Moving Beyond Cueing and Embracing The Science of Reading
Recent results from the 2024 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) underscore a growing literacy crisis: fewer than one-third of U.S. fourth- and eighth-grade students are reading proficiently. This decline in reading performance, exacerbated by pandemic-related disruptions, has reignited scrutiny of long-standing instructional methods—particularly the widely used but increasingly discredited three-cueing system (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2024). To address these concerns, educators and policymakers are shifting toward the Science of Reading, an evidence-based framework that promises greater equity and long-term literacy success.
The Shortcomings of the Three-Cueing System
Historically, the three-cueing system instructed students to identify unknown words by using contextual, syntactic, and graphophonic cues. In practice, this often led to students guessing words based on pictures or sentence structure rather than decoding them (Shanahan, 2020). Though this method was once considered student-centered, cognitive science now reveals its significant limitations.
Key problems include:
Guessing over decoding: Skilled readers recognize words by analyzing all letters and phonemes, not by using partial clues or predicting meaning (Seidenberg, 2017).
Superficial fluency: Students taught with cueing may learn to pronounce words without developing true comprehension, becoming what some call "word callers."
Lack of transferability: Strategies based on cueing fail to support readers as text complexity increases—contributing to the “fourth-grade slump,” where many students begin to fall behind (Moats, 2020).
Inequity: Students with dyslexia or language-based learning differences are disproportionately harmed by non-explicit approaches (Spear-Swerling, 2019).
Ei360 Leadership Lasting Literacy Reform
These issues compound over time, widening achievement gaps and undermining early literacy gains.
The Science of Reading: A Research-Driven Alternative
The Science of Reading draws from decades of interdisciplinary research in education, cognitive psychology, and neuroscience. This approach emphasizes five essential components: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension (National Reading Panel [NRP], 2000). Unlike cueing, these components are taught explicitly and systematically, providing students with the skills needed to decode unfamiliar words, comprehend complex texts, and become independent readers.
Systematic phonics instruction, in particular, has been shown to significantly improve reading outcomes, especially for early learners and students at risk of reading failure (Ehri et al., 2001). When implemented with fidelity, the Science of Reading fosters durable reading proficiency by building foundational skills that generalize across diverse texts and contexts.
Rethinking Professional Development
Although state mandates and curriculum changes increasingly reflect Science of Reading principles, implementation at the classroom level often lags. One major barrier is ineffective professional development (PD). Many teachers have relied on cueing strategies for years, making instructional change difficult without meaningful support.
According to Darling-Hammond et al. (2017), effective PD is:
Ongoing and sustained
Embedded in classroom practice
Tailored to teacher needs
Focused on evidence-based content
Enriched with feedback and reflection
A meta-analysis by Yoon et al. (2007) found that well-designed, sustained PD could boost student achievement by up to 21%. This level of impact underscores the necessity of moving beyond one-day workshops and investing in long-term, job-embedded learning experiences.
Technology as a Tool for Change
Digital platforms like Educational Innovation 360 are transforming how PD is delivered, especially in support of the Science of Reading. These tools offer scalable, personalized professional learning through features such as:
Self-paced coaching cycles and strategy tracking
Classroom video reflection and real-time application
Individualized goal setting and progress monitoring
Access to evidence-based resources and instructional models
When teachers engage in continuous self-reflection with targeted feedback, they are more likely to internalize new practices and adapt instruction effectively (Kraft, Blazar, & Hogan, 2018). Technology enables schools to scale this support equitably, even when staffing or time constraints exist.
Leadership’s Role in Lasting Literacy Reform
School leaders are central to sustaining momentum in the shift from cueing to the Science of Reading. To lead effectively, administrators should:
Audit existing curricula to identify and phase out cueing-based practices.
Set measurable, data-informed literacy goals aligned to the Science of Reading.
Develop multi-year professional learning plans with embedded coaching.
Utilize tools that support personalized, ongoing teacher development.
Celebrate milestones and use data to guide decision-making and growth.
This systemic approach not only supports teacher growth but ensures students receive consistent, high-quality reading instruction.
Conclusion
The move away from the three-cueing system represents more than a pedagogical shift—it is a moral imperative to align instruction with what research confirms works best for all students. Embracing the Science of Reading and providing sustained, evidence-based support for teachers can bridge longstanding literacy gaps and create a generation of confident, capable readers.
References
Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional development. Learning Policy Institute. https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/effective-teacher-professional-development-report
Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S. R., Stahl, S. A., & Willows, D. M. (2001). Systematic phonics instruction helps students learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71(3), 393–447. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543071003393
Kraft, M. A., Blazar, D., & Hogan, D. (2018). The effect of teacher coaching on instruction and achievement: A meta-analysis of the causal evidence. Review of Educational Research, 88(4), 547–588. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654318759268
Moats, L. C. (2020). Teaching reading is rocket science: What expert teachers of reading should know and be able to do (2nd ed.). American Federation of Teachers.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2024). NAEP reading report card for the nation and the states. U.S. Department of Education. https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/
Spear-Swerling, L. (2019). Structured literacy and typical literacy practices: Understanding differences to create instructional opportunities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 51(3), 201–211. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059917750160
Yoon, K. S., Duncan, T., Lee, S. W.-Y., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K. (2007). Reviewing the evidence on how teacher professional development affects student achievement. U.S. Department of Education. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/southwest/pdf/REL_2007033.pdf