Exploring the Consequences of Instructional Methods with Margaret Goldberg
In the latest episode of Literacy Talks, we had the privilege of sitting down with Margaret Goldberg from The Right to Read Project. Our conversation centered on a crucial question: Does it really matter how children are taught to read—if they eventually learn? This question, also the focus of one of Margaret’s recent blog posts, is one that many educators, parents, and policymakers have grappled with.
Margaret’s perspective is shaped by her years of experience as both a teacher and literacy advocate. She explains that while some students might learn to read regardless of the method used, the instructional approach profoundly impacts who succeeds, in what ways, how quickly, and at what cost.
The Long-Term Consequences of Ineffective Reading Instruction
Many students taught with a three-cueing approach—relying on pictures, context, and sentence structure to guess words—appear to be reading fluently in early grades. However, as Margaret explains in both our discussion and her blog post, this method can lead to serious long-term consequences.
- Struggling readers go undetected. Since they seem to be reading in early grades, their difficulties aren’t always apparent until later, when texts become more complex and pictures disappear.
- Fluent guessing isn’t real reading. Children may memorize patterns in predictable texts but lack the decoding skills to tackle unfamiliar words, limiting their reading independence.
- Late intervention is costly. When students reach third or fourth grade still struggling with foundational skills, they require intensive intervention, which is both time-consuming and expensive.
Even students who appear to succeed without systematic phonics instruction, may struggle later in life as a result of inefficient word-reading.
- Spelling difficulties persist. Readers who haven’t developed a strong understanding of sound-letter relationships often struggle with spelling for years to come.
- Unfamiliar words become barriers. Without strong decoding skills, readers hit roadblocks when encountering new terminology in advanced texts, limiting their acquisition of new vocabulary.
- Comprehension is impacted. Without automatic decoding skills, readers have fewer mental resources available for understanding what they’re reading, leading to diminished comprehension and reduced learning from texts.
What We Learned from Our Conversation with Margaret
During our podcast discussion, Margaret emphasized that teachers often do their best with the training they’ve received. However, many have been taught approaches that don’t align with what science tells us about reading. She shared her own journey—once a believer in balanced literacy—before realizing that systematic, structured phonics instruction leads to better, faster, and more equitable outcomes.
One powerful takeaway? Three-cueing isn’t just ineffective for some students—it’s detrimental for many. It can make reading seem like a guessing game rather than a skill that can be explicitly taught and mastered.
So, What Can We Do?
Educators need support to transition from ineffective methods to research-based structured literacy. Margaret highlights the importance of:
- Professional learning communities. Teachers need opportunities to study the science of reading together and refine their practice.
- Stronger curriculum choices. Schools should use materials aligned with what we know about how children learn to read—not what merely “feels” effective.
- Early identification and intervention. Schools should assess and support struggling readers before they fall behind.
The Bottom Line
Yes, some students will learn to read no matter how they’re taught. But for too many, ineffective methods delay or even prevent their success. If we want all children to thrive, the how of reading instruction matters immensely.
Read Margaret Goldberg’s full blog post here and listen to our full conversation with her on Literacy Talks here. What are your thoughts? Join the conversation in the Science of Reading Collective!
