This spin is going to be on the edge and is intended to provoke conversations about what matters most in today's classroom. As a disclaimer, I will admit that I have become frustrated and somewhat disheartened by the drama of "the reading wars." As a public educator, it saddens me to see the impact of panels of experts declaring one way or the other is emphatically right or detrimentally wrong, on teachers trying their best to find ways forward in complex educational times where clear direction and resources are desperately needed. Over the past two and a half decades, I have seen literacy pendulum swing to and fro, not in terms of its importance but in where it lands on the "everything matters" continuum of educational practices. I hear the voice of a smart colleague who continually says if you are about everything then you are about nothing, reminding myself and other leaders that you must choose your focal points and clearly articulate these priorities. I write this post with the hopes of positioning the important conversation of literacy instruction in real time for Canadian school districts and the countless incredible classroom teachers across our country doing their best to support student growth and achievement. Pitting the importance of systematic instruction against the beauty of morphology and literary discovery distracts educators from the work that matters most, which ensuring that all students learn how to read in our Canadian classrooms.

The correlation between a students' ability to read, mental health and social-emotional wellbeing has been repeatedly proven in educational research. Many recent studies illuminate the strong association between emotional competence, namely sense of self, and academic achievement in primary school students. Yu, Yu and Tong (2023) found that the correlation between social-emotional skills and reading ability strengthens with educational level, being stronger in high school, and above, compared to preschool and primary school. The implication of such research is critical in positioning reading instruction as the responsibility of all educators. Gone are the days of saying we teach students "to read" in the early grades, while they "read to learn" in the later grades. The bio-directional relationship between reading ability and mental health is one that educators of all ages must attend to. Good reading skills contribute to good mental health. Good reading skills enhance cognitive abilities which in turn leads to better coping strategies for dealing mental health challenges. It is time for all educators to enter the conversation of prioritizing and strategically supporting reading development in today's classroom.

My father loves to tell the story of one particular Sunday drive many moons ago when we cruised around the east end of St. John's in his 1977 Chevrolet Malibu. The VOCM hit parade filled the clear, calm night, making everything feel right in the world. That was until my relentless shouting of 'K-K-K-K-K-K-K-K-K!' overpowered the music as a much younger me noticed the new red Kmart sign gleaming through the trees. When my dad tells this story it includes his mother’s joy, my dear grandmother Maimi, who was beyond thrilled as she exclaimed that her three-year-old granddaughter could “read.”  While there are so many stories within this precious memory to unpack, there are several poignant considerations which positively impacted the story of my early "reading" development. The first was the unconditional love of my family wrapping me in a blanket of curiousity by motivating and encouraging me to learn all I could.  The second was the language rich environment I grew up in, with caring adults who read to me, who read to themselves and who engaged in continuous conversations about what they read.  I fondly remember the many novels and newspapers in my home, alongside of lively stories of incredible characters and plot twists filling my early imagination.

My mother loves to tell the story of the day she picked me up from preschool when I declared that I needed glasses.  Confused she asked me why and I shared that I "absolutely needed glasses to be just like Claire." Claire was my preschool friend and she had Downs Syndrome.  While I don’t remember much of my four year old life, I do remember Claire and how much I liked to paint with her.  As I proceeded to position for reading glasses, my mom recalls a precious moment between her and Claire’s mom as their teary eyes connected. Driving home, my mom asked me more about why I needed glasses, and discovered that I had thought that everyone with glasses could read.  My parents, my grandparents and my preschool teachers all had glasses, I wanted to read more and therefore I "needed" glasses. Again, unpacking this story could lead into many more spins.  I knew love and inclusivity from an early age, I had friends like Claire and my own loving mother who took the time to understand my asks and early logic.

I share these two snippets from my memory bank because I want to be straight up about my privilege and how it positively influenced my early growth. Inequality in reading outcomes is one of the greatest social justice issues facing our classrooms. Not every child coming into Canadian schools is primed for early learning as I was. It is inexcusable to not have established and properly supported reading interventions for children. Environment matters but from a public sector perspective so does prioritization. While I recognize that these may be strong or even triggering statements to some, my intention is to fire up rich, informed conversations about what matters most in our schools.  I see too many educators getting sidetracked by defending literacy program A or B, missing the mark by engaging in the reading wars.  Expert literacy panels and researchers need to run the edge of caution about the conspicuous absence of current classroom teachers at the table. Their voice and lived experience matters. I write this spin from the space of a current district leader and educator who has been struggling with literacy instruction for over two decades. While I am hopeful about the work ahead and appreciative of the direction in our province, I know the improvement loop that systems can get stuck in and the sticky glue of structural ambiguity resulting from misaligned priorities. Again, to quote my colleague, "if you are about everything, then you are about nothing."

