For decades, phonics was the gold standard in teaching reading. The method was clear, structured, and most importantly, effective. Children learned to map sounds to letters and to decode words, building a strong foundation for literacy.
But then came Lucy Calkins and her “balanced literacy” approach, which promised a more holistic and creative way for children to engage with reading. It sounded nice: it claimed to help children learn to love reading, and so it appealed to many educators and parents, even if it contradicted decades of evidence supporting phonics-based instruction. But, soon, the consequences became apparent. Many children, especially those with dyslexia, failed to acquire the necessary skills to become proficient readers.
A similar pattern has unfolded in the realm of parenting. For years, mounds of evidence supported the value of authoritative parenting, and we promoted programs like 1-2-3 Magic as the gold standard. These programs provided parents with clear, skills-based approaches to discipline that worked. Rooted in decades of experience and research, they helped children learn social skills, boundaries, and self-regulation.
Then, the Low Demand Parenting movement emerged, emphasizing the importance of reducing children’s arousal and centering their need for control. Like balanced literacy, it sounds nice—Who doesn’t want to be gentle and understanding with their children? But again, this shift is coming at the expense of teaching basic skills. The emphasis on trust and connection overshadows the need for clear, structured guidance, and many children are now growing up without the tools they need to function effectively in their communities. Additionally, without clear boundaries and expectations, children are struggling to maintain the very attachments to their caregivers that low demand parenting experts claim to protect.
The lesson here is clear: sometimes, what sounds nice isn’t always what works best. While it’s important to be responsive and understanding, we must also ensure that children are learning the skills they need to succeed. Evidence-based methods may not always be the most appealing, but they’ve stood the test of time for a reason. When we abandon them in favor of approaches that just sound nice, we risk leaving our children unprepared for the challenges ahead.
***
This is such a powerful reflection. I really appreciate how you’ve seen the pattern between teaching and parenting, showing the risks of moving away from clear and evidence-based guidance. It’s a reminder that love and structure need to go hand in hand.
Impact over intent: “what sounds best doesn’t always work best”.