also looking to do the same for at least two of our four children. And then walking into a school building. And I had great teachers. Here's the other thing, I'm going to say, I had some really good teachers, just like you're talking about yourselves, your great teachers. And the great teachers would say the same things to me things like oh, well, all students go through a process of trying to vet it out as the same old thing, gas will look out whatever I had a lot of, they're not paying enough attention. They're looking around the room, they did look at the picture. Well, the picture wasn't providing what they need it right. And so they weren't looking anywhere for help. But the teacher didn't know that either. Right? And so they were parroting back as you said the lines that you were you were taught or fed. And it was absolute desperation that led me to Okay, I need to do my own research to find out does anybody know how to teach? And then when I found the research, they said, Oh, yeah, we do, we absolutely do. And we've known for a long time, in fact, and that's what I chased down, but again, had to do it on my own. And at the same time, I had these really great teachers over at the building. So this disconnect between what we're putting our teachers through as well, when we don't teach them what they need to know, in order to provide the answers for their students and for their parents. It's just a disservice all the way around. So something like this when I see the push back from reading, recovery, after all that we have gone through, and the hard evidence, which is people who have suffered, because reading never was taught correctly for them. My blood kind of boils, when I see this kind of a thing. It's hard for me to be patient enough to have a dialogue and a conversation to bring people along. But I'm going to have to be, because that's what it's going to take. We're just getting started with a lot of this stuff. The other piece that I think both of you touched on I'd like us to get into a little bit is. So if folks are choosing curriculum that doesn't stand up with the science of reading, then how do we choose curriculum? Who's doing the choosing? And what is the criteria for the choosing? Do we know that because that came up in the article, in the article it said, so who's going to be doing the choosing? And what are they using in terms of how they choose the curriculum? What are your thoughts there? Well,
Lindsay Kemeny:I think it's a good question. Because there are lots of programs that have three cueing baked in, there just are their reading, recovery is not the only one. And it's been so like, it's just been so prevalent, and for so many years, that it really takes each company taking a deep look at every single lesson. And every little script every little thing because they might think they took it out. But then there's a lesson that's like, telling them, you know, they're playing guests the covered word. I mean, I played that with my students. It's literally called guests the covered word and, and it's funny to me now we have so many people saying we don't teach them to guess. And I'm like, look in your program. It's right there, which is the game. So I think everyone needs to take a hard look at that. And I think the reading League has great guidelines on their website for curriculum standards to look at and so I think that's a good starting place.
Stacy Hurst:Yeah, I've seen a lot of states do that. Arkansas, I feel like was one of the first to ban three cueing in their curriculum materials. And then just this weekend, so something from Wisconsin, a state of Wisconsin for what to look like as they're reviewing curriculum as well. And you know what I? The conversation made me wonder. We'll see where this lawsuit goes. But I think one of the less than desirable outcomes could it'd be that both are allowed. And I've seen this I've seen when reading recovery is in a school that does teach explicit systematic phonics instruction. They're competing philosophies. So it's not an either or you're actually doing a disservice to students by having both approaches. Right. So I hope that's not the outcome. But as we're talking about curriculum, I think it's important to think about the theoretical underpinnings that go into that curriculum development, and really holding those publishers accountable. What science are you basing this off of, and evidence, of course, maybe this will bring that more to the forefront as well.
Donell Pons:I appreciate you bringing up Lindsay that the reading league has a checklist, if you will, kind of say and many other resources. And likewise, a lot of others websites are available. That's the great thing about a lot of this is that we're starting to get resources like that, that are really high quality, good resources that folks can use. Because, you know, even five years ago, it was difficult to find things that could be really handy and useful for for people in those settings right to be able to make these choices and decisions and determinations. I want to add Stacey you brought up something interesting about competing philosophies within a school. The other challenge, and I had this happen to my own children, is that when you have a student who is struggling with reading, they oftentimes are enrolled in both programs. And so valuable instructional time that should be used, helping them learn to decode because that's what they needed. They're sitting in a reading recovery program, because that's what the school has available that particular time. So that's the other problem with having competing philosophies in a school is oftentimes excellent instructional time is not excellent instructional time because they're using an alternative program.
Lindsay Kemeny:Another thing to look at for these curriculums is or curricula, is the books that for the kindergarten students like look at those beginning books, because maybe they don't have the an explicit lesson on three queueing. But look at the beginning books for kindergarteners. Are they predictable? Repetitive? are they dependent on the child looking at the picture to figure out the word? Because if so, I mean, then the only thing the kids can do is use the three cueing strategies. Right. So that's something to evaluate as well.
