literacy

What is Next For the Science of Reading?

A unique gathering of educators, researchers, and advocates took place on March 1, 2025 at Planet Word in Washington, DC, as part of Emily Hanford’s Eyes On Reading series. This event featured Mark Seidenberg and Maryellen MacDonald under the provocative title, “What is Next for the Science of Reading?” The take-home message was undeniably powerful, though it may have left some educators searching for more specific connections to their classroom realities. I write this blog in the spirit of extending this conversation, as getting down to the specifics will depend on the joint work and ongoing dialogue between researchers and educators.

Stand Up for Reading Research

Guest authors Kata Solow and Callie Lowenstein are two of the leading voices of the stand up for reading research movement. Kata and Callie are former classroom teachers who believe meaningful change in education must be collaborative and teacher-led.

Step back and think about it: the Science of Reading Movement is extraordinary, and very unusual. 

Since 2019 -- and in spite of huge political differences -- teachers, parents, journalists, and researchers have worked together and driven the passage of over 430 bills aimed at aligning literacy instruction with research, in all states and the District of Columbia. 

This is a remarkable outcome for any movement, let alone one that lacks formal structure, organization, and leadership. We are a powerful movement. Our strength derives from our drive and passion to learn, drawing insights from our students, our peers, and the rich, expansive research that we refer to as the Science of Reading. 

But where does this research come from? Much of it comes out of a small division of the US Department of Education called the Institute of Education Sciences (IES), which, among other things, funds high-quality research into what works in education. 

Our movement owes so much of our success to the IES. But now this progress is being threatened, as funding and personnel cuts have ground essential research to a halt and upended the IES, as we know it.  

Do you use UFLI, Think SRSD, or Reading Simplified, to name three incredible literacy programs? These programs–that teachers across the country are using to help countless students–were developed as a direct result of funding from the IES. 

Today’s cuts means that the next effective reading program will never get into the classroom. We can’t let that happen.  

Literacy Policy and NAEP

Over the past few years, the Shanker Institute has been tracking and analyzing reading legislation. After NAEP results were made public, colleagues and friends began asking for my take on the link between literacy policy and NAEP reading outcomes. While many experts in student assessment have written extensively about NAEP's dos and don'ts —here’s a recent example — I wanted to offer my perspective because, as Morgan Polikoff wisely cautioned in 'Friends Don’t Let Friends Misuse NAEP Data,' we must use the data responsibly. I understand the eagerness to see policy efforts make a difference for students; however, expecting too much too soon can be misguided and may even sabotage good policy efforts.

First and foremost, NAEP scores provide extremely valuable information about how U.S. students perform in various subjects in any given year. Using NAEP to advocate for improving academic outcomes makes a lot of sense. However, NAEP cannot specifically tell us why students are where they are or what can be done to improve their performance. And yet, raw NAEP scores are routinely misused—even at the highest levels — in this manner. 

Reading Policy, the Wind and the Sun

There is a well-known tale about the Wind and the Sun who once debated who was stronger. They agreed that whoever could make a traveler remove his coat would win. The Wind went first, blowing with all his might, but the harder he blew, the tighter the man wrapped his coat. Exhausted, the Wind gave up. Then the Sun shone warmly on the traveler, and as the air around him grew warmer, the man loosened his coat and eventually removed it entirely.

What does this story have to do with reading policy?

At the Shanker Institute, we have been cataloging literacy laws enacted since 2019. Over the years, we have observed an increase in the prescriptiveness of these laws—for example, states are increasingly banning three cueing -- at least 14 states include such language in their laws. Simultaneously, and perhaps relatedly, opposition to the science of reading seems to be on the rise. I find myself thinking that perhaps these attempts to change instruction with the force of the law are akin to the Wind in the story, causing some educators to feel their professional autonomy is challenged, leading them to rely more heavily on familiar practices. Are there sun-like influences shaping the discourse in ways that might help teachers to lower their fences and become more receptive to new knowledge? I believe so. 

