The Literacy Crisis 101: Why Children Can’t Read? How Misguided Reading Methods Created a Reading Crisis

Although there’s been growing awareness in recent years about the literacy crisis we’re facing, the truth is that, for decades, reading was taught the wrong way.

Yes, things are slowly improving, and some positive changes have taken place—but we’re far from where we need to be!

And stats speak for themselves: according to the 2024 National Assessment of Educational Progress, 40% of fourth graders in the U.S. are performing below basic reading levels. This isn’t a new issue—scores were already low in 2019 and 2022, with many attributing the decline to the pandemic. But now, in 2024, results are even worse: three points lower than in 2022 and six points lower than in 2019, marking historic lows in reading performance.

And things don’t look much better for eighth graders, where the stats show that one third (33%) are also reading below the basic level, showing a troubling pattern that continues well into middle and high school.

Why is the Reading Crisis only getting worse?

Data is really alarming. What is going on? How did we let this happen?

Obviously, the pandemic happened—and everyone agrees we are still feeling the effects, and paying the consequences. However, I believe there is something else going on…

Even though there’s been a growing awareness of the problem (we were probably at that exact point of raising awareness of the reading crisis, and that we’ve been using the wrong methods for teaching reading for way too long), that awareness hasn’t really translated into deep and meaningful change in the classroom.

Plus, some people are still stuck -and let’s be honest, probably will continue to be stuck-in their old ways.

How can that be? Why?

Some will reason that they saw how kids learned to read “just fine” using the “old methods,” and that this “new wave” of phonics is just a fad…

What’s probably really hard for them to understand is that these kids learned to read DESPITE of the methodology, rather than thanks to it.

Some kids manage to figure things out, no matter what system you throw at them. Unfortunately, many others don’t… and they are left behind, relying on coping strategies, struggling with reading, and never reaching their full potential at reading.

And just to be clear: these kids aren’t stupid. Not at all! That’s not what this is about!

So… again, what’s going on?

I think it’s worth looking back to understand why reading was taught the wrong way for so long. Because this didn’t happen overnight—this went on for decades!

And the ripple effects are still very present today… change does take time!

Reading Instruction: The Two Schools of Thought

When it comes to learning to read, there are basically two schools of thought.

On one side, you have the whole-word/whole-language approach to teaching reading. On the other, phonics. Now, within phonics there are different type of phonics, and not all of them are so effective. Then, there’s also a mix between phonics and whole word called “balanced literacy.” However, to keep things simple, let’s stick with the two broad categories: whole-word approach vs. the phonics approach.

The whole-word approach is built on the idea that we are naturally wired to learn to read, in the same way we are naturally wired to speak our native language.

For them, in order to teach children to read, you just need to surround them by books, read to them, and nurture a love for reading. They also believe phonics is too confusing and boring. So, instead of focusing on how words work or teaching sound-letter relationships, kids are asked to memorize long lists of words, and use different strategies to “remember” them.

If they get stuck in a word while reading, children will be encouraged to guess by looking at the picture, by the context or by looking at the first-letter. In their opinion, getting all words 100% right isn’t so important, as long as the meaning or the story doesn’t change a lot. At the end of the day, we read to comprehend, so full accuracy when reading is not crucial.

This method has so many flaws, but before going through them, let’s talk about the other school of thought: phonics.

The phonics approach takes a very different route. With phonics, children learn letter-sound correspondences, and, then, learn to blend the letter sounds to read words. It’s more methodical and structured, and yes- it can feel a bit slow at first.

Why? It takes time to learn the letter sounds and master the skill of blending. Besides, the books children are able to read in the beginning are limited. Progress can seem like taking baby steps!

However, the beauty of it is that once you build a solid foundation (gradually, piece by piece) you learn the phonetic code. That means you don’t have to rely on rote memory, guesses or tackling each word from scratch – you can simply resort to the code.

Can you guess what approach became really popular in the eighties and the nineties?

What approach to teaching reading become popular the ’80s and ’90s?

The approach to teaching reading that become really popular is the ’80s and ’90s is the whole-language approach. The one based on the idea we are naturally wired to learn to read, and that all kids need is exposure to books.

Well… It turns out we’re not naturally wired to learn to read. This approach starts with the wrong premise- with a beautiful fantasy! I truly wish we were wired to learn to read, it would be so nice and simple… but it just isn’t true!