So, what are we fighting for and why do the reading wars continue? Getting lost in the “to and fro” debate about literacy methods is not helpful.  It distracts educators from our key priority, all means all.  Every student deserves and requires the best our public education systems have to offer. Cohesive and informed decisions need to continue to be made by educational authorities about how to best meet the reading needs of students and how to resource appropriately. Classroom teachers need to know what they must do to teach students to read and educational leaders need to understand why this needs to be a system priority. With this in mind, it is important to grasp the advancement of reading education from the 1970/80s, through the late 1990s and early 2000s, to the present day. I believe that a retrospective view is more important for educational leaders to discern than stepping into the instructional weeds of how to teach reading. We need to know where we have come from to design where we need to go. At the epicentre of this retrospective is the critical need to land on core instructional essentials for reading and the hope to continue turning the page towards ensuring all means all in our Canadian public schools.

When reading we turn page after page to discover, to learn, to explore and to expand our minds. Sometimes we have to flip back to previous chapters to review the storyline, to go deeper into a plot twist or to rethink characterization. Retrospective thinking assists with gaining new insights, reflections and understandings. In the spirit of backwards design, the following 50 year retrospective outlines the journey of reading instruction in Canadian classrooms.

1970s: Hello Dick and Jane

Alongside of the BeeGees and Eagles, sight words versus phonics were becoming the topics of hot reading debates in the 1970s and early 1980s. Basic reading skills were taught through Dick and Jane style books in which simple sentences, repetitive vocabulary and high frequency sight words emphasized fluency versus decoding. Teachers used strategies like "look and say" and "whole word" approaches to emphasize learning to read by understanding the text without focusing heavily on phonics. Picture cues and predictability, alongside of memorization were anchors of the whole word approach to teaching reading in approximately 70% of early primary classrooms across Canada through the 1970s into the early 1980s.

1980s: Hello Real World and Good Bye Mr. Whiskers

Moving into the early 1980s the need for a more balanced approach to reading instruction was beginning to divide educational forums across our country. While the combination of sight words, simple illustrations and predictable text in readers like Mr. Whiskers appealed to many children, a growing realization was emerging about the broader range of learners in Canadian classrooms. Not every child was enamoured by the whimsical pet tales and not every child was successfully learning to read through whole word pedagogies. While instructional resources such as the nostalgic SRA laboratories supported some teachers exploring phonics-based approaches to decoding and spelling, it was the theories of Goodman and Smith's (1989) whole language movement which began to dominate North American schools.

The gist of the whole language approach is one of exposure. By exposing children to high quality authentic literature and rich print filled learning environments it was believed that such opportunities to construct meaning would in turn teach reading. Whole language word recognition strategies included "ask somebody what it says" or "guess the word" using the context cues like illustrations or following the storyline to figure out what the word may be. Inventive spelling and emergent writing were extensions of the whole language strategy based on the idea that children learn to write through exposure to authentic language experiences. This pedagogical technique spread like wildfire across the continent as beautifully illustrated children's books soon became the number one desired teaching resource in primary classrooms. Emergent writing, inventive spelling phonics and the rejection of systematic teaching of code and sound-symbol correspondence trended throughout the 1980s into the 1990s.

1990s/2000s: Hello Balance

Balancing life is tricky, and so is the complex task of teaching students to read. Throughout the 1990s and into the 21st century, balanced literacy approaches emerged, changing the focus of reading instruction in many Canadian classrooms. This orientation to reading was informed by the theories of Michael Pressley, who argued that neither an exclusive focus on whole language nor reading skills in isolation is sufficient. In his seminal book, Reading Instruction that Works: The Case for Balanced Teaching, Pressley combined attention to whole texts with the teaching of reading skills. Although systematic teaching about letters and phonemes was not a strong part of Pressley's original book, the expansion of his work moving into the 21st century began to change literacy instruction in classrooms.

Since that time researchers such as Richard Allington, Peter Johnson and others have explored how to create a comprehensive and balanced literacy approach. Through utilizing a variety of instructional strategies and targeted instructional approaches to meet the diverse learning needs of students, balanced literacy promotes ways to meet student needs while fostering a love of reading. It is founded on five instructional pillars (a) phonemic awareness, (b) phonics, (c) vocabulary, (d) fluency, and (e) comprehension. Formative assessment, progress monitoring and individualization of reading instruction are key components of balanced literacy programs which pay close attention to student needs and skill mastery. Intervention and assessment emerged as critical aspects of teaching reading fuelled by the intention of leaving nothing to chance.

