Sold a Scheme: When Packaging Replaces Pedagogy

How flashy schemes and catchy acronyms can make us spend less time following the science.

In education, it’s easy to be dazzled by colourful posters, catchy acronyms, and neatly packaged lesson plans. They promise structure, engagement, and quick results. But when the packaging overshadows the pedagogy, students can be left following frameworks instead of truly reading and understanding. From comprehension “skills” in the UK to cueing systems in the US, flashy materials can sometimes create the impression of progress without building the real foundations children need: fluent decoding, rich vocabulary, and deep knowledge.

Teachers in both the UK and the US have seen many of these over-marketed approaches. In America, the “three-cueing system” discouraged systematic phonics for decades. In the UK, content domains and comprehension frameworks born from SATs exams have encouraged surface-level strategies rather than deep understanding. In practice, these approaches feel reassuring: they provide structure, work that can be ticked and the impression of progress. But research shows that without fluent decoding, vocabulary, and knowledge, comprehension gains are limited.

The UK Problem: Comprehension by Surface Strategy

Phonics is firmly embedded in UK classrooms — and rightly so. But myths haven’t disappeared; they’ve simply moved further up the reading process. Some comprehension frameworks inflate content domains into “skills” that can supposedly be taught in isolation. Evidence tells us this isn’t really possible, nor particularly necessary: inference doesn’t transfer neatly from one text to another.

Mascots, posters, and magnifying glasses can encourage children to label questions—“this is inference,” “this is retrieval”—instead of focusing on the meaning of the text. Daniel Willingham (2006) reminded us: comprehension is not a skill like riding a bike; it’s the product of knowledge and vocabulary.

Underlying many of these approaches is the assumption that children are already fluent readers. If decoding is still effortful, no amount of detective work or labelling will move them forward. This is the essence of the Simple View of Reading: comprehension depends on both fluent word recognition and language understanding.

Some comprehension frameworks also side-line knowledge. Worksheets and scripts can take the place of rich, challenging books chosen by teachers, and the risk is obvious: we end up teaching frameworks, not literature.

The US Problem: Cueing and Guessing

Across the Atlantic, the surface strategies had a devastating effect. Emily Hanford’s Sold a Story podcast (APM Reports, 2022) exposed how children were taught to “cue” their way through texts: looking at pictures, guessing words, and checking the first letter.

It felt practical and teacher-friendly, but in reality it replaced phonics with guessing. By the 2010s, three-quarters of American teachers used cueing, despite decades of research showing that skilled reading depends on accurate, automatic decoding. Neuroscientist Mark Seidenberg called cueing “a magnificent work of the imagination.” Timothy Shanahan described it as “worthless at best and misleading at worst.”

The consequences were stark: children who should have been taught to decode were left guessing, with reading difficulties appearing years later. The Sold a Story podcast helped prompt legislative changes: multiple US states have now restricted cueing and mandated structured literacy approaches.

What Links the UK and US

The details differ, but the underlying error is the same. Attractive packaging and well-marketed programmes make teachers feel secure. They promise quick fixes but can create the impression of comprehension growth.

The result? Children miss out on what really matters. In the US, it was guessing instead of decoding. In the UK, it can be SATs frameworks and tick lists instead of knowledge-rich reading.

What the Science Actually Says

The science of reading has been consistent for decades:

• Decoding is non-negotiable: without fluent word recognition, comprehension collapses.

• Background knowledge is essential: you can’t understand a poem about the sea if you don’t know what a tide is.

• Vocabulary matters: words are the gatekeepers to meaning.

• Fluency develops through practice: repeated reading, oral modelling, and wide exposure to texts are far more effective than any acronym or mascot.

None of this is flashy. None of it comes with mascots or skills posters. But it works.

Final Thoughts

Both the US and UK have seen the allure of over-marketed strategies. While many schemes provide useful scaffolds and support teacher confidence, the most effective reading instruction is grounded in science: systematic phonics, fluent decoding, rich knowledge, and vocabulary.

I’m not immune to using resources myself. I’ve tried many, adopted some, and left others behind. My own resources focus on fluency, Lexile-graded texts, and pedagogy-informed instruction— to support real learning rather than the impression of it. Couple this with a plethora of challenging books read from start to finish, with discussions and analysis, and we might have more courage to steer further away from SATs-style questioning, especially in younger year groups.

If we want children to read deeply and widely, we need to focus on what works: fluent word recognition, rich knowledge, and meaningful engagement with books chosen by teachers. Comprehension isn’t unlocked by posters or acronyms—it’s unlocked when children can read fluently, know widely, and think deeply.