If we were naturally wired to learn to read, there wouldn’t be illiterate people in the world. People who were never taught how to read or write… and guess what? They don’t know how to read or write! They don’t magically pick it up just by being around books.

This belief (that reading will just “click” if you are around books) is very appealing. I get it. It sounds lovely: all you need to do is surround your kids with beautiful literature, and hope that it “casts some kind of spell” on them, and they magically learn to read.

It’s important to see this for what it is- a belief, an ideology, a philosophy. It isn’t based on scientific evidence. Moreover, the scientific evidence points in the opposite direction – more on this later!

Another reason why I believe it can be so alluring is because, in a way, it shifts the responsibility from the teacher to the student. Think about it: if we are all naturally wired to read, and a child isn’t reading, then… it’s not the teacher’s fault. It must be the kid’s issue.

This ideology also paints a beautiful picture: kids growing up surrounded by beautiful books and literature. Isn’t that beautiful? Phonics is more effort, not as romantic as “just read books” and you’ll learn (even though, this is important of course, and being read from an early age), and, yes, it can feel repetitive at times.

Unfortunately, for the whole word proponents, science came along.

Over the past decade, we’ve witnessed a true revolution in neuroscience, with our understanding of the brain expanding at an unprecedented pace.

Research into the brain has revealed something crucial- It turns out we are not hardwired to learn to read.

In other words, we don’t have a single, specialized system solely dedicated to reading in the brain. We “recycle” and repurpose multiple brain regions.

Reading and writing are relatively new inventions, in evolutionary terms, and our brains simply haven’t had time to naturally adapt to the writing system.

Humans have likely been capable of speech and language for at least 200,000 years. The first known writing system is only 6,000 years old.

Reading is not a visual memory task, either. That is another KEY idea of the whole-word/language approach: the thought that we store words visually, in the same way we store faces or objects.

It turns out, though, that asking children to memorize words in their visual memory is a super inefficient strategy, and they are destined hit a wall at some point. It’s like setting them up for failure- We simply can’t store that many words in our visual memory!

Why were some children showing faster results in the first year of reading instruction using the whole-language approach?

That was the feel-good boost that made everyone happy until their progress stalled. Kids appeared to be reading quickly, but that early progress was misleading.

This is what was likely happening…

Whole-language instruction focused heavily on memorizing whole words. In the early stages, this was still manageable. Children were asked to memorize a limited set of common words—something most could do using their visual memory. In contrast, students being taught with a phonics-based approach were still working through letter-sound correspondences, blending, and decoding simple words. Their pace seemed slower at first, but they were actually building a strong foundation for long-term success.

Whole-language classrooms also relied heavily on predictable texts—books with repetitive sentence structures and picture cues. These books allowed children to “read” by guessing based on context, repetition, and illustrations, not necessarily by recognizing the actual words. This made them appear fluent, but it wasn’t true reading—it was pattern recognition and guessing. More information on this here!

The problem?

Visual memorization only takes you so far. Once the word lists grew and the texts became more complex, these students collapsed. They hadn’t learned how to decode unfamiliar words, and their guessing strategies no longer worked. Meanwhile, students who had built decoding skills through phonics could handle increasingly complex words and texts with confidence.

So, yes, the early results with whole-language looked promising—but only on the surface. The long-term effect tells a different story.

Why Reading Isn’t a Visual Memory Task

Reading is a language-based skill, not a visual memory task, as we’ve learned before. In fact, studies have shown that there isn’t a strong correlation between visual memory skills and reading ability. 

The visual memory system (mainly in the right hemisphere) is not the main player in reading. On the contrary, reading is processed heavily in the left side of the brain.

In fact, when the visual region of the brain is primarily engaged, it’s a sign that something is off-we are using the wrong part of the brain to do the job.

The visual memory system is great at recognizing a dog, remembering your best friend’s face or remembering how the place where you grew up looked like, but it’s not so good at remembering words.

There are also some everyday clues that tell us reading goes beyond visual memory:

• We can read words in mixed-case letters without issue (LiKe ThIs).
• We easily recognize words across various fonts, in print, cursive, or even messy handwriting.
• Word recognition is faster than object recognition, suggesting we are using different storage and retrieval processes.

