How did you learn to read in elementary school? If you went through the K-12 education system within the last two decades, you may have learned to read using a whole language method – learning to read through the context of words instead of the sounds of letters. Once touted by experts as the ideal way for students to learn how to read, many others have criticized the method for failing to teach students to read competently. This has affected their ability to succeed at higher levels of education and the workforce, as reading is the backbone of nearly every other field of study and every job or career.
Many experts want to return to a phonics-based method of reading education, particularly with the decline in reading scores since the whole language method spread around the United States. To this end, some states have passed laws, such as Wisconsin’s Act 20, seeking to remedy the decline in reading scores by mandating phonics education in all schools, public and private. While these laws have not been without controversy, movement to a phonics-based reading curriculum in our schools is needed to lay the foundation for a confident and successful new generation of readers.
Whole Reading Method
The whole language method is based on the assumption that reading is best learned through context. The philosophy behind this method is that learning to read activates multiple parts of our brains, so the most effective way to learn to read is by using multiple clues to read each word. This is usually taught to young students using the three-cueing method. First, students are taught to look to the semantic cues (the meaning of the word and context of the sentence), then to the syntactic cues (grammatical structure), before looking to any phonemic cues (the letters and sounds of the word). These cues are often accompanied by pictures of the word, at least in the early grades.
There has been backlash against the whole language method of teaching reading, especially since the release of the podcast Sold A Story. The podcast details the poor efficacy – an inability to double-check the studies and come to the same conclusion – of studies by whole language researchers like Lucy Calkins. This includes Calkins’ influential Units of Study reading curriculum, a whole language method curriculum that was implemented in many school districts throughout the 2000’s, such as by New York City public schools. It also discusses the conflicting evidence on the effectiveness of the whole language method from other cognitive scientists, which has existed as far back as the 1970s.
The whole language method’s effect on students’ reading test scores is its opponents’ most pressing concern. Since 2012, the decade following a proliferation of whole language reading curriculums such as Units of Study, reading scores have been on the decline. The pandemic accelerated the decrease due to education via online instruction and laxer requirements, with the drop in scores between 2020 and 2022 the biggest since 1990. While the pandemic was certainly a factor in this steep decline, reading scores had been dropping for some time before then.
Long-term reading scores as measured by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a study conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics, from 1971-2022. Scores have been decreasing since 2012. (U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics.).
The Movement to Phonics
In recent years, some educators have moved to reintroduce phonics-based reading programs to elementary schools. Phonics-based methods of teaching reading focus first and foremost on the letters of each word and what sounds they make. There is evidence to suggest that traditional phonics is a better method for teaching reading than the whole-language method. Already, schools that have kept or made the switch to phonics have seen reading scores improve among their students.
Much of the movement towards phonics-based reading curriculums has occurred in state legislatures. In 2021, Arkansas became the first state to explicitly ban the three-cueing method. Since then, Florida, Indiana, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, Texas, and West Virginia have also banned three-cueing as a method of reading instruction. Wisconsin has also implemented its own prohibition on the three-cueing method under Act 20.
In a phonics-based reading curriculum, students learn the different sounds that each letter makes in order to read the words they learn. The three-cueing method, in contrast, relies purely on the context words appear in. [Stock photo from Pexels].
In July 2023, Wisconsin became the latest state to establish a phonics-based reading curriculum in its schools through the passage of Act 20. The Act requires that, in order for a teacher preparatory program to be approved, it must “demonstrate that it provides instruction that prepares teachers to teach reading and language arts using science-based early reading instruction, as defined in s. 118.015 (1c) (b), and does not provide instruction on teaching reading and language arts that incorporates 3-cueing, as defined in s. 118.015 (1c) (c).” (emphasis added). In addition, as of the 2024-25 school year, no public school, charter school, or certain private schools may provide instruction incorporating the three-cueing method for grades K-3.
The Act defines “science-based early reading instruction” as instruction that systematically and explicitly includes, among other things, phonics, phonological awareness (think rhymes and counting syllables), and phonemic awareness (how letters interact with each other). The Act also defines “3-cueing” as any model that teaches a student to read based on meaning, structure and syntax, and visual cues or memory.
In addition to the curriculum requirements, the Act also sets up a plan to make sure students don’t fall through the cracks. It mandates three screener exams (“universal screener”) for reading each year for pre-kindergarten through third grade, and a diagnostic exam afterwards if the student is deemed “at-risk” under the statute, or scoring below the 25th percentile on the universal screener. After the diagnostic exam, if the student is still deemed to be “at-risk” per the statute, the school will be required to create a personal reading plan for the student, again relying on a “science-based early reading instruction” as defined under the statute.
Obstacles to the Implementation of Act 20
While Act 20 itself passed with some bipartisan support in the Wisconsin Legislature, issues arose in the funding mechanism. The legislature had originally wanted to keep funding for the implementation of these programs in Wisconsin schools in the hands of the State’s Joint Finance Committee. However, Governor Tony Evers exercised his partial veto power – the ability to strike out clauses in a bill while keeping the rest – to give the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) control over funding the new curriculum Act 20 requires. The Governor also removed provisions that would have granted private and independent charter schools per-pupil increases in funding that would not have been available to public schools.
The actions of the Executive were not taken lightly by state policymakers. The legislature filed suits against the DPI and the Governor, claiming that the partial vetoes were unconstitutional and that the vetoes would not ensure that the funds in question (around $50,000,000) would be used for the purposes of enacting Act 20. The DPI subsequently filed a counterclaim seeking a declaration compelling the Joint Finance Committee to give the funds to the DPI as statutorily required. On August 27, 2024, the Dane County Circuit Court issued a decision requiring the Joint Finance Committee to give the funds to the DPI.
Despite the lawsuits surrounding Act 20 funding, schools were (and are) still required to implement the curriculum changes for the 2024-25 school year.
Criticism of Act 20
Some organizations, like the Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC), have characterized Act 20 as “deeply flawed” due to the measly amount of funding and excessive legislative control over reading curriculums. The WEAC had been actively fighting some provisions of the bill and succeeded in removing some provisions. This includes a rule requiring third graders to repeat the entire third grade based on standardized reading test scores (instead of just third-grade reading) and another rule mandating phonics-based curriculums in private schools and independent charter schools.
Religious and independent schools also took issue with the requirements of Act 20, stating that the required curriculum would prevent these schools from using methods like three-cueing, which they believed would work for some students. In addition, they also criticized the fact that there was no opt-out provision for non-public schools. These critiques show that private schools could continue to oppose statutory requirements to require phonics-based reading education in the future.
The Future of Whole Language, Phonics, and Reading Education in the United States
The country at-large is increasing its awareness of the ways in which whole language reading curriculums may be holding students back throughout their K-12 education and beyond. While Wisconsin is the latest state to make the bold yet necessary change to a phonics-based reading curriculum in its schools, more states and school boards may follow. Because the ability to read is the backbone of our society, it is imperative that those state governments and school boards focus on implementing effective, phonics-based reading curricula to ensure students are learning to read in the manner that works best.
Evan Ploeckelman is a law student at Loyola University Chicago School of Law and wrote this blog as part of the Education Law Practicum Course.
