It’s not often that a journalist prompts sweeping change in America’s schools. But Emily Hanford, the creator of the “Sold a Story” podcast, has probably done more than any educator, official, or researcher to drive the contemporary reading revolution in America’s classrooms. A senior correspondent for American Public Media, Hanford has been an education reporter since 2008. In 2017, she got interested in how kids learn to read. Five years later, in 2022, the product was “Sold a Story,” a series of podcasts that won an Edward R. Murrow award, was the year’s second most-shared show on Apple podcasts, and was named one of 2023’s 10 Best Podcasts by Time. I recently had the chance to chat with Hanford about “Sold a Story,” reading instruction, and education journalism. Here’s what she had to say.

— Rick

Rick: Emily, your “Sold a Story” podcast has had an extraordinary impact on schooling. How did it come about?

Emily: I’ve been an education reporter for a long time. One story leads to another. I trace “Sold a Story” back to reporting I was doing years earlier. It started with questions about why many students end up in remedial classes in college. Some of those students have learning disabilities. This led me to dyslexia. That got me interested in how people learn to read. I made a podcast episode in 2018 called “Hard Words” that explained some basics about the body of research people refer to as the “science of reading.” That podcast, which is also an article, got the attention of a lot of people—including teachers, who said they didn’t know about this research. “Sold a Story” was born of the question: Why?

Rick: Just what is the story that educators have been “sold”?

Emily: The podcast focuses on one idea: Beginning readers don’t have to sound out written words. They can. But they don’t have to because there are other ways to figure out what the words say. It’s about why that idea is wrong and how it was sold by influential authors. They weren’t the only ones selling the idea, but they were the most successful at it. Some people think “Sold a Story” is about phonics. That’s not quite right. Many schools were teaching phonics. But they were also teaching beginning readers other strategies to read words. These strategies were the same ones used by struggling readers—like looking at the first letter of a word and thinking of something that makes sense.

Rick: Why does this story matter so much?

Emily: Because being able to read matters so much. There are many reasons a child might struggle with learning how to read, such as having a reading disability, growing up in poverty, or not being read to at home. But there are decades of research—with real kids in real classrooms—that show, with good instruction, kids with these disadvantages can learn to read well. Instruction can be powerful. But the potential of instruction has been undercut because too many teachers didn’t know how kids learn to read and what effective instruction looked like. I get messages from teachers all the time. Some are painful messages full of guilt and regret. Others are messages of enthusiasm that show a desire to learn more and do better. Lots of the messages are both.

Rick: It seems to me that “Sold a Story” has done more to influence reading instruction than any number of screeds and studies. What do you think explains the podcast’s impact?

Emily: “Sold a Story” is about a problem that was hiding in plain sight. Those kinds of stories are powerful because they’re obvious once you point them out. “Sold a Story” wouldn’t have been possible without all the “screeds and studies.” My colleagues and I weren’t really reporting anything new. We were putting together a puzzle. The pieces were all there. Someone needed to assemble it and present the narrative. Narrative matters. I think “Sold a Story” is having an impact because it includes stories of real people—children, parents, and teachers—who were harmed. Teachers are the most important audience here. They are the ones who can change children’s lives with good instruction.

Rick: How do you tell a story like this in a way that really matters?

Emily: You do a lot of interviews, make a lot of records requests, and read a lot! Compile everything into a timeline—ours starts in the 1600s and currently has more than 2,000 entries. It’s a huge amount of work to do a project like this. I have an incredible team, including my co-reporter, Christopher Peak. We initially thought it would take two years to report this story. It ended up taking longer, and there were those additional years of reporting before we began the work on “Sold a Story.” If we do our job right, the final product is clear and compelling, and it’ll never occur to you as you are listening that it took dozens of drafts to get the story right.

Rick: Do you think it helped that this was done as a podcast?

