The Right to Read Report: Did they get it right?
The Ontario Human Rights Commission’s Right to Read report has sparked an important conversation about the future of literacy education. While it highlights the failures of outdated methods like whole language and advocates for evidence-based practices rooted in the Science of Reading, it also exposes systemic gaps in how these recommendations are being implemented. Teachers like me are already stretched thin, and the support we’re given often misses the mark. You can read it here.
The Problem with “Whole Language” Reading Instruction
For decades, schools relied on the “whole language” approach to teach reading. This method assumed that reading, like speaking, is a natural process. The idea was simple: immerse students in rich, authentic texts, and they would “pick up” reading skills intuitively.
In practice, this meant minimal phonics instruction. Instead of teaching students to decode words systematically, they were encouraged to guess using context clues, pictures, or initial letter sounds. Strategies like “look at the picture” or “what word makes sense here?” were widespread.
But reading isn’t natural. It requires explicit instruction. Whole language left many students—especially those from less print-rich environments or with learning differences—without the foundational skills needed to decode words and comprehend text. The result? A literacy crisis that we’re still addressing today.
Why the Science of Reading Is a Game-Changer
Unlike whole language, the Science of Reading is grounded in decades of cognitive science and educational research. It recognizes that learning to read requires explicit, systematic instruction. This approach works for all students, including those with dyslexia and other learning difficulties.
Key components of the Science of Reading include:
Phonemic Awareness: Teaching students to recognize and manipulate the sounds in words.
Systematic Phonics Instruction: Explicitly teaching letter-sound relationships in a clear, logical sequence.
Fluency Development: Helping students build automaticity through practice.
Vocabulary and Knowledge Building: Expanding students’ understanding of words and their meanings.
Comprehension Strategies: Teaching students how to actively engage with and understand text.
When implemented properly, the Science of Reading consistently produces better results across all demographics and learning profiles.
The Role of Literacy Coaches: A Missed Opportunity in the Right to Read Report
Last year, we had an incredible literacy coach in our school. She wasn’t just someone who gave advice; she rolled up her sleeves and got involved. She taught teachers how to implement strategies effectively and worked directly with students, moving them quickly through the UFLI manual. The progress we saw was remarkable—students who struggled to decode simple words were suddenly reading fluently. Her impact was felt across the entire school and aligned with the goals outlined in the Right to Read report.
But then the system changed. The board adjusted the job description, removed her from the school, and reassigned new coaches. Now, literacy coaches only provide support for teachers, not students. I can book time with them during my instructional periods—which is nearly impossible when I have a full classroom—or during my planning time. While that might technically work, the reality is I need release time to collaborate effectively.
Both coaches—the one last year and the one this year—are amazing educators and deeply committed to their roles. But the shift in focus has made the position far less impactful. Last year’s coach had the ability to enact real change by working hands-on with students and teachers. This year’s system feels like piecemeal support—quick tips here and there, with no time to dive deeply into meaningful planning or implementation. This misses the mark of what the Right to Read report intends, which is to build sustainable, system-wide improvements in literacy education.
The Tech Barrier: One iPad for 22 Students
And let’s not even get started on technology. In my classroom, I have exactly one working iPad. Just one.
I’ve tried to make it work for programs like Happy Numbers and Lalilo, but how do you get 22 kids through a meaningful block of individualized instruction with one device? It’s impossible and doesn’t reflect the equitable access envisioned in the Right to Read report.
A friend generously gifted me a class set of tablets, but the school board refused to allow them to be connected to the internet because they weren’t board-approved devices. So, they sit unused. These tablets could have transformed my ability to run small-group rotations, give students access to personalized learning, and lighten my workload. But instead, they’re collecting dust because of bureaucracy.
This is the reality of being a teacher today: limited resources, systemic red tape, and high expectations. It’s hard to align with the Right to Read report‘s vision when the technology needed to make literacy accessible for all students is out of reach.
What Needs to Change
For the Right to Read recommendations to succeed, schools and policymakers must invest in effective implementation, not just lip service.
What Schools Must Do:
Revisit Literacy Coach Roles: Allow coaches to work directly with students and teachers, giving them the time and flexibility to make a real impact.
Provide Resources: Supply classrooms with decodable books, high-quality reading materials, and universal screening tools.
Fund Comprehensive Training: Teachers need in-depth, hands-on training in structured literacy approaches like Acadience and UFLI, with enough time to master them.
Overhaul Tech Policies: Allow teachers to use donated devices and ensure classrooms have enough technology for all students to access personalized learning tools.
Support Teachers with Release Time: Give teachers the time to collaborate meaningfully with literacy coaches without sacrificing instructional or planning periods.
What Parents Can Do:
Ask Questions: Find out if your child’s school is using evidence-based reading instruction.
Support Phonemic Awareness at Home: Simple games like clapping syllables or blending sounds can make a big difference.
Advocate for Change: Push for schools to adopt the Science of Reading fully and leave behind ineffective methods like whole language.
Act Early: If your child is struggling with reading, seek additional support sooner rather than later.
Conclusion
The Right to Read report represents progress, but it doesn’t go far enough. By recommending a “balanced” approach, it risks perpetuating the very problems it seeks to solve. As a teacher, I know what works: explicit, systematic instruction rooted in the Science of Reading. But without proper resources, training, and systemic support, it’s impossible to deliver the high-quality instruction that all students deserve.
It’s time for schools and policymakers to move beyond compromise and fully embrace evidence-based reading practices. Only then can we truly give every student the right to read.
