Where do we go from here? Growing Pains in the Science of Reading Movement

A couple of weeks ago, I was at a Christmas party and an old friend -- a retired reading specialist -- asked me if I’d ever considered teaching at X Local University.

“I don’t think they’d want me,” I said. “I’m into the science of reading.” (1)

My friend, being a kind person, tried to hide her shudder. It was clear that her reaction to the words “science of reading” was dismay.

“But…” she said. “I wouldn’t describe what you do in your classroom as the science of reading.” By this, I think she meant that my classroom was fun, relational, and engaging. There is a perception that these qualities are absent when the “science of reading” is implemented, that “the science of reading” is about boring phonics drills and inane stories. 

“What I do is aligned to the science of reading.”

My friend looked skeptical.

Two or three years ago, my friend’s reaction might have provoked annoyance in me, or even a bit of anger. Don’t you care about science? I would have been thinking. Don’t you want more kids to learn to read?

Now, my reaction is different. Now, I understand what states and districts are doing in the name of the science of reading. In many cases, it has little to do with the actual science and more to do with an over-simplified, pop science version of reading research. That caring, earnest educators are turned off by this isn't surprising.

A Brief Ride on An Emotional Roller Coaster 
Those of us who have been long-time advocates for research-informed reading instruction have experienced a series of ups and downs over the years. I began my work interpreting reading science into teacher tools in 2007; many others have been advocating for longer -- contrary to the common belief that the science of reading, or SOR, popped up in the last few years. A few highlights of the trip:

• After the demise of the federal Reading First initiative, many of us felt confused, and left behind in advocating for research-informed instruction (if you’re unfamiliar with this program, see Shanahan, 2020, for a good overview of what happened and why). Reading First required certain research-informed practices be implemented in grantee schools, but when the money dried up, many balanced literacy practices -- teaching students to use “cues” to identify words, guided reading with leveled books, long bouts of silent reading -- came roaring back into classrooms (if they’d ever really left).
• Around 2017-18, a combination of the reporting of Emily Hanford and advocacy by parents of students with dyslexia brought the “science of reading” back into the public conversation. Many of us saw glimmers of hope and made connections with others who had been individually trying to push classroom practices to align to research.
• Hope continued to blossom as the conversation expanded to state legislatures and school boards, with many states passing laws designed to align instruction to the science of reading. Schools began adopting reading programs that advertised themselves as “SOR.”
• Inevitably, interests who had invested time and money on (and made money from) balanced literacy pushed back. There was lots of righteous-seeming anger on all sides. (See this 2022 letter, from a balanced literacy perspective, responding to Hanford’s reporting; see a counter-response -- on which I am a signatory -- from educators who advocate for research-aligned instruction).
• As the laws took effect and we began to see how the roll-out of these laws and policies took place in the real world, some advocates and researchers (e.g. Mark Seidenberg, Margaret Goldberg) called to complicate the popular view of SOR, bringing it further in line with the actual research, while opponents of these laws and policies saw bumpy roll-outs as a sign that the “science of reading” didn’t work. And others of us -- like my old friend and I -- were stranded in a land where there were no such laws, where universities continued to push balanced literacy practices, and districts were sending down weird mandates in the name of SOR that had nothing to do with actual reading science.

What’s the Problem? The Science of Reading in the “Real World”

There was a (very brief) moment when it looked like research-aligned reading instruction was ascendent, and we were going to see a lot more kids learning to read. But as new laws and policies have proliferated, I’m skeptical that we will actually see success at scale. Why?

I see three big buckets that need to be addressed:

1. What is being promoted as the “science of reading” very often has nothing to do with what the science actually indicates.
2. Programs have been promoted as a cure-all.
3. The knowledge teachers really need hasn’t been prioritized, particularly in the elements of reading instruction beyond phonics.

Issue #1: What is being promoted as the “science of reading” very often has nothing to do with what the science actually indicates.