Donell Pons:I think that's so great. And that's like Stacy, or both of you have said take a look at all the pieces, right? Because you want to make sure like you said, Maybe this looks good over here. But oh, dear, we don't have text to support it. Great. So now the transfer doing the thing doesn't support what we're teaching the students that wouldn't work, right. So in other words, we're all going to need to be involved, aren't we, in some way or another. The other piece to this, I want to make sure that we address is that when you're choosing curriculum at a school, oftentimes, there's a school community council involved. So there are many layers to this. It's not just oh, the district level, it's not just the state office level, oftentimes. But they're also can be School Community Councils, they get involved. And so at all of these levels, where somebody has input into what we're purchasing to teach at the school, there needs to be good, solid conversations with excellent information provided so that we're all on the same page making those decisions, right. The
Stacy Hurst:school board, is that usually the final approval, right? So you can also go to the school board with your concerns.
Lindsay Kemeny:I think we need to get local libraries to to have more options, more good decodable texts for beginning readers. Because, you know, right now, I have that issue with my students, because I can provide them decodables. But they can go to the library and all the beginning, like Oh, step up to reading whatever level one, level two, all the level ones. I mean, there's they're not decodable the only way for those kids to read is to memorize or guessing the picture. And you know, this, the kind of text we use is critical for developing those habits at the beginning. So I would love to see that.
Donell Pons:I think it's a great shout out to public libraries to get involved in this whole movement as well. Fantastic. Yeah, absolutely. Another layer in which we can support students so good. One thing that I kind of wanted to bring up a little bit too, because I know this is an excellent conversation. But there's also a piece that we know we've gotten some reading scores back reading and math. We saw some headlines for a time that said, Oh, dear, we've slipped on these national assessments of progress. When what headline from Education Week said two decades of progress nearly gone national math and reading scores hit historic lows. I know I'm not the only one to cite these headlines, I heard plenty of them. However, what was interesting is if you got inside of the article, because this might lead you to believe that oh, gee, we've been making these changes and reading curriculum and really we've had a backslide, what could this possibly be? But as you get into it, there was a lot that was impacting those scores, right. So they're they're even having conversation around Well, was it COVID Wasn't a COVID Was it being online not being online where the schools that got back to school sooner than other states. Did they have better? And and really, it was kind of a mixed bag of of some interesting results. So here's the other piece. We know that with legislating literacy, some people have set some deadlines, some goals, they're saying, hey, we want to see scores rise by and they have a certain date. We want to see so many students now scoring at this certain level. And there's a date. What do you guys think about this? The timeline, the timeframe? Oh,
Lindsay Kemeny:that's hard. I think it takes longer than you'd think. You know, I just think about my journey. And when I started first learning about what we call the science of reading, it was on my own, and you guys have probably heard me share my story because my son was diagnosed with dyslexia. And before I even felt comfortable to work with my son, it took me a year. And and then I was also applying things in the classroom. And it took time, and every year got better. And I still have more to learn. And every year I get better, you know, so I just think it takes time because you have to teach the teachers, they have to figure out how to do it in the classroom, you have some teachers who don't have buy in, don't really understand. So there's a lot of things to think about with rolling this out. You
Stacy Hurst:know, and every time we talk about legislating literacy, I just think of this discrepancy we have in the system. And that is the people who should have the loudest voices in this conversation are the ones who don't have the time to be in the meetings to be on Capitol Hill. They're the teachers in the classroom doing the thing. And I think when we're talking about timeframes that are imposed upon us, for lack of a better word, if you have time to have conversations with your local representatives, your school board members, maybe we can help influence the goal, right? Not necessarily the timeline, but the goal. And I think we are all educators in the state of Utah. And we have I feel like it's a reasonable goal, to have 70% of our students on grade level by 2027. And 70% is not like ideal, but I think it's a step in the right direction. Right. So I'm currently we have less than half of our fourth graders reading on grade level. So I think that those kinds of conversations can be had, maybe we make space for somehow for more teacher input. And I know we're busy doing the thing, never once as a classroom teacher, did I participate and educator Day on the Hill, I was able to as a literacy coach, because they have more time in my schedule. But it's the teachers that we need to be talking to it, especially when we're supporting implementation, because a lot has been done to help inform teachers that three cueing is incorrect and what we should be doing, and the science behind that. But then we need your support. And to your point, Lindsay, give time for that implementation to take root. And then that will bear out in the scores. Additionally,
Lindsay Kemeny:besides just training teachers, we need high quality instructional materials. And that just can't happen overnight. And we can't rush that which a lot of times that's happening where, you know, big curriculum companies are now Oh, we've got to get rid of three cueing or maybe slapping a bandaid on their program and putting it out there to hurry with this demand. And, you know, it takes time to have a good solid curriculum and to have feedback from teachers as you're using it and then go back and make adjustments. And so you know, that's something that can't really be rushed or quality is sacrificed. So that's just another thing that's like, not all sudden, is there going to be a perfect program out there kind of takes some time. So another consideration for sure. Yeah.
