Why So Many Kids Struggle with Reading

                                                               

 

Today I viewed a YouTube video which said that reading is not natural. Read the rest below:

Why So Many Kids Struggle with Reading (And What Needs to Change). For decades, we’ve been teaching reading the wrong way—and the consequences are clear. According to the 2024 National Assessment of Educational Progress, 40% of fourth graders in the U.S. are performing below basic reading levels. While some progress has been made, the reality is that many children are still falling through the cracks.

In this video, I explore:

 

    Why the whole word/whole language approach to reading failed so many kids, and has led so many behind.

    The two schools of thought for learning to read: Whole word/whole language vs Phonics

    How phonics instruction—despite being slower and less glamorous—is backed by science.

    Why we’re not naturally wired to read, and what that means for teaching.

    The impact of the pandemic and why many kids start school unprepared.

    The persistent myths and ideologies that continue to shape (and sometimes block) reading education reform.

💬 Let’s keep this conversation going. What’s your experience with reading instruction—good or bad? Leave a comment!

I commented as follows:

'Well, we are not naturally wired to learn to read.' You said this at minute 5.26. Who told you this nonsense? How can you say such a thing?

 

Here is the reply: @LearningReadingHub

16 hours ago

Thank you for your comment. When I say "we’re not naturally wired to learn to read,"  I’m referring to what brain research has shown: Humans are born with brain circuits for spoken language, but there is no specific "reading center" in the brain. Instead, learning to read means the brain has to reuse and rewire other areas (for vision, language, attention, etc.) to connect print to speech and meaning. Learning to read literally changes our brain. Researchers like Stanislas Dehaene and Maryanne Wolf have described this process as creating a "reading circuit" or "reading brain" that only develops with explicit exposure and instruction. It doesn't appear on its own the way spoken language typically does. That's what I meant with that sentence: not that children can't learn to read, but that reading is a cultural invention, not an inborn skill. Because of that, how we teach really matters, especially for kids who struggle. Hope that makes sense.

 

I replied: @LuqmanMichel

@LearningReadingHub - contact me for further discussion.

Question:

1.     Who are these

people who say things so authoritatively?

 

People with a vested interest—whether financial, academic, or ideological—continue to promote certain ideas about reading difficulties, and these ideas get repeated so often that they are treated as unquestionable truth.

This is why real change feels impossible, even after decades: the false or oversimplified narratives are now deeply embedded in people’s minds.

When I began seriously researching why so many children struggle to read (around 2010), the dominant explanation for dyslexia was a 35-year-old theory claiming that a “phonological awareness deficit” was the root cause. This idea had been the orthodoxy for a generation.

I strongly disagreed. For years I wrote across social media and elsewhere explaining the flaws in that theory. Eventually, around 2017, the phonological-deficit hypothesis was largely debunked in the scientific literature.

So if a phonological awareness deficit is not the primary cause of dyslexia, then what is?

Here’s a crucial point that almost never gets discussed: during the “whole-language” era (roughly the 1980s–1990s) and during the later “phonics-first”/Science of Reading era, millions of children still learned to read successfully under both approaches. Moreover, the percentage of children leaving school with serious reading difficulties has remained remarkably stable—around 30–40 % in most English-speaking countries—regardless of which method was officially in fashion.

If roughly the same proportion of children fail to read proficiently whether we use whole-language methods or intensive systematic phonics, then clearly the core problem cannot simply be “we’re using the wrong method.

”So why is this obvious comparison almost never part of the conversation among educators, policymakers, and reading researchers?