I found this podcast from this 
post:
I subbed today for a 7th and 8th grade teacher. I’m not exaggerating when I say at least 50% of the students were at a 2nd grade reading level. The students were to spend the class time filling out an “all about me” worksheet, what’s your name, favorite color, favorite food etc. I was asked 20 times today “what is this word?”. Movie. Excited. Trait. “How do I spell race car driver?”
I've only listened to one episode so far, but it's really well produced, seems well-researched and very well put together.
From what I gather so far, the ways that the American public school system "teaches" kids how to read is not only completely wrong, but actually saddles them bad habits which fundamentally hinder their reading comprehension.
A huge swath of American adults are functionally illiterate, and I think I'm starting to understand why.
That probably helps on some level, but from listening to the first two episodes of the podcast, the problem seems to be that a lot of kids are being taught a fundamentally incorrect method of how to decode written language that's making it much harder for them to read that it otherwise should be, and often leaves them completely unable to parse new words. Like, if you gave them a word they'd never seen written down before (especially if the word is by itself, devoid of any context), they wouldn't know how to pronounce it, even if they've heard the word spoken before.
So simply having books available won't actually help (most of) them, because they just don't have the skills necessary to figure out how to decode written language, or how to connect written language to spoken language. They need to be taught the correct way of reading first.
(Of course, once kids finally have an understanding of the fundamentals of how to decode written language, having tons of books available to read so that they can further practice those skills would definitely be a massive help for improving literacy.)
I haven't listened to the podcast but English as the language theyre learning has gotta add a whole other level of difficulty. Like Spanish you know the vowel sounds are all the same, Norwegian updates their spelling so that it always matches the actual pronunciation, Korean literally puts how to say the word symbolically in each part of a character, Japanese hiragana and katakana is always the same, Cree syllabics are one-to-one (although it was designed that way intentionally), the only other ones that'd be hard is like Chinese or Japanese Kanji and stuff like that but those usually have a pronounciation hint character/radicle in their as well.
English is like that but with wildly different rules on top of bad pedagogy, yikes.
Despite English's weird spellings and exceptions, there aren't that many different sounds and there is a very effective way to teach how those sounds correlate to written words. It's just that no one used that method for like 30 years because it was "too old fashioned".
English is definitely a bear of a written language, but it's so much worse than you think
While I accept that it could be the case here - and having read up a bit on it rings true - there is a real danger of "educated" people often liberal with a slight to conservative or neoliberal, to tell people how education really works and that alternatives are wrong or false, often on grounds that are very flimsy or completely propagandistic.
The classism aspect in such things is something I look for first (with keeping other -isms in mind). Then of course there is the aspect of culture and financing. But before I look into that I try to look at how the things we talk about are used as a filter and their surrounding structures are. Only then at earliest I tend to look into effects claimed to be there (and think about how they could be disproved and what influences were missed).
For example institutions for
CW
"children with learning disabilities", which were a catch all phrase for plenty of humans to not have them interact with the white "norm" population in other schools are not that good for kids in them, especially since they hinder inclusion. That regular schools suck doesn't mean that it would be a correct way to keep kids away from their peers.Historically a lot of classism, homophobia, racism, moralism etc. were ingredients to that, too.
The point is inclusion is important and the more common system has to adapt. Financing schools in the USA is faulty in any case and how they are and how political they are lead is another big problem, besides them functioning as child care and education for factory workers, instead of what they could be.
When I was in middle school I was put in an inclusion social studies class, despite that being my best topic by far. At the time I was a little shit who was frustrated by it. Not by the students, but by the patronizing way they spoke to us. I got to know the kids with more special needs and they weren't dumb.
I hated being in the inclusion class because I loved history and wanted to go faster and the simplified topics and repetition frustrated me to no end. But looking back I can see it built up some empathy in me that I was frustrated for these kids and the state of their education that they dealt with daily.
I can't imagine going through their entire general education being spoken down to in a baby voice every single day.
True, but at least in this case it seems pretty clear cut that phonics is definitely superior to Reading Recovery & it's derivatives, as well as that Reading Recovery was pushed in large part due to a similar kind of "market disruption" mentality that guides a lot of modern Tech corporations (even down to forming cults of personality around their equivalent of "innovators").
Basically, Dr. Marie Clay came up with the Reading Recovery theory back in the 70s out of a genuine desire to help kids who were struggling to read, but her methodology was flawed, and she did so in an era where there really hadn't been much research into how people learned to read, so no one could really dispute whether her theory was correct or not at that point. Despite this, her theory became heavily pushed due to it being the shiny new thing that promises to revolutionize teaching, and of course, a large part of this push was definitely coming from companies that produce educational material looking to make money off of selling this program to teachers & schools. It wasn't until the 90s that research was finally done that disproved Dr. Clay's theory, and by that point, there was enough people & money invested in Reading Recovery that it became a classic case of science having to fight an uphill battle against entrenched capitalist interests.
Also, the class aspect of this push is kinda interesting, as this new method of teaching reading seems to have been largely pushed onto kids from wealthier background first. However, the negative effects of Reading Recovery style programs were often masked by the fact that wealthier families could afford to pay for private tutoring when they noticed their kids were struggling. I.e., while these kids from wealthier background were being taught how to read via Reading Recovery methods in the classroom, their private tutors were teaching them to read via phonics. But from the outside view of teachers, school officials, policy makers, and proponents of Reading Recovery programs, it seemed like everything was fine and the Reading Recovery was working well, leading them to start pushing these programs more into schools with kids from background that aren't nearly as wealthy. And naturally, it was only once the Reading Recovery programs started leaving the protective shield provided by the wealth of the labor aristocracy & petite bourgeoisie that its damage started becoming more apparent.
(Ironically, this also seems to have resulted in many wealthier school districts actually being more inclined to stick with Reading Recovery than poorer school districts, as their wealth continues to leave many parents, teachers and school officials oblivious to the damage that these programs would be doing to their kids without the counterbalancing force offered by private tutoring.)
Of course with all this said, it's still worth acknowledging that Reading Recovery isn't solely responsible for the increase in illiteracy seen in modern US society. People from poor and/or minority communities were already experiencing lower literacy rates compared to communities of wealthy white people long before Reading Recovery was a thing, so having the resources necessary to successfully implement educational programs definitely matters just as much as implementing "correct" educational programs.
tl:dr: Absolutely be skeptical of libs trying to push "correct" or "innovative" educational programs (because they're often blind as to how class differences can effect such programs), but at least in this case it seems pretty clear cut that Reading Recovery is bullshit that was being pushed under the guise of innovation.