This is such an excellent piece where you weave so many constructs together to create a powerful message. I don't know how you do this while teaching full time. Amazing. Keep up the good work. I especially like your 3 signal infographic. Kudos to you, Harriet.
"I don't know how you do this while teaching full time." Neither do I! Which is why I'm fortunate that I'm not full-time but on a 3-day a week schedule, which works for both me and my school. But this is exactly why we must do everything we can to make the full-time teacher's job doable because there's no time for teachers to figure this all out on their own. Thank you for your kind words.
Harriett, I am presenting a Keynote to Philadelphia Public School next month. When I talk about Set For Variability, I’d like to use your 3 Signaling Infographic and, of course, give you credit. Would you grant me permission to include it in my slide deck? Many thanks!
This is an amazing piece of writing. Thank you for the passion, the humor, the cultural references, and for the clarity. Reading instruction is not the place for the simplicity longings of Occam's Razor. Readers are different, learners are different, and instruction must be multi-layered. Great job, Harriett!
Thanks so much, Mike! I’m planning a post on Occam’s Razor, and your comment has given me pause. When and how can we make simplicity work for our students? I need to think this through. Thanks for the nudge.
The word gaslighting really stood out to me here, especially because it reflects something I’ve felt in recent conversations—when I’ve shared my experience reading with children and emphasized how decoding first before using context is what helps them most, I’ve sometimes been met with dismissal from folks not in classrooms every day. It’s frustrating, because like you said, if we could just say yes to this, we could go so much further, so much faster.
In my experience, many teachers who identify with balanced literacy already agree with this shift. They might not be loud on social media about it, but they’re making the change in their classrooms—often not because of a citation but because they see it works. It’s not a big leap for most of them; in fact, it’s often a relief. It makes teaching easier, and students move faster in their reading development.
Many still say they’re balanced literacy teachers, because much of what they’ve learned still holds value. But this shift—starting with decoding—has made all the difference.
I’ll keep doing my part by starting with this one big thing in the work I do with teachers and leaders. And I’ll keep sending folks to your Substack—because I agree, if we can get this shared understanding in place, we can move forward to the more nuanced conversations that truly need our attention.
Thank you for such a nuanced thoughts. You used the word “shift” which made me think of Shifting the Balance, a book I haven’t thought about in years. Claude asks how DO we get unstuck. I think you’re offering a template by urging change on what’s non-negotiable but validating existing practices that are not so problematic. Maybe we get unstuck by being less dogmatic about demanding too many shifts that don’t all have compelling research behind them. Keep making these important distinctions.
Harriett, I’m so grateful that this conversation keeps returning to how we actually move forward—because that’s what helps students most. You have a gift for naming things in a way that brings clarity.
I do think some things are absolutely worth being dogmatic about—starting with the foundational role of words and language. But there are other areas where the path is less clear, and we end up going in circles. Just recently, there was an article shared about explicitly teaching handwriting and spelling, while also creating space for drafting that may not always focus on perfect mechanics. The conversation quickly turned into a swirl of sides—each staking a claim. But the truth is, if handwriting and spelling are being taught explicitly, and if students are given time to write with intention, then slight differences in how teachers handle drafting shouldn’t be keeping us up at night.
Another important step forward is avoiding the urge to label everyone as either “science of reading” or “balanced literacy.” Those categories don’t define people’s work in neat packages—and for many, they’ve become more limiting than clarifying. I’ve felt this personally. As someone who has supported writing workshop and balanced literacy models, I often feel gaslit when I hear those entire approaches reduced to caricatures—like “anything goes” writing with no grammar or structure. In reality, much of the work I do is grounded in explicit instruction, sentence-level construction, and strong planning.
If we keep swinging the pendulum too hard, we’ll find ourselves back here in ten years—with “science of reading” educators feeling just as misrepresented and dismissed as many balanced literacy educators feel now. The assumptions being made about entire classrooms and teaching philosophies are too often out of step with what’s actually happening day to day.
