Why is Shifting Away from Balanced Literacy Practices So Hard for Teachers?

Recently, I met with a teacher who wanted to discuss some student data and get suggestions for improving her students' literacy skills. She started by showing me the results of a "Words Their Way" spelling inventory and diagnostic assessments. One particular student, an 8th grader, scored at a "within-word pattern" level, which typically spans grades 1–3. This student had less than five months before transitioning to high school, where the focus would shift to preparing for graduation. The teacher shared her concerns about continuing to use the UFLI (University of Florida Literacy Institute) program with this student because she felt it was boring. Instead, she preferred reading texts together with the student, where she did most of the reading, and they discussed the content.

As the lead advocate for the reading revolution in my district, I often encounter similar situations. Teachers genuinely want to do what's best for their students. Many have tried my recommendations, but they firmly believe that reading books together, even if they're below grade level, is the best way to teach reading and that the students do not need phonics instruction. Especially when the students are older.  Despite overwhelming district data showing that the current approach isn’t working, these teachers cling to their methods. I frequently find myself asking, “Why are they so resistant to change when the data is so clear?”

I have come to believe that there are several reasons for this resistance.

The Power of Training in Balanced Literacy Programs

First and foremost, many of these teachers were trained in balanced literacy programs, a philosophy that has dominated teaching methods for years. This training didn’t just come from one source—it's been an ongoing process, with consultants, in-house trainers, and professional learning communities (PLCs) shaping teachers' beliefs. A significant number of reading teachers in my district have also undergone training in Reading Recovery, a prominent program within the balanced literacy framework.

What is Reading Recovery?

Reading Recovery is an intensive literacy program designed to support students who are struggling after one year of schooling (Clay, 1993). The training for this program is rigorous and ongoing, often spanning an entire school year. It includes release time for teachers to participate in training, monthly PLCs, and ongoing support from a Reading Recovery coordinator within the district. This program emphasizes a belief system that guides instruction. Teachers trained in Reading Recovery learn not just the techniques, but the philosophy behind them. The core idea is that the teacher creates an environment where the child can learn independently. The child’s own understanding drives the learning process, and they develop strategies that are “in their head” as they process information from text (Clay, 2015).

Maire Clay, the developer of Reading Recovery, believed that reading and writing are complex processes, and that different children have unique paths to literacy (Clay, 2014). This perspective has shaped the program and been influential in the broader educational community. For teachers trained in this approach, switching to something like phonics instruction can feel rigid and unnatural, even counterintuitive. When I suggest more structured methods, such as explicit phonics instruction, it often clashes with their understanding of how reading should be taught.

The Challenge of Shifting Beliefs and Practices

For many teachers, their teaching methods are central to their professional identity (Feldman, 2019). They’ve been trained to believe that learning should be a natural, enjoyable process, and shifting away from a more flexible, student-driven approach to a structured, explicit one can feel like a betrayal of their core beliefs. This discomfort often comes from the fear that structured literacy practices, like phonics instruction, may stifle students’ curiosity or love for reading. Wexler (2019) noted that teachers may fear their students are simply memorizing information rather than engaging critically with texts or developing a genuine love for reading.

Feldman (2019) referred to this phenomenon as a “web of belief.” Teachers have built an intricate system of ideas around their teaching practices, and changing these beliefs isn’t easy. When presented with new approaches, teachers have two choices: they can reject the new information, or they can adjust their beliefs. However, even when they choose to make changes, they tend to make the smallest possible adjustments to their practices, keeping their “web of belief” largely intact. This process of reconciling conflicting ideas is challenging, and for districts transitioning from balanced literacy to evidence-based approaches, it requires significant time, support, and patience from school leaders.

The Role of Experience in Shifting Beliefs

Fullan (2011) explained that behaviors often change before beliefs do. Teachers may resist new instructional methods until they see their effectiveness in action. Strong research evidence and inspirational visions aren’t enough to change beliefs on their own. It’s the experience of success in the classroom—when teachers see tangible student progress—that helps build confidence in new methods and ultimately shifts their beliefs.

What Can We Do?

To effectively support teachers in implementing evidence-based practices, districts must move beyond merely introducing new programs or relying on a “one-and-done” approach to professional development. Professional learning should not only equip teachers with new knowledge but also provide them with meaningful opportunities to apply and evaluate the effectiveness of these approaches. When teachers experience success firsthand, they are more likely to internalize the value of new strategies, gradually adjusting their “web of belief” to align with evidence-based practices (Feldman, 2019; Fullan, 2019; Wexler, 2019). According to Desimone (2009), effective professional development should focus on content, involve active learning, maintain coherence, offer duration, and foster collective participation. When professional learning opportunities are designed with these principles in mind, teachers are more likely to engage with the content and incorporate it into their practice.

This is what I believe is going on in my district, and I would guess it is going on in many districts. Teachers have been trained quite well in balanced literacy approaches. Teachers remained committed to the philosophies promoted in the training because of the amount of training and support they have received over the years. However, the absence of evidence supporting these approaches led to the adoption of ineffective practices, ultimately hindering student learning.

Next week, I’ll dive deeper into the professional development plan my district has created to help teachers embrace this shift. If this transition is going to work, we must make sure teachers feel supported and invested. It’s not just about giving them a new program; it’s about making them believe in the importance of what they’re doing. This process will take time, money, and resources, but it’s essential. If we’re not committed to teaching students how to read, then what are we committed to?

References

Clay, M. (1993). Reading recovery: A guidebook for teachers. Heinemann.

Desimone, L. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development towards better conceptualization and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181-199.

Feldman, J. (2019). Grading for equity: What it is, why it matters, and how it can help transform schools. Corwin.

Fountas, I. C. & Pinnell, G. S. (2016). Guided reading: Responsive teaching across the grades. Heinemann.

Fullan, M. (2011). Change leader: Learning to do what matters most. Jossey-Bass.

Wexler, N. (2019). The knowledge gap: The hidden cause of America’s broken education system and how to fix it. Avery.