 2020: Hello Science

While a smoking hot topic in current educational circles, the science of reading is not new. Dating back to the 1830s, the science of reading through the centuries has denoted studies in reading and literacy comprehension. In recent years, researchers and practitioners are bringing brain focused studies and applying educational neuroscience to centre the most effective ways to teach reading. The science of reading is not one-size-fits-all approach, nor is it a doctrine. It is not a program of instruction nor is it focused on discrete units of instruction such as phonics. The science of reading combines insights from the fields of linguistics, psychology, cognitive science and education to understand why some have difficulty and how we can do better to catch every reader before they fall. By using evidence based practices, consistent formative assessment techniques and ongoing progress monitoring, the science of reading identifies seven critical principles that every educator should know:

1. Reading is not a natural skill and must be explicitly taught.
2. Phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension are foundational skills that must be taught systematically and explicitly.
3. Direct, explicit instruction is more effective than implicit or incidental instruction.
4. Effective instruction must be evidence-based and guided by ongoing assessment and progress monitoring.
5. High-quality reading instruction is essential for all students, especially those who are struggling.
6. Engaging instruction that includes multiple modes and senses is more effective than passive instruction.
7. Early intervention is critical for students who are struggling with reading. Source: University of Kansas, 2023

In a rich conversation with an intelligent colleague recently, I was reminded of the active view of reading.  A special thank you to Mary Parackal for once again pushing my thinking with the nudge to look beyond the linguistic processes of reading acquisition. Educators need to think deeply about the competencies and funds of knowledge which students bring to our classrooms.  Without these background pieces teaching reading can slip into a space of rote skill development missing functional application and transference to students' real lives. The active view of reading reminds educators of the substantial role that self regulation plays in learning, leading us back to the critical connection to mental health and well-being in our classrooms. It is imperative to think about how to meet students' reading and behavioural needs concurrently. Frequently students who struggle with behaviour regulation will struggle with utilizing the necessary social skills to engage in group participation and reading instruction. To redesign reading instruction in Canadian classrooms, it's essential to teach self-regulation skills. Additionally, educators need to be aware of the necessity of teacher-student co-regulation as a core design for academic success.

The reality is that literacy, and how we now define it, has changed.  We need our future graduates, tomorrow's leaders, to be able to fluently read the world around them, to be perpetually curious and to desire reading more. Multiple literacies or multi-literacies has become an important aspect of curricular design in all classrooms. Multiple literacies refer to the set of skills needed today so that students can "read" and make sense of the world around them. While there is no singular definition of multiple literacies, examples of this extended definition include (a) visual literacy, (b) textual literacy, (c) global literacy, (d) financial literacy, (e) media literacy, (f) digital literacy, (g) cultural literacy, and (f) social literacy. Literacy is a cross-curricular consideration, making all teachers literacy teachers and reading development a core focus in K-12 classrooms

Our work as district leaders is to enhance and expand teacher expertise. Our work is also to disrupt old excuse making cycles of wagging the pointy "they don’t know what they are doing" finger by leaning into strategically supporting teacher growth, professional learning and ensuring equitable access to educational resources.  Teaching reading is complex and requires in-depth professional focus. In doing so we must acknowledge what classroom teachers know, their context, and the deep knowledge they hold of their students. While evidence-based literacy programs are an indispensable part of the journey ahead, we must be aware of the band wagons that drive through educational circles as we continue to make long term decisions that are sustainable and smart.  Engaging in human centred strategic conversations about improving reading instruction require educational leaders to ensure:

1. educational priorities are articulated (e.g. all students will learn to read).
2. instructional focus is clear (e.g. all students will receive high quality, evidence based instruction based on "just right" reading levels informed by individualized, ongoing progress monitoring).
3. district and school goals are known (e.g. all educators in your school and district should be able to give the quick elevator statement on your top 3 educational priorities, one of which should be literacy).

The title of this spin was intended to provoke. While pitting good and evil at the centre of the debate about reading instruction is not my intention, I do believe we need to recenter priorities in many Canadian classrooms. If I had a loonie for the number of times that I hear, or say, "there isn't enough time", I would be a very wealthy woman. Engaging in dialogic conversations begs educators to participate in ongoing interactions to explore ideas and to build ideas together. Creating space and time for educators to harness the power of talking to stimulate adult thinking will better classroom instructional practices. This is upon us, as system leaders, to create pathways towards the field of learning so that we can use the exceptional knowledge of our profession to ensure all students are thriving in our schools.