I’ve been listening to outstanding podcast titled “Sold a Story,” an eight-part investigative series hosted by journalist Emily Hanford. Launched in October 2022, “Sold a Story.” This podcast examines the widespread use of an ineffective (and often counter-productive) reading instruction method used in many U.S. schools. This method, heavily promoted by Lucy Calkins, author of the “Units of Study”, was one of the most widely used reading curricula in U.S. elementary schools after its introduction in 1987. This method, which intentionally discourages the use of phonics, has been so firmly embedded in grade school curricula that it continues to be used in many schools despite decades of cognitive science showing that kids learn far better when they are taught significant amounts of phonics. “Sold a Story” exposes how millions of children struggle to read (even now as adults) because schools relied on Calkins’ thoroughly debunked theories, often referred to as “balanced literacy” and “whole language.”

The focus of the “Sold a Story” is this: Why do so many American schools continue to use reading curricula rooted in such a flawed idea that children can learn to read primarily by guessing words using context clues or pictures, rather than systematically decoding words through phonics? Calkins’ approach, influenced by figures like Marie Clay and perpetuated by popular authors and publishers somehow ignored the “science of reading,” research showing that explicit phonics instruction is a critical component for most children to become proficient readers. The series also highlights the horrific consequences of excluding phonics—65% of current U.S. fourth graders are not proficient readers.

[Note and Spoiler Alert: Lucy Calkins began incorporating phonics into the Units of Study for Teaching Reading curriculum with the release of her newest method, called the Units of Study in Phonics in 2021. This was in response to growing criticism, including the criticism levied by the “Sold a Story” podcast. Calkins’ updated method includes phonics primarily in K-2 classrooms to supplement the core reading curriculum, aiming to address foundational skills like decoding. In her current method, phonics is still deemphasized for grades 3 and beyond.]

Lucy Calkins agreed to be interviewed by Emily Hansford in 2021 after previously rebuffing Hansford. For me, this interview was gripping–I’ve transcribed it below. What would Calkins say after causing such widespread damage to millions of children? Well, this interview revealed Calkins’ lack of integrity and an unwillingness to fall squarely on her sword. She just couldn’t bear to admit that she refused to look at the science of reading while creating and promulgating her flawed method. This willful ignorance occurred while Calkins was the nation’s de facto rock star of reading education. For years, the science of reading demonstrated that her method was harming children by teaching them to pretend to read. Many kids are wired such that they learned to read despite the fundamental flaws of Calkins’ original method but, as indicated above, many other students were left behind, some of them for life. The following is from Episode 6:

Hansford:

This is Lucy Calkins in March of 2021, it’s her zoom office hours. And in this office hours, she announces that Heinemann [publisher of Calkins’ reading method] will be releasing a new edition of her units of study for teaching reading. She says she and her team have been rewriting the curriculum to reflect what they have learned about the science of reading.

Calkins:

We fixed up a few of the places where the science of reading has been, you know, pointing out we were like messed up.

Hansford:

She says there are things she regrets, things she should have done differently. I wanted to ask her about all this. I had written to her in 2019 to try to get an interview. She didn’t respond. But when I emailed her last year, she got back to me right away … I was in my home office. She was at her house …

[Hansford, interviewing Calkins]

So we’re meeting today because there are some things that you are rethinking about how to teach reading. Can you tell me what led to that? Like, was there a particular moment or experience that you can can you walk me through that?

[Calkins being interviewed]

Well, I think the important thing to know is that we are always rethinking. So it’s not a new it’s not a new idea that we’re rethinking. And the other thing there’s always new research coming, or just research that’s new to us.

[Hansford]

She brings up research about how readers map the written form of a word into their memory. There’s a technical term for that process that I spared you when I was describing it in episode two. It’s called orthographic mapping.

[Calkins being interviewed:]

So I think it’s really been learning from you and other science of reading researchers the importance of orthographic mapping and being convinced, as we worked with teachers and in classrooms, you know, being convinced that that was something that we could benefit from changing, on that account,

[Hansford, interviewing Calkins]

Is this idea of orthographic mapping something that is new to you? Like when, when did you begin to understand that what that is?

[Calkins being interviewed:]

Well, there’s understand, and there’s understanding, there’s understand. You know, I find that you learn and you relearn, and you relearn and you relearn, but, but it’s, it’s certainly become more important in our writing and our teaching and our thinking. Yeah, and I, and I am grateful to the science of reading research for making it so prominent? Because, yeah, I think you called attention to it, and we think that you were right about that.

