Beyond the Hero and the Heel: Keeping the Science in the Science of Reading

It’s been a while since I last wrote an article. And I must apologize, for this blog post, I will be taking a far different direction than normal. Usually, I try  to unpack quantitative research on a contentious pedagogy. But today, I was hoping to unpack my own feelings on discussing ideas vs people. When I first started writing about education in 2018, I was much more confident than I am now. I was fresh off of reading visible learning for the first time. And considered myself a veteran teacher after just 7 years of teaching experience. It seems laughable in retrospect. But it started me on a journey that I think has improved my life for the better, so I’ll try not to be too judgey.

One of my first articles was a criticism of Teaching to Learning Styles. I tore into Howard Gardner, a scholar with decades of experience, a PhD holder from Harvard university and an internationally famous professor. I was convinced that his theories regarding learning styles were wrong and I was frustrated by teacher training programs that taught his theories as gospel. When I wrote my first book, I made sure I had a chapter criticizing his ideas. Both the chapter and the article were full of adjectives and absolutes. Similarly, in 2019, I wrote an equally overconfident and fiery response article to two Whole Language scholars that claimed there was no evidence phonics was effective in, in the UK. It was my first article to go semi viral and at the time I was quite proud of my “take-down” piece. 

 

Focusing on individuals can be a powerful tool for engagement. Marketing research has long shown that advertisements, which use storytelling are more effective (Woodside, Sood & Miller, 2008). Take “professional wrestling”, despite being completely fake, it has endured decades of success. Part of its success comes from its use of story telling. There is always a heroe character and a villain character (called a heel). People cheer for the heroes and boo the villains, even though these roles are entirely made up, it helps people to feel invested in the outcome of the “fight”. It’s the same reason people pick a favourite sports team. We feel more invested in the outcome, when we’re invested in individuals or teams.

I think this is part of why Emily Hanford’s Sold a Story podcast was so successful. There were others writing about the lack of phonics in schools for years prior, like Steve Dykstra, David Kilpatrick, Linnea Ehri, Mark Sidenberg, Louisa Moats, Diane Mcguinness and Timothy Shanahan. All of these authors like myself tried to write about the research and instructional specifics. But none of them were as successful as Emily Hanford. She made the Science of Reading movement mainstream and exposed the serious flaws in the education system. And she did through story telling. She focused on individual teachers, parents, and scholars. She had protagonists fighting to improve the education system and antagonists getting rich off teaching methods that didn’t work. And while, I may not agree with everything in the podcast, I would like to acknowledge that she has done more to improve literacy instruction than I likely ever will. 

 

While story telling, and focusing on individuals can be extremely compelling, both from a learning and a marketing perspective. I think it can also come with some drawbacks. And I worry that these drawbacks, not only set the Science of Reading movement back, but the entire education movement. So in this blog, I would like to convince you that we should shift our focus off of individuals and onto ideas.

4 Reasons that Talking About Individual Scholars is Unhelpful:

 

1. It Promotes Cults of Personalities Over Evidence
I would even argue that part of what got us into the “whole-language/balanced-literacy” rut was our reliance on leaders. Lucy Caulkins, Irene Fountas, Susan Pinnell, and Marie Clay were all celebrities in their own right. Teachers did not question their beliefs, because these celebrities were “experts”. Even today, I occasionally get criticized by professors both for not having a PhD or for encouraging teachers to read research for themselves. I get told, people should just listen to the experts. But how can teachers effectively identify experts if they know nothing of research themselves? How can we evaluate the claims of experts, when they disagree with each other, if we don’t understand the research ourselves? I would argue that by focusing on the individuals, we distract from the actual issues and evidence that matters. 

 

2. It Emotionally Charges Discussions

In my experience, the second you invoke the name of a well known scholar, author, or personality it immediately emotionally charges the discussion. People often stop evaluating the evidence and instead they default to the wrestling logic of trying to decide if you're the hero or heel of the debate. They don’t want to know if your evidence is better  or if your position is correct, they want to know if you're on their team, if you personally can be trusted, if you're critiquing someone of high value. 