Digital Technology and the Reading Brain: What Reading Legislation Overlooks

The Shanker Institute and Maryland READS recently facilitated a conversation between state and local education leaders in Maryland and literacy expert Dr. Maryanne Wolf to explore the impact of digital technology on students’ reading development. As Maryland joins other states in implementing policy reforms to improve reading instruction, it is essential to recognize and explore additional ecosystemic barriers that might prevent the state from achieving its reading proficiency goals.

A growing number of studies (discussed below) are showing that choosing to read on screens versus using printed materials can be a significant obstacle to acquiring deep reading and thinking skills. This post explores whether and how reading policy – state legislation in particular – is responding to this emerging concern. 
 
The Shanker Institute has been tracking and analyzing the content of reading bills enacted into law since 2019. Technology, broadly defined,^[1] has been one domain whose presence or absence we identified in these laws. This post focuses on mentions of digital media related to students, including its use in instruction, progress monitoring and assessment, as well as in reading interventions. Our analysis reveals that laws in nine states out of 50 that enacted some reading bill and out of 33 with comprehensive reading legislation discuss these uses of technology, as summarized in Table 1 below. 
  

Out of School But in a Book: Leveraging the Socio-Cultural Aspects of Reading

So often, when we talk about reading, we focus on the technical or cognitive side of it – learning how students decode words and understand their meaning. While this makes sense because schools tend to prioritize the technical aspects of reading for beginning learners, the socio-cultural aspect of reading must not be forgotten. 

The socio-cultural aspect of reading refers to how our community, environment, and cultural background influence reading. The way that people learn to read, what they decide to read, and how they interpret what they read is largely influenced by their larger socio-cultural environment (Cartin, 2023). 

When you reflect on your experience learning to read, did just learning how to sound out words make you a strong reader? Or, did your environment play a role? Did learning how to sound out words in collaboration with your peers or the pride and joy from finishing your first book inspire you to keep reading? 

Only recently have some states – such as Minnesota, Michigan, and Florida – begun to include initiatives incorporating the community and environmental dimension of reading into their legislation. For example, Minnesota’s HF 2497 bill established a grant to support eligible after-school organizations in providing culturally affirming and enriching​ after-school programming that promotes positive learning activities, specifically including community engagement and literacy. Similarly, Michigan’s HB 4411 bill established an innovative community library fund to aid in furthering reading skills and address early childhood literacy gaps through the engagement and connection of students. Another example is Florida’s SB 2524 bill, which established a partnership with Just Read, Florida! to help distribute books at no cost to families to help instill a love of reading in students. Such initiatives can play a significant role in promoting childhood literacy and encourage young readers to view reading as a leisure and social activity. However, we need more states to adopt similar efforts to truly meet the needs of all students.

The Threat of Technology to Students' Reading Brains

As Maryland’s state leaders join their peers across the country to push forward with policy reforms grounded in the science of reading, we asked ourselves: by focusing primarily on instruction, are we addressing the full scope of challenges that impact reading proficiency? While improving the teaching of reading with evidence-based practices is critical, a significant issue remains underexplored: the impact of our digital culture on children’s ability to develop and maintain the capacity for sustained, focused, and reflective reading.

Some might question whether this type of reading is feasible in today’s fast-paced, distraction-filled digital world. However, as Maryanne Wolf persuasively argues, this level of deep engagement is both attainable and essential for developing critical thinking, empathy, and insight. Wolf describes deep reading as a journey into the "innermost sanctuary" of our hearts and minds. In that space, we don't just comprehend or absorb the author's words; we actively reflect on their ideas, going beyond them to develop our own. Deep reading nurtures the intellectual and emotional capacities that make us human. So, why is this form of reading most at risk today?