[Hansford]

I wanted to understand what she used to believe about how kids learn to read back in the late 90s, when she was working on her book about how to teach reading.

[Hansford, interviewing Calkins]

What was your understanding at that point? Do you think of how kids learn to read? Like, how does that happen?

[Calkins being interviewed:]

Yeah, I really can’t go back and recall what, what I what mine was, yeah. I mean, I could do, I can look at the book again, and maybe I could dig it back, you know, dig up what I was thinking then. But I can’t really recall it.

[Hansford]

What I’m trying to figure out is, why didn’t she know about the research that she now knows about? Why didn’t she know about it sooner?

[Hansford, interviewing Calkins]

So much of this research isn’t new, and this idea that readers use context, multiple sources of information, to solve words, identify words as they’re reading, that was really taken on by researchers back in the 70s and 80s as an interesting question, like, is that what we do? And they showed quite definitively that that wasn’t the case. I mean, were you sort of aware of that research and how clear that was already by the 90s?

[Calkins being interviewed:]

Again, you’re asking me to go back and figure out what was in my mind at one point or another. Um, but I would say that that you have to remember that that research was not, I don’t think that there were classrooms that were doing classroom-based methods that were exciting and poignant and beautiful, and, you know, getting kids on fire as readers and writers that were using that, that chain of thinking, it was part of an entire Gestalt that was different than ours.

So, and I’m not trying to say if I’m right or not, but I think that was my impression. I think this impression is one reason that instruction aligned with scientific evidence has had a tough time gaining traction in schools.

[Hansford]

Good reading instruction isn’t boring for children. Maybe adults find parts of it boring. But this shouldn’t be about what adults want. It should be about what kids need, and there’s no reason that reading instruction aligned with scientific evidence can’t be exciting and beautiful. I think Lucy Calkins sees it that way now too, because instruction aligned with the science of reading is what she says she’s now selling.

How could it be that the best known reading guru in the U.S., who wrote a method book that was used by tens of millions of children, and who lectured all over the country, couldn’t remember her own reasoning for her reading method? I would translate her nonsensical answer follows: She had a come to Jesus moment when she realized that her method was hurting millions of children. It had become clear that she recklessly or intentionally ignored established science when she created her reading method and her reputation was crashing.

One might wonder why “experts” would chose a reading method that fails the majority of children who want to learn to read. In Episode 6, Hansford explains:

I realized that the people in this room have bought into a definition of reading that isn’t really reading. They’ve bought the idea that reading is making meaning from a story using whatever strategies you can think of. You can look at the pictures, you can look at parts of the words. You can think about what would make sense. They’ve bought into the cueing idea, the idea that a child can read a book without being able to read the words.

And here’s why, I think they bought that idea. They want kids to be able to make meaning from a story. Everybody wants that. That’s the goal, to understand what you read. The question is, how does a little kid get there? And the answer is, they have to learn how to read the words. They have to get good at that.

But learning how to read words is hard for a lot of kids. They need explicit instruction, repetition and practice before they can curl up in a cozy nook and read a book on their own. And I think people with good intentions wanted to get kids curled up with books in cozy nooks as fast as they could. They wanted to get kids to the good part. And they ended up teaching them shortcuts that don’t get a lot of kids to where they need to go.

As I listened to “Sold a Story,” I couldn’t help but think of the many systemic failures exposed during the COVID-19 pandemic. In both cases, entrenched institutional practices, including the refusal to allow wide-open debate, led to widespread harm because they ignored basic evidence.

I asked Grok to compare the systemic failures in the reading industry/education and those related to the COVID-19 response. This analysis draws on the critiques of Calkins’ methods (e.g., balanced literacy, cueing systems) and the documented issues in public health and policy responses to COVID-19. Both cases reflect a broader issue of trusting “experts” without scrutiny. Calkins’ charisma and public health’s authoritative messaging suppressed dissent, delaying evidence-based reforms. The following chart synthesizes the systemic failures while acknowledging the distinct contexts of education and public health.

Comparison Chart: Systemic Failures in Reading Education vs. COVID-19 Response

I also asked Grok to calculate the extent of the harm to children resulting from adoption of Calkins’ widely used 1987 curriculum. Grok’s response:

It’s tough to pin down an exact number of children harmed by Lucy Calkins’ reading methods, as no comprehensive study has quantified this impact with precision. Estimates and critiques, however, suggest a significant scale due to the widespread adoption of her Units of Study curriculum, which was used in roughly 25% of U.S. elementary schools at its peak, affecting millions of students over decades. The “Sold a Story” podcast and related reporting highlight that her balanced literacy approach, emphasizing cueing over phonics, contributed to poor reading outcomes, with national data showing over 60% of fourth graders not reading proficiently since the 1990s. Critics argue this approach particularly failed struggling readers, including those with dyslexia (about 20% of students) and low-income students, who faced long-term academic setbacks. For context, a 2011 study noted that third graders not reading proficiently are four times more likely to drop out of high school, a risk amplified for minority and poor students. While direct causation is debated, and Calkins began incorporating phonics in 2018, the curriculum’s flaws likely impacted tens of millions indirectly through systemic literacy challenges, though exact figures remain elusive.

1. Scale of Adoption
Lucy Calkins’ Units of Study for Teaching Reading, developed through the Teachers College Reading and Writing Project (TCRWP), was one of the most widely used reading curricula in U.S. elementary schools. Key points on its reach include:
• Prevalence: A 2019 Education Week survey estimated that 16% of K-2 teachers used Units of Study as their core reading program, with some sources, like Calkins herself, claiming up to 25% of the nation’s 67,000 elementary schools adopted it at its peak.
• Geographic Spread: The curriculum was mandated in New York City public schools starting in 2003 under Chancellor Joel Klein, affecting over 1 million students annually in the nation’s largest school district. It was also used in thousands of schools across states like California, Massachusetts, and Michigan.
• Duration: The curriculum has been in use since the 1980s, with widespread adoption from the early 2000s until the early 2020s, when criticism and policy shifts began reducing its use. This spans roughly two decades of significant influence.
Estimate: With approximately 50 million public school students annually in the U.S. and assuming 16–25% of elementary schools (serving roughly 20 million K-5 students) used the curriculum over 20 years, tens of millions of students were exposed to Units of Study. For a conservative estimate, let’s assume 20% of K-2 students (about 4 million annually) were taught with it, totaling roughly 40–50 million students over two decades.
2. Evidence of Inefficacy
The Units of Study curriculum, rooted in balanced literacy and emphasizing strategies like three-cueing (guessing words from context, pictures, or syntax), has been criticized for lacking alignment with the science of reading, which prioritizes systematic phonics instruction. Key evidence includes:
• Research Reviews: A 2020 Student Achievement Partners (SAP) report, reviewed by prominent reading researchers, concluded that Units of Study was “unlikely to lead to literacy success for all of America’s public schoolchildren,” particularly due to insufficient phonics and vocabulary instruction. It noted that students needing explicit instruction—those not already primed to read—were at risk of falling behind.
• EdReports Critique: A 2021 EdReports review found that K-5 Units of Study materials did not meet expectations for text complexity, foundational skills, or standards alignment, relying heavily on cueing strategies disproven by cognitive science.
• Achievement Data: A 2021 Georgia Policy Labs study found small negative effects on reading achievement in grades 1–3 for students using Units of Study compared to peers using other programs, with slightly positive but statistically insignificant effects in grades 4–5.
• National Literacy Crisis: National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) data shows persistent low reading proficiency, with 65% of fourth graders reading at or below basic levels in 2019. While not solely attributable to Calkins, the dominance of balanced literacy curricula like hers is widely cited as a contributing factor.
Implication: The curriculum’s reliance on cueing over phonics likely hindered decoding skills for many students, particularly those without strong home literacy support or with learning challenges like dyslexia.
3. Demographic Impacts
The harm from Units of Study was not evenly distributed, disproportionately affecting vulnerable groups:
• Low-Income Students: Students from low-income households, who often lack access to books or parental reading support, relied heavily on school instruction. The SAP report noted that these students were less likely to succeed with Units of Study’s unsystematic approach.
• English Language Learners (ELLs): The curriculum provided insufficient guidance for supporting ELLs, who need explicit phonics and vocabulary instruction to build literacy.
