![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Reference point [1] is a dead link.
I got here from Emily Hanford's "Sold a Story", a podcast-format longform article series on the persistent use of three-cueing/"whole language"/"balanced literacy" approaches, which described Reading First as an attempt to encourage effective (i.e., phonics-based) literacy instruction in schools.
The last substantive edit was in 2008, and the article focuses on conflicts of interest as well as allegations that it broadly "does not improve students' reading comprehension". There's a sense of 'some people say this, some people say that', with no attempt at synthesis. (As of this writing) the Whole language article is very clearly critical of the concept, but Reading#Effectiveness_of_programs is equivocal, and simply recaps a _lot_ of debates without clearly explaining the state of knowledge.
My goal for now is to: