Empire of illiteracy

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 09/09/2025 (242 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

International Literacy Day, a day to prompt policymakers and the public of the right to literacy, was recognized Sept. 8.

Like most human rights, literacy remains contentious in Manitoba due to competing interests and abuses of power.

As someone who regularly reviews ethical issues as a member of a research ethics board, I have been repeatedly struck by the pervasive and long-standing conflicts of interest and commercial interests in the education sector with respect to reading instruction. I continued to come up against these interests in trying, and failing, to access timely, evidence-based reading instruction and assessments for my own children with dyslexia in the public school system.

Enter Reading Recovery.

Reading Recovery is a commercial reading program that has been used for more than 30 years in Manitoba for Grade 1 students. This includes the actual program, teacher training, and associated Fountas and Pinnell benchmark assessment kits and intervention books.

The program and associated products fuel a billion-dollar publishing empire. This empire sustains the Reading Recovery conferences, academic journal, and university research programs, which further contributes to the programs’ influence in schools and faculties of education.

In recent years most provinces, American states, and New Zealand have made improvements to reading instruction and removed Reading Recovery, which is based on a discredited approach to teaching reading called “three cueing.” The latest research demonstrates children become worse readers when Reading Recovery is used compared to similar children who did not receive it.

Some children become so frustrated with this ineffective instruction, they become avoidant, angry, depressive, and/or suicidal.

The Manitoba Council of Reading Clinicians, Manitoba Association of School Psychologists, and Manitoba Pediatric Society have all put out statements denouncing the use of three cueing to teach reading.

Manitoba Education and many school divisions are undeterred. In fact, nowhere in Canada is Reading Recovery more entrenched than Manitoba.

The Reading Recovery Council of North America boasts three Manitobans on its 22-member board of directors, including its president. Similarly, the Canadian Institute of Reading Recovery has at least four Manitobans on its 14-member board, including its president.

These individuals occupy, or have occupied, some of the highest positions within our governments’ educational bureaucracy, within school divisions, in faculties of education, and in the Manitoba Teacher’s Society. Like an old boy’s club — with associated power, networks, and influence.

Individuals in public service and educational administration have a primary responsibility for the education and well-being of children. When individuals are on boards of commercial reading programs, that is a conflict of interest, regardless of whether they personally profit.

Research demonstrates that conflicts of interest and commercial interest can influence research, policy, and practice in multiple ways.

Whose views are prioritized in the 2025-26 education budget when Reading Recovery training is funded? Why is the Manitoba Teachers Society content to advocate for some human rights issues, but not the right to read? Whose views influence teacher training?

The landmark Ontario Human Rights Commission Right to Read report, released in early 2022, specifically stated that three cueing not be used. But the previous government dismissed the report, consulting Manitoba Education’s former, long-time literacy consultant, now Reading Recovery Council of North America President. The University of Manitoba Faculty of Education then gave this person an award for teacher education.

Because individuals with conflicts are in positions of power many staff don’t feel in a position to speak up about reading instruction, as also reported in Ontario. Their fear is palpable when I listen to them.

This power to silence extends to parents as they fear their children will be retaliated against if they speak out.

In requesting to speak with someone in my own child’s school division, I was directed to an Assistant Superintendent who has a conflict of interest with Reading Recovery. Despite having the support of many reports, I was apparently misinformed, ignorant about reading instruction, and must have an alternative agenda.

This isn’t surprising if you look at the Reading Recovery Council of North America website. They have brazenly positioned their organization in opposition to parents of children with dyslexia. After all, parents don’t buy the products — school divisions do.

Defensiveness turned toxic.

This is unbecoming in a sector that claims to prioritize equity and inclusion.

Conflicts of interest, real or perceived, are harmful. They sow distrust in governments and institutions. And damage the credibility of the entire teaching profession.

The education sector needs to revise its approach to teaching reading. But more critically, they need to address something far more foundational — their integrity.

That starts with taking accountability, including for a rush job on a new ELA curriculum to mute criticism in advance of the Manitoba Human Rights Commission Right to Read report release.

Natalie Riediger is an associate professor at the University of Manitoba.