Guided reading: The romance and the reality

Fountas, Irene C., & Pinnell, Gay Su (2012). Guided reading: The romance and the reality. The Reading Teacher, 66(4), 268-284.


Models that appear to simplify classroom work are seductive to educators. Some of these kinds of models, like Fountas and Pinnell’s Guided Reading, the topic of the article here, were created with what I believe were good intentions and strong theoretical bases. The problem is, when a model like Guided Reading takes off and becomes a branded product that publishers buy and sell, the model can become something that was never intended. Fountas and Pinnell spend a lot of time in this article telling us about people’s misinterpretations, simplistic interpretations, and misuses of the various aspects of Guided Reading. However, as the metaphor goes, I am afraid that “the horse is already out of the barn.”

One of the biggest and most problematic aspects of Guided Reading is the notion of “leveled books.” Fountas and Pinnell insist here that levels should be flexible, that books are leveled and not children, and that levels were never meant to be told to parents or used to dictate which books children will be allowed to read (p. 281). Yet what can be expected when a system for leveling books “from A to Z” like Fountas and Pinnell’s Text Level Gradient is introduced? Yes, educators ought to be thinking more qualitatively about text difficulty and all the factors that influence whether or not a text will be difficult for a child. Yes, educators ought to be assessing children continuously and changing instructional groupings frequently. Yes, educators ought to be focused on the more complex kinds of teaching and learning that could be occurring if Guided Reading is implemented as a way of scaffolding our teaching to higher levels instead of as a rigid lesson framework that is followed in scripted and shallow ways. Yes, a good literacy program ought to include more than just Guided Reading. All of these “oughts” certainly could be occurring with Guided Reading, but will they?

The frameworks and heuristics provided by Guided Reading are alluring because they appear to provide a simple, “fool-proof” solution. They seem to offer some order in the midst of the chaos that instruction in a complex process like reading can produce. Of course, wise educators know that no program can do that in and of itself; the key is always in the skill and dedication of the teachers and in the ways they engage with students and the ways they engage their students in reading and writing. Nevertheless, when a teaching framework that is elaborately developed and seems to organize this intrinsically chaotic process arrives on the horizon, the temptation is always to focus on the framework itself and not the complex processes it was designed to facilitate. When a program has this kind of appeal, publishers are quick to act, as they have done with Guided Reading. Once Guided Reading “went commercial” it took on a life beyond what its creators probably envisioned. Visit booths for Guided Reading in exhibition halls at national literacy conferences, and you will see how the program and all of its accoutrements and spinoffs is being bought and sold.

It is unrealistic to think that the majority of those who are buying and using Guided Reading will implement it at the high level Fountas and Pinnell suggest in this article, or that they will invest in the kinds of literacy coaching and “high quality professional development” Fountas and Pinnell recommend. Some will, or course, but many will not. It is easier, and cheaper, to adopt a framework that appears to make the process of reading instruction efficient and easy, even if that impression of Guided Reading is not exactly what was intended when it was originally developed. I know what Fountas and Pinnell are trying to do here, but it is probably too late.