All of this points to the same conclusion: reading is not just a visual skill—it’s a learned linguistic process built through specific instruction, not visual memorization.

Are teachers properly trained in Phonics?

Historically, most elementary school teachers were not given proper training in phonics. Instead, many were taught to rely on the balanced literacy approach, which emphasized exposure to literature and encouraged strategies like guessing words.

However, in recent years several states are mandating that teachers receive training in the “Science of Reading,” which includes a focus on phonics.

Why We’re Still Catching Up on Reading Instruction

This is how we have ended up in this messy situation. To be fair, the “balanced literacy” approach tried to strike a middle ground between phonics and the whole-language approach. Unfortunately, in practice, most of the time it leaned on word memorization, with a little bit of phonics here and there, in a very scattered way.

For a long time, reading instruction was just… off.

When the pandemic hit in 2020/2021, I think we were still in that early “awareness“ phase—starting to realize just how flawed the system was, but still fighting about it. There was denial, resistance, and—let’s be honest—personal and professional interests tied to the whole-word camp that kept the debate going.

That said, I’ve also seen positive change. For example, at my daughters’ school, my youngest is learning to read with phonics, and there’s a clear sequence and structure. But, then, she still brings home… leveled readers! The whole-word/language approach landmark! They haven’t fully embraced the change.

And, I get it. Among other things, it’s a big financial investment.

Another piece of the puzzle: I believe that, due to the pandemic, many children didn’t really have the opportunity to build the foundational skills they needed so reading instruction could work and truly be successful… even phonics instruction!

I am talking about pre-reading skills, such as letter sounds, the alphabet, or basic sound awareness skills.

So, what happened then?   When these kids started school, while the teacher may have gone over those basics (letter knowledge, the alphabet, etc.), she/he also had to move fast. There is a lot to cover, and this is something children are expected to have worked on previously, most likely in a playful way(songs, games, etc.)

This is so crucial. Unfortunately, I think many children start school completely unprepared for “formal” reading instruction. That is, without the foundational skills they need to succeed—and this alone can set them back and cause reading struggles.

Conclusion

Change is slow, and not necessarily linear. There are many actors involved and often opposing forces at play. After decades of whole-language being the dominant model for literacy instruction, we became deeply invested in it. A whole belief system—an empire, really—was built around it: textbooks, teacher training programs, classroom materials, even university curricula.

Thankfully, the winds are shifting. At the very least, there’s growing awareness. And while we’ve known since the year 2000—thanks to the National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis—that phonics-based instruction is more effective, it has taken far too long to see that knowledge turn into widespread action.

The shift is happening, yes—but not as fast or as thoroughly as it should. Change like this isn’t just about swapping materials or rolling out new programs. It’s a major investment—financially, logistically, and emotionally. As Dr. Mark Carter puts it brilliantly in this article, it can feel “like asking someone to change religion.” It runs that deep. And when something feels like a personal attack, resistance is almost guaranteed.

But as parents, we can’t afford to wait! Our kids only get one shot at learning to read the right way—and that time is now!

Resources and Further Reading

• Results for the 2024 NAEP Reading Assessment https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reports/reading/2024/g4_8
• The National Reading Panel Year 2000
  https://www.nichd.nih.gov/sites/default/files/publications/pubs/nrp/Documents/report.pdf
• Like Asking someone to Change Religion
  https://educationhq.com/news/like-asking-someone-to-change-religion-expert-says-cognitive-bias-at-root-of-educations-bad-ideas-191770/
• Whole Word VS Phonics:Whole Word vs Phonics – Reading Wars! – Understanding the Differences between these 2 Approaches
• The Reading Brain: A guide to Understanding dyslexia and the dyslexic brain – My take on the book Reading in the Brain
• Sight Words Series (1) – Understanding High-Frequency Words Once at For All: Sight Words Series: Demystifying SIGHT WORDS Once and For All – What Does Data Really Reveal about High-Frequency Words?
• Sight Words Series (2) – How to Teach Sight Words Using Phonics: How to Teach High Frequency Words Using Phonics? A New Approach to Teaching Sight Words!
• How to Teach Sight Words Series (3)- Struggling Reader: How to teach sight words to struggling readers? The Phonetic Flashcard Method to SIGHT WORDS

Prefer to Watch? Watch the video on YouTube

---