literacy

Science of Reading Laws: Let’s Begin with the Facts

In the past five years, virtually every state has enacted legislation aimed at improving reading instruction—a wave of reform the Shanker Institute has been (and still is) following closely. The legislation is far from perfect. Some laws lack clarity or feel clunky — somewhat misaligned with the complexity of teaching and learning to read. Others are overly rigid, and have unenforceable mandates that do little to inspire educators' trust. 

These are all valid critiques—ones we at the Institute have raised ourselves. But because we’ve taken the time to read and code these laws, we also take issue with how some of the criticisms are framed. Often, sweeping generalizations dominate the public conversation, misrepresenting both the content and intent of these laws. In this commentary, we address several of the most common misconceptions.

But before jumping in, here is some context: a total of 118 laws in 23 states and the District of Columbia use the expression “science of reading” in at least one piece of legislation passed between 2019 and 2024. By contrast, language invoking the use of "evidence" and "research" appears in virtually all states. As we noted in our 2023 report, states vary significantly in how they define “science of reading” – a topic we may tackle separately. 

Beyond Scripts: Why Structured Adaptations Are Key to Scaling Literacy Programs

During National Teacher Appreciation Week, we showcase guest author Susan B. Neuman, who is Professor and Chair of the Teaching and Learning Department at the Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development at New York University and a Shanker Institute Board Member.

I’ve had a front-row seat to decades of curriculum reforms—each promising to close gaps, accelerate learning, and transform instruction. I’ve seen the excitement of a new initiative, the careful design of pilot studies, and the early gains that spark real hope. But I’ve also seen something else: how quickly that promise can fade when programs meet the messy, beautiful, and unpredictable reality of classrooms. Curricula do not teach students to read - teachers do. Without supporting teachers, even the most evidence-aligned programs won't be able to deliver on their promise. 

The truth is, many of our most effective interventions never make it beyond the lab or the pilot stage—not because they don’t work, but because they weren’t built to meet the learning environments they were designed to help. In fact, one of the biggest challenges we face is how to take successful small-scale interventions and implement them across dozens—or even hundreds—of classrooms without losing their impact. This is especially true for vocabulary-building programs designed to reduce opportunity gaps for children in low-income communities. 

But here’s the big question: How do we maintain fidelity to a program’s core while allowing room for teacher voice and expertise to address classroom realities? The answer lies in something called structured adaptation—and it might be the missing link in making good programs great at scale. But what is structured adaptation?

Structured adaptation is a middle path between a rigid, word-for-word scripted curriculum and a loosely guided one. Think of it as a soft script: teachers are provided with clear objectives, key vocabulary, and suggested questions—but they’re also empowered to adapt the language, pacing, and delivery based on the needs of their students.

Why Are Some Methods to Teach Reading Still Popular—Even Without Enough Evidence to Support Them?

This is a question that baffles me. If there’s one thing I’m sure of, it’s that most teachers are doing their very best for students. So, there must be a (student-centered) reason teachers use the methods they do.

In conversations with colleagues, some have noted that certain instructional practices appear to produce faster results. Teachers may adopt them to help students catch up quickly, hoping this will allow them to engage more fully in core instruction and boost their confidence and motivation. That made a lot of sense to me. And yet, it is possible that some strategies offer quick wins but don’t stick or scale—because they’re shortcuts.

It’s a bit like teaching a child to swim freestyle by having them mimic the motions they see. They might manage to get across the pool, which gives the appearance of success. But without learning proper technique—how to rotate their body, coordinate breathing with strokes, or maintain a high elbow during the pull—they’ll tire quickly, develop inefficient habits, and hit a performance ceiling they can’t easily overcome. The shortcut lets them move forward, but it doesn’t lay the foundation for becoming a strong swimmer over time.

Then I came across this research reference in Claude Goldenberg’s Substack – which is a treasure trove of insight; well worth a look if you are interested in literacy research and policy. 

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 only nine states (out of 50 that enacted some reading bill between 2019 and 2023) 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.