The reason my friend at the Christmas party dislikes the “science of reading” so much? Her district has implemented a series of top-down mandates in the name of SOR that aren’t actually aligned to research.

For example, the district sent all their leveled books to the dumpster, while barring students from reading anything besides decodable readers until they’ve reached a certain level of phonics proficiency. Reading interventionists were taken out of the schools, and students in reading intervention were given a computer program to use. These practices are not aligned to reading science, but handed down to teachers as “the science” (2)

So, if I worked in such a district, I bet I would find the whole “SOR” idea offensive. In fact, I know I would because my school was part of the federal Reading First grant in the early 2000s. We were told that all sorts of practices were required by the grant and what was then known as the “SBRR” (scientifically-based reading research). These practices ranged from teaching our reading program “with fidelity” (sound familiar?) to keeping an extra copy of our lesson plans handy for observers who dropped by our rooms.

Except neither the SBRR/SOR or the federal grant required these steps. I learned this later when I worked for a statewide team supporting Reading First. Something similar is happening now. District/state leaders are selling a new story: that their mandates are aligned with science… even when they aren’t. 

Issue #2: Programs have been promoted as a cure-all.

A friend who worked for a state department of education once shared a truth with me that I’ve never forgotten: at the state level, curriculum is one of very few levers that can actually change instruction. So it makes sense that states are trying to change curricular materials as a means of changing classroom practices.

Don’t get me wrong, I looove a good program. Another educator friend once expressed something I’ve found to be true: “Teaching a good program can be great professional development.” I learned much of what I know about phonics from teaching with a fairly scripted foundational skills program. Currently, I use two programs in my intervention classroom, as well as other materials I’ve created.  I use UFLI for basic foundational skills and Rewards for more advanced phonics, morphology, and fluency.

But even the best curriculum programs aren’t magic. As a coach, a lot of the literacy collaborations I lead are guiding teachers to think through the standard linked to a lesson in our program, analyzing how (or if!) the lesson gets to that standard, and figuring out how to ensure that the maximum number of students can reach the desired outcome. When we discover that the lesson doesn’t actually meet the standard, revisions need to be made. We determine which questions in the teacher’s guide are “must ask” to get at the core understanding of the text, which are nice-to-haves, and which could be used for scaffolds.

Too many teachers, however, are given programs to teach “with fidelity” rather than working together to make smart instructional judgments within the framework of the materials. It’s doubtful whether this will lead to the outcomes we want to see.

Issue #3: The knowledge teachers really need hasn’t been prioritized, particularly in the elements of reading instruction beyond phonics.

I teach intervention and coach teachers in grades 3-5. Much of the “science of reading” discourse doesn’t seem tailored to them (3) -- many might not even know that there is such a discourse. According to a recent RAND/AERDF study, nearly 75% of teachers in grades 3-8 say they need more resources to support students who have difficulty reading content, and these teachers estimate around 44% of their students have difficulty reading. 

Many states are requiring some training in “science of reading” topics; other states require teachers to pass a test for certification. However, these requirements can feel like hoop-jumping, especially to experienced educators, and don’t really address their needs.

For example, many of the teachers I work with hear that their students are supposed to read “on grade-level” text. I am a big proponent of this. However, if their students don’t seem able to access this text, they don’t know what to do to help them. State and district mandates don’t tell them what to do in this scenario. Teachers don’t feel successful and they don’t feel like they are helping kids. And so they might resort to the balanced literacy practice of lowering the text level -- because balanced literacy-aligned  professional development and university courses provided them a concrete step they can take to help students access texts. 

Until “science of reading” training requirements meet teachers where they are -- especially teachers of older students -- we won’t see teacher buy-in. And without that, the movement won’t reach its goals.

So What Now? Three Ideas for Moving the Work Forward
(Or, in the words of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and her Scooby gang: “Where do we go from here?”)