Emily: I’ve spent my entire career in audio. First radio. Now podcasts. When my first reports on this topic came out, I was distressed when numbers showed far more people were reading the stories than listening to them. That flipped with “Sold a Story.” One reason is we changed the way we present the stories. I used to create an audio version and then write an article that was basically a mirror of what was in the podcast—same content, same characters. We don’t do that anymore. Because I want people to listen! There’s something powerful about hearing people tell their stories. Our voices carry a lot of emotion. A pause, a sigh, emphasis on a particular word—those things convey so much. Also, “Sold a Story” is a multipart podcast. The earlier stories were one-offs. There’s something especially compelling about a serialized story. Ask Sarah Koenig or Charles Dickens!

Rick: Can you say a few words about what you’re working on now?

Emily: We’re far from done reporting on this topic. Since the original six episodes of “Sold a Story” were released in the fall of 2022, we have produced four additional episodes. And we have new episodes dropping on February 20. In Episode 10, we say this about where we are going with the podcast: We want to know what’s working in schools as they are changing how they teach reading. And what’s not working—and why? There’s a lot to do! The next episodes focus on the “lists” that have come in the wake of “Sold a Story”—lists of approved programs that states are encouraging, and in many cases requiring, schools to buy from. We’re digging into these lists—and whether they’re a good idea.

Rick: Taking a step back, from where you sit, how big a shift are we really seeing in reading instruction?

Emily: I think it remains to be seen. Reid Lyon, one of the architects of Reading First—the controversial federal effort more than two decades ago to focus schools on evidence-based reading—told me he thinks this time is different. “What’s changed is this tremendous hunger for information,” he said. “There’s a thoughtfulness about reading in the country today. There is an actual mature conversation.” I hope he is right, and I hope our work can continue to help nurture a thoughtful conversation. Like I said, more to come. Stay tuned.

Rick: How do you feel about the various “science of reading” laws that states are passing?

Emily: My feelings are mixed. I agree with cognitive scientist Mark Seidenberg, who said he views the legislation related to the science of reading as “kind of the last resort.” It’s significant that legislators are stepping up to try to do something. Teachers say that they are grateful for some of what is in these laws, such as the resources and training they want and need. However, trying to solve complex problems with top-down policies comes with complications and unintended consequences. We’ll be exploring an example of that in our upcoming episodes. I’m cautiously optimistic that more kids will get the instruction they need to become better readers. But we are surrounded by threats to reading. Digital devices, video—podcasts! Kids—and adults—are reading less and less.

Rick: Is there any one sign you’ve seen when it comes to the shifts in literacy instruction that makes you particularly optimistic? Is there one that you find especially disconcerting?

Emily: I’m optimistic because so many teachers are interested in the research on reading and are eager to learn more. During Reading First a narrative seemed to take hold that all of this was “anti-teacher.” That’s not the case now. Teachers are taking the lead here by sharing information with their colleagues and asking their administrators for resources and training. I do think there needs to be more collaboration between teachers and scientists. Teachers need help translating the science into practice. And scientists need help understanding the daily challenges of being a teacher. And everyone needs to be attuned to the complexity of systems change. My biggest concern is that laws and policies won’t be amended as needed because of politics or because attention has moved on to the next big thing. Improvement here requires commitment over time.

Rick: Last question. Any advice for educators when it comes to making sense of what we know about reading instruction or for sharing that with their colleagues and community?

Emily: There are a lot of downsides to technology and social media, but one of the benefits is that good information on this topic is more accessible than it was 20 years ago, during Reading First. Teachers are not just sharing information. They are writing about their experiences. And there are lots of open-access articles that explain and summarize the research. Using these pieces, I put together a suggested reading list. I am also hosting a speaker series as the journalist-in-residence at Planet Word, the museum of words and language, in Washington. One of the themes we hope to tackle is how teachers and scientists are working together to bridge the gap between research and practice. There is still a lot to learn.

Frederick Hess is director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute and an executive editor of Education Next.

This post originally appeared on Rick Hess Straight Up.