• Students with Dyslexia: Approximately 20% of students have dyslexia or related reading difficulties. Units of Study’s minimal phonics focus failed to meet their needs, often requiring costly private tutoring. A 2017 Berkeley lawsuit highlighted how dyslexic students struggled under the curriculum.
• Racial Disparities: In New York City, where Units of Study was prevalent, 2019 state tests showed only 35% of Black and 37% of Hispanic students in grades 3–8 were reading proficiently, compared to over two-thirds of white and Asian students. These gaps widened under balanced literacy.
Estimate: Assuming 50% of students exposed to Units of Study (20–25 million) were from low-income, ELL, or dyslexic groups, and considering that these groups were most likely to struggle without explicit instruction, roughly 10–12.5 million students may have been significantly disadvantaged.
4. Long-Term Consequences
The failure to develop strong reading skills in early grades has cascading effects:
• Academic Outcomes: A 2011 national study found that third graders not reading proficiently are four times more likely to drop out of high school, with the risk rising to eight times for Black or Hispanic students in poverty.
• Economic Impact: Poor literacy correlates with lower earnings and higher unemployment. The National Center for Education Statistics links low literacy to billions in economic losses annually.
• Social Costs: Struggling readers face higher risks of behavioral issues, incarceration, and reduced civic engagement, as literacy underpins broader learning and critical thinking.
Implication: The subset of students who failed to achieve proficiency due to Units of Study likely faced these long-term risks, amplifying the curriculum’s harm beyond immediate academic metrics.
5. Challenges in Quantification
Several factors complicate an exact count:
• Lack of Direct Causation: Poor reading outcomes stem from multiple factors (teacher training, home environment, school resources), not just curriculum. Isolating Units of Study’s impact is difficult.
• Varied Implementation: Some schools supplemented Units of Study with phonics, mitigating harm, while others followed it rigidly.
• Data Gaps: No national study tracks curriculum-specific outcomes over time. Anecdotal evidence, like parent lawsuits and teacher reports, suggests significant harm but lacks scale.
• Calkins’ Revisions: Starting in 2018, Calkins incorporated more phonics into Units of Study, potentially reducing harm in later years, though critics argue these changes were insufficient.
6. Reasoned Estimate
Based on the above:
• Total Exposed: Approximately 40–50 million K-5 students over two decades, assuming 20% of elementary schools used the curriculum.
• Students Harmed: Not all students failed to learn under Units of Study; those with strong home support or innate reading ability often succeeded. However, the SAP report suggests that students needing explicit instruction—roughly 50–60% of learners, including low-income, ELL, and dyslexic students—were at risk. Applying this to the exposed population, 20–30 million students may have experienced suboptimal reading instruction.
• Significant Harm: Focusing on vulnerable groups (low-income, ELL, dyslexic), who comprised about 50% of students and were most likely to struggle, an estimated 10–15 million students likely faced significant reading challenges attributable to the curriculum’s flaws. This includes students requiring remediation, tutoring, or facing long-term academic setbacks.
7. Critical Perspective
While Calkins’ curriculum is heavily criticized, defenders argue it fostered a love of reading and worked for some students, particularly those with strong foundational skills. The broader context of teacher training deficiencies and inconsistent implementation also shares blame. However, the consensus among reading researchers, amplified by Emily Hanford’s “Sold a Story” podcast, is that balanced literacy’s reliance on cueing over phonics systematically disadvantaged millions, particularly those most dependent on schools for literacy. The recent Massachusetts lawsuit against Calkins and her publisher alleges “fraudulent marketing,” reflecting parental frustration over hidden costs like tutoring.

Conclusion

A conservative estimate suggests 10–15 million children, primarily from vulnerable groups, were significantly harmed by Lucy Calkins’ Units of Study due to its ineffective reading instruction, with broader impacts potentially affecting 20–30 million students to varying degrees. This estimate accounts for the curriculum’s widespread use, its documented shortcomings, and the disproportionate impact on low-income, ELL, and dyslexic students. The true number could be higher or lower due to implementation variations and confounding factors, but the scale of the literacy crisis—65% of fourth graders below proficiency in 2019—underscores the curriculum’s role in a systemic failure.

I highly recommend “Sold a Story,” even though it might have over-focused on phonics. I heard from a friend who teaches reading at the grade school level that the “science of reading” isn’t a monolith. Even though Calkins was wrong to intentionally exclude phonics from reading education, there is more to reading than phonics. Still, the podcast has been sparking important conversation and reform nationwide, completely restoring phonics to its rightful place in the reading curriculum will take time and require teacher training and support.