I appreciate this space to be in dialogue—not to defend camps, but to keep pushing for the kind of nuance that actually serves students.
"But the truth is, if handwriting and spelling are being taught explicitly, and if students are given time to write with intention, then slight differences in how teachers handle drafting shouldn’t be keeping us up at night."
Leah, you make so much sense! We need to take a step back and just be sensible about our very deliberate decision-making. Thank you!
I found Shifting the Balance to be an excellent approach and I adopted it for my junior level reading course. It’s criticized by many in SoR world. I think getting unstuck will involve just what Harriet said, “urging change on what’s non-negotiable but validating existing practices that are not so problematic”. The new laws play a role but as Claude wrote in his blog, it’s difficult to avoid politics. I keep wishing we’d ask the why question more often. Why read? How does it make us more human? I have no easy answers to these questions, but I love the conversation.
"I found Shifting the Balance to be an excellent approach and I adopted it for my junior level reading course. It’s criticized by many in SoR world."
This is heartening. I can see it being very useful. I would have loved to have been exposed to a book like that during my reading specialist credential program to go with all the research we read. I recall vividly how stunned I was to read a review by an SOR advocate who disparaged the book. She recommended a different one, which I dutifully bought and read. Well--it was dry as toast and just not as accessible as Shifting. If we don't find language that speaks to the teachers we want to shift, we our wasting our breath. Thanks so much for sharing!
Yes Shifting The Balanced was criticized; however it was a super helpful book for many of the educators I support. I even heard someone talk about how it was too gentle and that teachers could handle and needed a complete overhaul. I just don't think that is true at least in some/many cases.
That’s the question and one you’ve been grappling with for many years. If anyone in the reading world doesn’t know how hard you’ve been working to unstick us, it’s because they’ve chosen not to listen and engage. And that’s part of the problem with how stuck we are: selective hearing.
Passionate and accurate! 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
This is such an excellent piece where you weave so many constructs together to create a powerful message. I don't know how you do this while teaching full time. Amazing. Keep up the good work. I especially like your 3 signal infographic. Kudos to you, Harriet.
"I don't know how you do this while teaching full time." Neither do I! Which is why I'm fortunate that I'm not full-time but on a 3-day a week schedule, which works for both me and my school. But this is exactly why we must do everything we can to make the full-time teacher's job doable because there's no time for teachers to figure this all out on their own. Thank you for your kind words.
Harriett, I am presenting a Keynote to Philadelphia Public School next month. When I talk about Set For Variability, I’d like to use your 3 Signaling Infographic and, of course, give you credit. Would you grant me permission to include it in my slide deck? Many thanks!
Another Janetos Gem! Keep them coming, Harriet!
Of course! Good luck.
This is an amazing piece of writing. Thank you for the passion, the humor, the cultural references, and for the clarity. Reading instruction is not the place for the simplicity longings of Occam's Razor. Readers are different, learners are different, and instruction must be multi-layered. Great job, Harriett!
Thanks so much, Mike! I’m planning a post on Occam’s Razor, and your comment has given me pause. When and how can we make simplicity work for our students? I need to think this through. Thanks for the nudge.
Terrific piece!
The word gaslighting really stood out to me here, especially because it reflects something I’ve felt in recent conversations—when I’ve shared my experience reading with children and emphasized how decoding first before using context is what helps them most, I’ve sometimes been met with dismissal from folks not in classrooms every day. It’s frustrating, because like you said, if we could just say yes to this, we could go so much further, so much faster.
In my experience, many teachers who identify with balanced literacy already agree with this shift. They might not be loud on social media about it, but they’re making the change in their classrooms—often not because of a citation but because they see it works. It’s not a big leap for most of them; in fact, it’s often a relief. It makes teaching easier, and students move faster in their reading development.
Many still say they’re balanced literacy teachers, because much of what they’ve learned still holds value. But this shift—starting with decoding—has made all the difference.
I’ll keep doing my part by starting with this one big thing in the work I do with teachers and leaders. And I’ll keep sending folks to your Substack—because I agree, if we can get this shared understanding in place, we can move forward to the more nuanced conversations that truly need our attention.
