From Excel In Education: The Three-Cueing Systems Model is a flawed literacy instructional practice that teaches students to read based on meaning, structure and syntax, and visual cues—collectively known as “MSV.” While this sounds wonky, it can be boiled down to this: Teachers using this method instruct students to guess. This approach is soundly criticized by many reading experts, because it encourages students to guess, not sound out, words they do not know by using pictures or what they think might make sense given the context of the sentence.

Extensive research has revealed that the practice of three-cueing does more harm than good, yet it persists in many states. It’s found in elementary school classrooms as well as in curriculum used to train up-and-coming teachers.

An EdWeek Research Center survey a few years ago found that 75% of K-2 and elementary special education teachers use the three-cueing method to teach students how to read. The survey also found that 65% of college of education professors were still teaching it.

The science of reading (SoR), on the other hand, is a body of evidence from multiple disciplines that includes strategies for instruction that are tried, scientifically tested and proven to work, as the name suggests. According to reading experts who have successfully improved students’ reading proficiency, the foundational skills taught using SoR are essential for students to become skilled readers and lifelong learners.

Bluegrass Institute

Results on both state and national tests raise important questions about the general lack of effectiveness of reading instruction in Kentucky’s public schools. Evidence from the federal National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) indicates that many Kentucky teachers struggle to provide effective reading instruction.

Dyslexia is a significant developmental disorder that is associated with a host of negative consequences. Most states in the US have recently passed legislation requiring the diagnosis and treatment of dyslexia in school settings. Whereas this legislation brings needed attention to children with dyslexia, diagnosis and treatment are often delayed until several years after school entry. By this time, reading problems and other negative consequences are well underway. In this paper, we argue for an alternative, prevention-based approach that focuses on the early identification of children at risk for dyslexia and the provision of instruction/intervention that is matched to their needs.

Annals of Dyslexia - Springer

A grassroots movement of parents who fear that their children’s reading struggles are going unrecognized at school has led to dyslexia laws in all but three states in the U.S. The current study was undertaken to provide data relevant to this topic by characterizing the reading profiles of 71 children referred for testing at a center specializing in the assessment of reading disabilities. These children were receiving instruction and intervention in reading across the tiers of instructional support in general and special education within their schools. On average, the children demonstrated equivalent deficits in print literacy skills on norm-referenced assessments regardless of the intensity of their reading support, and the majority of children who were only receiving tier 1 instruction exhibited characteristics of dyslexia. Moreover, 69% of children only receiving tier 1 instruction, and all remaining children, performed below benchmark expectations on a curriculum-based measure of oral reading fluency. While these data are not an evaluation of the implementation of the state’s dyslexia laws or the statewide implementation of RTI, they provide data characterizing the real struggles and lack of identification of children whose parents seek an external evaluation of their children’s reading skills. However, they are set in the context of a state in which 66% of public-school children cannot read proficiently by the end of the third grade. The reading struggles highlighted in this clinic referral sample are unexceptional in the larger state context.

Sage Journals

There is profound and long-standing debate over the role of explicit instruction in reading acquisition. In this research, we investigated the impact of teaching regularities in the writing system explicitly rather than relying on learners to discover these regularities through text experience alone. Over 10 days, 48 adults learned to read novel words printed in two artificial writing systems. One group learned spelling-to-sound and spelling-to-meaning regularities solely through experience with the novel words, whereas the other group received a brief session of explicit instruction on these regularities before training commenced. Results showed that virtually all participants who received instruction performed at ceiling on tests that probed generalization of underlying regularities. In contrast, despite up to 18 hr of training on the novel words, less than 25% of discovery learners performed on par with those who received instruction. These findings illustrate the dramatic impact of teaching method on outcomes during reading acquisition.

APM Reports - Emily Hanford

A first of its kind review finds Lucy Calkins' materials don't align with the science of reading.

Most Americans have likely never heard of Lucy Calkins, but their children's teachers probably have. Calkins, a professor of education at Columbia University, has created one of the nation's most widely used reading instruction programs, and, according to a groundbreaking new report, the program is deeply flawed.

Stanford News

Stanford Professor Bruce McCandliss found that beginning readers who focus on letter-sound relationships, or phonics, increase activity in the area of their brains best wired for reading.

Beginning readers who focus on letter-sound relationships, or phonics, instead of trying to learn whole words, increase activity in the area of their brains best wired for reading, according to new Stanford research investigating how the brain responds to different types of reading instruction.