The movement for research-aligned reading instruction (the term I prefer to SOR) is in a precarious place. The fact is that we have had wins, and gotten some policy changes. However, if these changes don’t result in success, it’s likely “SOR” will be deemed a failure. We don’t want to have to declare, like Giles from Buffy the Vampire Slayer, “the battle’s done, and we kinda won…”

What do we do now to build on our momentum?


We should be frank and humble about what we do and do not know. And as knowledge changes,we need to adjust our practices. If the laws that have been put in place aren’t working as desired, we should advocate changes. We do not want to find ourselves in the same place as some balanced literacy advocates, refusing to adapt to the times. 

One example of an area where we should take this attitude: the conversation about the mix of knowledge-building or strategies that’s most effective. Research supports both! Online, however, you will find heated arguments about just how these elements should be balanced. This is a time to say that we don’t have all the answers. Similar discussions abound about when to use instructional level text vs. on-grade-level, how many phoneme-grapheme correspondences need to be directly taught, and how standards and “centering the text” fit together.

We need to call out policies and mandates that claim to be aligned to the “science of reading” but actually are not. Yes, explicit teaching of phonics is aligned to research -- but not for all students in all grades, or in place of other elements of reading. Supporting phonemic awareness is important, but spending lots of time doing phonemic awareness without letters is not the most effective way to do so. These are just a couple of examples of science-ish ideas that districts are requiring teachers to do. We need to push back on an overly-simplified vision of reading science that rests on buzzwords (“phonics,” “complex text,” “phonemic awareness”) rather than the messy, exciting, transformative practices that the science actually indicates.

To that end, focusing on research-informed practitioners, rather than only scientists or program authors, may give us insights that can support real teachers and real classrooms. These educators attempt to put into practice what the research says, and can give practical advice and tips on how they make it work. Social media is awash in these practitioners. Nathaniel Hansford, Elana Gordon, Abby Boruff, Callie Lownestein, Lindsay Kemeny, Sean Morrisey, Christopher Such, Margaret Goldberg and Kate Winn are just a few of the practitioners you can find on Bluesky or Twitter; their posts and follows can lead you to further educators or resources. The Goyen Foundation also collects examples of real-life classrooms that are working to align to research evidence, found on social media under the title “Science of Reading Classroom.”


What we cannot do, however, is rest and say that because policies are changing, we’ve won the war to get more kids reading. The movement for research-aligned reading instruction must adapt to the new world we’re finding ourselves in — a world of partial success! —  so that more students learn to read, and read well. And maybe, if we invite more people into the movement with honesty about our issues, we’ll have fewer awkward conversations at Christmas parties.

Footnotes

(1) I have worked with several teachers who graduated from X Local University, and they have described the program as openly hostile to the science of reading. Colleagues have related pure misinformation about reading science that was “taught” in their coursework. So, X Local University, unfortunately, is representative of far too many ed schools around the  country.

(2) You may be thinking - hey, I thought the SOR says decodable readers are good, and leveled books are bad. What gives?
So what does research say?

• Re: decodable books/passages: These are meant for a specific purpose - practicing taught phonics patterns in continuous text. This is great! Practice is definitely a practice supported by research. However, there’s no research showing kids should be restricted to decodables or that they are all kids should read at certain stages.
• Re: leveled texts. I’m not a fan of many “leveled text” sets. They’re often insipid. However, throwing them away is unnecessary. Like decodable readers, some are better than others. Research indicates kids should read a variety of texts to build flexibility with the code. Leveled texts can be re-purposed for fluency practice or sorted into sets to build knowledge about content topics, or just put into classroom libraries. Just as research doesn’t indicate keeping kids in decodables, it does not indicate that we can reliably assess a reading level that can match kids to books, or that kids should only read books at a given level.

(3) I am currently working on a book of practical advice for teachers in elementary grades 2-6, to address this gap. I’ll keep you posted on progress!

---