Thank you for such a nuanced thoughts. You used the word “shift” which made me think of Shifting the Balance, a book I haven’t thought about in years. Claude asks how DO we get unstuck. I think you’re offering a template by urging change on what’s non-negotiable but validating existing practices that are not so problematic. Maybe we get unstuck by being less dogmatic about demanding too many shifts that don’t all have compelling research behind them. Keep making these important distinctions.
Harriett, I’m so grateful that this conversation keeps returning to how we actually move forward—because that’s what helps students most. You have a gift for naming things in a way that brings clarity.
I do think some things are absolutely worth being dogmatic about—starting with the foundational role of words and language. But there are other areas where the path is less clear, and we end up going in circles. Just recently, there was an article shared about explicitly teaching handwriting and spelling, while also creating space for drafting that may not always focus on perfect mechanics. The conversation quickly turned into a swirl of sides—each staking a claim. But the truth is, if handwriting and spelling are being taught explicitly, and if students are given time to write with intention, then slight differences in how teachers handle drafting shouldn’t be keeping us up at night.
Another important step forward is avoiding the urge to label everyone as either “science of reading” or “balanced literacy.” Those categories don’t define people’s work in neat packages—and for many, they’ve become more limiting than clarifying. I’ve felt this personally. As someone who has supported writing workshop and balanced literacy models, I often feel gaslit when I hear those entire approaches reduced to caricatures—like “anything goes” writing with no grammar or structure. In reality, much of the work I do is grounded in explicit instruction, sentence-level construction, and strong planning.
If we keep swinging the pendulum too hard, we’ll find ourselves back here in ten years—with “science of reading” educators feeling just as misrepresented and dismissed as many balanced literacy educators feel now. The assumptions being made about entire classrooms and teaching philosophies are too often out of step with what’s actually happening day to day.
I appreciate this space to be in dialogue—not to defend camps, but to keep pushing for the kind of nuance that actually serves students.
"But the truth is, if handwriting and spelling are being taught explicitly, and if students are given time to write with intention, then slight differences in how teachers handle drafting shouldn’t be keeping us up at night."
Leah, you make so much sense! We need to take a step back and just be sensible about our very deliberate decision-making. Thank you!
I found Shifting the Balance to be an excellent approach and I adopted it for my junior level reading course. It’s criticized by many in SoR world. I think getting unstuck will involve just what Harriet said, “urging change on what’s non-negotiable but validating existing practices that are not so problematic”. The new laws play a role but as Claude wrote in his blog, it’s difficult to avoid politics. I keep wishing we’d ask the why question more often. Why read? How does it make us more human? I have no easy answers to these questions, but I love the conversation.
"I found Shifting the Balance to be an excellent approach and I adopted it for my junior level reading course. It’s criticized by many in SoR world."
This is heartening. I can see it being very useful. I would have loved to have been exposed to a book like that during my reading specialist credential program to go with all the research we read. I recall vividly how stunned I was to read a review by an SOR advocate who disparaged the book. She recommended a different one, which I dutifully bought and read. Well--it was dry as toast and just not as accessible as Shifting. If we don't find language that speaks to the teachers we want to shift, we our wasting our breath. Thanks so much for sharing!
Yes Shifting The Balanced was criticized; however it was a super helpful book for many of the educators I support. I even heard someone talk about how it was too gentle and that teachers could handle and needed a complete overhaul. I just don't think that is true at least in some/many cases.
"I even heard someone talk about how it was too gentle and that teachers could handle and needed a complete overhaul."
Hmmmm. How realistic is a complete overhaul?
Wowee Kazowee! I endorse all the energy behind this. Then I ask—humbly—how DO we get unstuck so we can move ahead?
That’s the question and one you’ve been grappling with for many years. If anyone in the reading world doesn’t know how hard you’ve been working to unstick us, it’s because they’ve chosen not to listen and engage. And that’s part of the problem with how stuck we are: selective hearing.
Powerful.