Donell Pons:Well, I had loved all of the things we've talked about today. And I'm sure hoping we can pick up and have another conversation about this too. And I'm hoping to sparks conversations for people who are listening to be able to maybe chat with those around them, their associates, maybe there's parents who are listening and have conversations with parents with teachers, right? I'd love to see parents and teachers interacting and having these conversations helping each other come to understanding. It's really interesting to me, because I just want to say when Lindsey you said time bright to become that teacher, because even though I really wanted to know all of the things because I had a child in my home that was suffering daily. With literacy, I couldn't make it happen any faster than the knowledge that I could gain right and experience in order to help and also the programs that I was able to plug into. And so that's a really good caution is to say, yes, we're putting all these pieces in place. Let's make sure we give time for those teachers to become really, really practiced with it. And we'll see gains. The thing about it is I couldn't envision when my son was young. I could not envision when he was 6789 10 Oh, the tears of 1112 because you get into harder books and things that Then the writing piece that comes along with it, I could not have envisioned a day when my son would even consider himself a reader or a writer. And today, my son considers him that. So the investment folks is not just in a year. It's not just in year two, it's not just in year three, but we're investing in the lifetime of somebody who considers him or herself literate, right, I can read something and understand it, I can read a lot of different things and understand if I want to take a course I can take that course and understand it, I'm confident that I can be able to do that I can write if the teacher says, Hey, I'm going to have a paragraph on this, I can write and feel comfortable, be able to express myself, if it's a three page paper, that's not going to take me all night, I can do that and still have my life that goes along with it. That's true literacy. And this is a huge investment. And it's a lifelong investment. And folks, that's what we're talking about here. When we talk about legislating literacy, we're really talking about setting a good foundation, and setting it all the way through for somebody to become really, truly literate.
Lindsay Kemeny:And you know, honestly, I would like to see reading, recovery, recover from this recover by taking a hard look at their program, admitting that it's centered around the three cueing and we don't have the research to support the three cueing and rewriting it. Because surely there's things that are great within the program. I'm not that familiar with it. So you know, surely the one on one the practice opportunities, could they rewrite? Could they learn about explicit systematic phonics, get that in there good materials for students to read? Could they recover? First, they've got to admit that this three cueing is not the way to go. And
Stacy Hurst:think about how powerful that would be for the field. And not just for the field, obviously, for the students that would be impacted by that. And not just in the spirit of self service, right? They're just really saying, we want to get this right. We want to do right
Donell Pons:by kids with this most important skill. And
Stacy Hurst:you know what it makes me think too, as much as we know about the science of reading, it does evolve. So I think it's important for us as educators to be objective, even about our thinking, we talked about this frequently on this podcast, not following people, but really knowing the research and making our own decisions based on alignment with what science has told us, or is aligned as possible, right? And then taking our application of that, and using that as a measure, how does it play out in the classroom? So complex?
Donell Pons:We're also hoping for innovation all the time, right? So as we're saying that this is not set, we're hoping that the more people get involved, the more interest there is, the more it generates research that leads to finding out even more that we can then implement, we'd love to see innovation. And that's the thing I think about a lot too is that word innovation within teaching reading. And I think there's a lot of room yet for us. Well, thank
Stacy Hurst:you. This has been a fascinating conversation. And I know most of our listeners along with us, we'll be curious to see what happens with this. So we'll keep our focus on this. And maybe we can get some other people on our podcast to talk a little bit more about past experiences that are similar and outcomes and maybe see what the future might hold for this case. So thank you all for your interest. Thank you for listening to another episode of Literacy Talks, and we hope to see you on the next episode.
Narrator:Thanks for joining us today for Literacy Talks. The podcast series for literacy leaders and champions everywhere. We invite you to join the science of reading collective are a free community and resource hub so you can stay current with new ideas, free webinars, resources and more. And be sure to visit literacy talks online for resources, access to every season's episodes and more at readinghorizons.com/literacytalks. It's an exciting time to teach reading and ensure your students reach grade level proficiency this school year. Literacy Talks comes to you from Reading Horizons, where reading momentum begins. Join us next time!