 

Let’s say you want to change the mind of whole-language advocates and promote structured literacy. Which tact will likely give you better success, insulting the credibility of their favourite authors and scholars or by focusing on the evidence for a specific point? For example, I think it’s more productive to point to studies showing that teaching phonics with a scope and sequence benefits most students, than to make an emotionally charged statement about Marie Clay. Flip the scenario on its head. If you’re a fan of Emily Hanford and someone starts a conversation on literacy instruction by criticizing her as a journalist, are you going to take anything else that person has to say seriously?

 

3. It Promotes Bullying

I think I will get the most pushback on this point, but I stand by it. We exist on social media in bubbles. There are personalities in both SOR space and the balanced literacy space that are viewed as “heels” to either camp. Criticizing these people helps to show everyone you're on the same team. Moreover, we tend to dehumanize these figures, we forget that these are real people who genuinely care about the well being of kids and just have differences of opinions with ourselves. As humans we seem to have this natural inclination to “other” people and treat them poorly. I think it helps us to feel more socially connected with our peers. As a school teacher, I have tried my best to teach my own students that this is wrong and that we should treat each other with respect. It would feel hypocritical of me to then go online and rail against individuals. Don’t get me wrong, there are scholars and writers, I struggle to see eye to eye on. However, I try my best not to make this an issue of public discourse, as I think it’s unproductive.

4. It Promotes Binary False Dichotomies.
I think a huge part of why I have grown too shy from criticizing individuals, is because I know how easy it is to get something wrong. Over the past few years, I have written hundreds of articles on teaching. I wish that I have never made any mistakes in that writing. But there have been plenty of times I have gotten something wrong and another author or scholar messaged me privately or publicly to correct the record. Truthfully, I also often review my own work and find mistakes for myself. There are no researchers or authors who I agree with 100% of the time. But I don’t assume, those differences are inherently the intellectual flaws of others, I realize that I could just as likely be wrong as right.

I often see questions online about the credibility of individual writers or scholars, but I think this question views their credibility and authority in a binary. This person is either on my team and thus should be inherently trusted or not on my team and inherently unreliable. But the truth is, even scholars with vastly different opinions to our own can offer something of value. I think you’d be hard pressed to find a scholar or writer whose opinions are more divergent from mine than Dr. Paul Thomas’s and yet, I occasionally read his blog and find myself either nodding along in agreement or learning something. I think it’s more valuable to read someone's work with an open, but critical mind, than it is to read it with a binary mindset of good or bad. 

 

A Better Model for Discourse

When discussing educational ideas, consider this approach:

• Focus on one idea at a time. Don’t debate every issue—just engage with one.
   

• Seek to understand the opposing position. Ask: What evidence supports it?
   

• Be open to change. If no amount of evidence could sway you, pause and reflect—rigid beliefs aren't rational ones.
   

• Present your evidence calmly and clearly.
   

• Assume shared values. Even if you disagree with someone’s methods, you likely agree on the goal: helping children learn.
   

Whether you’re an Orton-Gillingham tutor or a Reading Recovery teacher, your work likely comes from the same place—care for students and a desire to see them thrive.

​

Final Thoughts

For all these reasons, I try to focus on ideas, not individuals. I’m not perfect, and I’ve made mistakes in the past. But if we want discourse in education to be productive—not performative—we need to lead with humility, curiosity, and shared purpose.

I hope this piece hasn’t come off as a lecture or a rant. My real aim is to promote a healthier, more thoughtful conversation—one where disagreement fuels insight, not division.

Written by
Nate Hansford
Last Edited 2025

 

References:
 

Woodside, A.G., Sood, S. and Miller, K.E. (2008), When consumers and brands talk: Storytelling theory and research in psychology and marketing. Psychology & Marketing, 25: 97-145. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20203