literacy

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.

Reading Reform on the Ground: How SoR Policy is Showing Up in Schools

On International Literacy Day, we publish a guest post by educator, researcher, and author Callie Lowenstein who shares her incredible perspective of the in-depth thinking teachers offer to their practice and how sincerely teachers want to meet the needs of students.

One thing about teachers: we want to get our instruction right. 

After decades of mixed messages and misinformation in our professional development (PD), teacher training programs, and curricular materials, many classroom educators are eager to get on top of the science, to ensure that our efforts and hours, our lesson planning and detailed feedback and materials prep and book purchases and deep care for our students, are not being wasted. 

Indeed, after a major balanced-literacy leader published an unapologetic deflection of the science of reading movement last year, a group of teachers from across the country wrote our own open letter, collecting over 650 teacher signatures in a matter of days, attesting to the ways we, teachers, wished we had done better by our students.

As authors Susan B. Neuman, Esther Quintero, and Kayla Reist so expertly and carefully highlighted in the Shanker Institute’s Reading Reform Across America report, it’s not just us. 

Decades of Dedication to the Science of Reading

MARY CATHRYN
As director of the Albert Shanker Institute, the think tank endowed by the American Federation of Teachers, I had the privilege of leading the development and release of the ASI’s new report released in late July, Reading Reform Across America. It’s a survey of reading legislation adopted over the course of four years by states across the country, with good and bad news. The report was met with immediate interest, and attention.

To the good, states are finally noting that the research underlying strong reading instruction is not typically matched by the curriculum and instruction in most schools, and they are taking legislative action. Also, despite fears that much of the legislation might only call narrowly for phonics, most states called for the full range of instruction noted as essential in the renowned 2000 National Reading Panel report.

On the downside, the legislation is generally too narrow. In almost every state, there is scant attention to the importance of background knowledge, oral language, and even writing, now understood to be vital to strong reading comprehension and overall literacy.

Why Does Knowledge Matter?

We recently released a report examining reading laws enacted by states in the past four years. One finding that has generated interest is the fact that these laws pay almost no attention to the role of background/content knowledge in reading. Specifically, 6 out of 46 states that passed reading legislation between 2019 and 2022 mention background/content knowledge in their laws; of these, only 4—Arizona, Florida, Michigan, and Pennsylvania—include a more substantive (if brief) mention.

Florida’s law, for example, requires the state’s department of education to “develop and provide access to sequenced, content-rich curriculum programming, instructional practices, and resources that help elementary schools use state-adopted instructional materials to increase students' background knowledge and literacy skills.” But language like this is almost non-existent in the corpus of over 220 reading bills we examined. Why does this omission matter?

There's widespread agreement within the reading community regarding the association between knowledge and reading comprehension: the more you know, the more you understand when you read, and the more you gain from reading. Furthermore, there's a growing body of evidence (also here and here) suggesting that this association is causal. Thus, building knowledge, particularly through a content-rich curriculum, is expected to enhance general reading comprehension. While this is a encouraging finding, shouldn't we value knowledge for its own inherent worth? Beyond its essential role in comprehension, why else might knowledge matter?