Reading science has shown that learning to read is not a natural process; it requires explicit, systematic instruction and practice (also here and here). Unlike spoken language, which humans instinctively acquire through exposure and interaction, reading is a skill that our brains are not biologically wired for. In other words, humans do not learn to read simply by being exposed to books or observing others reading. Therefore, the reading brain must be intentionally built repurposing and connecting areas of the brain; science of reading policy aims to ensure that all children receive the best instruction to achieve this goal. Yet, we are learning that structured literacy instruction in elementary school is not a one and done. To sustain and grow our reading capacity, we must actively nurture, use, and protect this magnificent infrastructure that is the reading brain. Because, as Wolf argues, the brain's plasticity is its greatest strength but also its Achilles' heel; what is built can be unbuilt. And that’s what our digital culture might be doing.

Help Students Start the School Year with Confidence in Reading

Summer may be over, but efforts to build strong summer reading programs are just beginning. Now is the time to evaluate which programs were offered—or lacking—for our students in the past few months. In addition, September and October are when states plan and budget for next summer, and lawmakers consider bills for upcoming legislative sessions. Early planning secures funding and ensures readiness by June, making this the ideal time to focus on summer programming.

Learning to read requires explicit instruction and ample practice, making it important to consider how out-of-school time can support beginner readers. Yet, every June many 6-, 7-, and 8-year-olds transition to camps or other forms of childcare that often provide limited opportunities for academic engagement. While this may be fine for many children, it is also during this time when others experience the so-called summer slide, a regression in academic proficiency due to summer break. Among these children, some are on track to becoming competent readers, while others are at or slightly below grade level. A third group of children is well behind their peers at the end of the school year, potentially due to reading difficulties, whether formally identified or not. 

Reading Science: Staying the Course Amidst the Noise

Critical perspectives on the Science of Reading (SoR) have always been present and are justifiably part of the ongoing discourse. At the Shanker Institute, we have been constructively critical, maintaining that reading reforms are not a silver bullet and that aspects of SoR, such as the role of knowledge-building and of infrastructure in reading improvement, need to be better understood and integrated into our discourse, policies, and practices. These contributions can strengthen the movement, bringing us closer to better teaching and learning. However, I worry that other forms of criticism may ultimately divert us from these goals and lead us astray.

At the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), the largest research conference in the field of education, I witnessed the spread of serious misinformation about reading research and related reforms. In this post, I aim to address four particularly troubling ideas I encountered. For each, I will not only provide factual corrections but also contextual clarifications, highlighting any bits of truth or valid criticisms that may exist within these misconceptions.

Literacy Legislation in Education: Align Policy with Practice

Our guest author is Jeanne Jeup, co-founder and CEO of the Institute for Multi-Sensory Education and a former first-grade teacher.

Change starts at the top with legislation, a constant force shaping how teachers teach and students learn. Navigating the intricate path from the inception of legislation to its effective implementation within classrooms is a multifaceted and demanding endeavor. By nurturing collaboration among educators, administrators, and policymakers, a trickle-down effect is created that can successfully bridge the immense gap between policy and practice. The majority of states that enacted reading legislation in the past four years recognize the role of science and evidence in reading reform.

The legislative landscape in reading education is complex and multifaceted. Due to the combined efforts of educators, parents, and state leaders, there has been a movement toward science-based reading instruction. This push brought about an onslaught of legislation to address the persistent reading deficits of all American students, namely those living in poverty and those from black, brown, and indigenous communities who are disproportionately affected.

The journey of reading education legislation begins with policymakers and educational experts collaborating to draft bills and set expectations. Well-intentioned from the start, the challenge lies in ensuring that these laws, once passed, are effectively communicated and implemented throughout the education system at large. As these policies filter down through the layers of the education system, from the state level to the district level and finally to the classroom, interpretation and implementation can vary significantly. Without an educator on the local classroom level who can communicate and take ownership of the changes, legislation becomes just words on a page without being put into practice. This leads to a disconnect between the intent of the legislation and its real-world application through clear and actionable implementation solutions.