Earlier this summer, we published a piece clarifying common misunderstandings about reading legislation. We sought to distinguish what truly is—and is not—in the laws we’ve been tracking and cataloguing for the past three years. Our primary concern is that oversimplifications and selective portrayals of the legislation often divert attention from constructive push back that could genuinely improve reading policy. Still, mischaracterizations persist – not solely because of incomplete or inaccurate readings of the laws themselves, but also due to the deep-seated beliefs and assumptions we all bring into these discussions. Put simply, our pre-existing views inevitably shape our sense making of what’s in these laws.
Supporters of reading legislation generally concur that: (a) U.S. students performance on reading tests is concerningly low; (b) instruction, though not the sole determinant, remains a significant factor in shaping student reading outcomes; (c) many instructional practices and materials currently in use are poorly aligned with the established research consensus on how children learn to read; and (d) aligning these practices and materials more closely with the strongest available evidence would increase reading success for more students.
In contrast, critics often contend that: (a) the purported reading crisis is overstated; (b) external factors such as poverty, the chronic underfunding of schools, or increasing chronic absenteeism to name a few factors, largely shape reading outcomes; (c) many educators already use evidence-based methods and materials; and (d) increased alignment of instruction and materials to the established research base is not guaranteed to meaningfully improve outcomes.
On the surface, these two perspectives seem to clash — but they’re more complementary than contradictory, with the truth usually lying somewhere in between. Much of the apparent tension comes down to differences of degree: how strongly each side prioritizes certain levers for change, how quickly they believe we can or should act, and how much weight they give to different kinds of solutions. But over time these small differences can compound and harden into more pronounced disagreements – especially on one key, bottom line, question: can we (or should we) strive for greater alignment of instructional practices and materials with the evidence base? Is it possible, let alone easy or worthwhile? One side says “absolutely;” the other, “not so fast.”
This divide becomes clear when we look at the priorities each camp tends to emphasize. SOR skeptics, for example, may have noticed a perennial lack of commitment to addressing systemic barriers (e.g., poverty) through investments in community schools, free high-quality early childhood education, or universal preschool. Advocates, meanwhile, argue that we cannot wait to solve these broader issues before acting on more immediate levers – namely, what happens in classrooms and schools.
Both sides have a point. And both could benefit from stretching their thinking beyond their own turf to forge more comprehensive solutions that reach more children. Here, I’d like to look at three factors that can make it harder for skeptics to embrace this kind of cross-territory stretching: (1) science continuously evolves, making alignment something of a moving target; (2) methods and tools for identifying and selecting high-quality practices and materials are flawed; and, (3) students vary widely, requiring flexibility, personalization, and the ability for teachers to meet their diverse needs in literacy and beyond.
So let´s tackle these, one at a time.
(1) Science Is Continuously Evolving
Yes, science is not static. But that doesn’t mean today’s knowledge can’t guide action. We have over five decades of accumulated evidence showing the essential skills implicated in learning to read—decoding and language comprehension, including vocabulary and content knowledge. For example, there is strong consensus that explicit instruction in sound–letter correspondence is the most effective onramp to decoding. While there isn’t one correct sequence or single curriculum, practices grounded in this principle are far more likely to succeed than those that are not.
This is just one example among several well-established findings. Ignoring this evidence wholesale, simply because we keep refining what we know, is not the best path forward.
As my collaborator and mentor Susan B. Neuman has noted, “what will evolve most – ideally with teachers and researchers working together – is not the established findings about skills, but how we teach them.” And that’s why teachers matter so much: they are the critical piece in bringing this science to life in classrooms. With teachers’ support, we can continue to improve on what we know, apply it wisely, and ensure more children learn to read with less stress.
(2) Selecting Instructional Materials is Hard
Curriculum matters. As reading laws increasingly call for curated lists of evidence-based materials, programs, and assessments, it’s worth asking how those lists are created and who gets a seat at the table. Done well, they can provide valuable guidance to districts — especially those lacking capacity — navigating a large and complex curriculum landscape. State laws also differ in how those lists are used: some are advisory, others offer incentives, and still others mandate selection of a listed curriculum, though most include opt-out provisions. At the Shanker Institute, we’ve advocated for legislation that is precise, yet flexible enough to accommodate local adaptation and professional discretion. Importantly, any aspect of legislation with direct implications for instruction should be developed with meaningful input from educators. Furthermore, no curriculum, however well designed, succeeds without teachers – and teachers need high-quality professional development aligned to the materials and general support implementing instructional and curricular changes.
Concerns about the process by which curricula and programs are selected are valid, but rejecting the notion of curated lists or any shared guidance altogether is not the answer. Leaving every school or teacher to navigate this alone, without criteria or support, makes consistency and equity harder to achieve and it makes it nearly impossible to track whether any approach is working. In an ideal world, curricula would come with robust, causal evidence of impact. In practice, however, such studies are hard to conduct and take time. That doesn’t mean all curricula are created equal or that we have no way to judge their quality. Across the U.S., several evaluation tools exist—each with a different focus. National tools like EdReports and Louisiana’s instructional review tools emphasize standards alignment. The Reading League’s Curriculum Evaluation Guidelines and the Florida Center for Reading Research rubric prioritize foundational skills and alignment with scientifically based reading research. Others — like the Knowledge Matters Review Tool or Minnesota’s culturally responsive framework — emphasize content knowledge and cultural/linguistic responsiveness, respectively.
No single tool can do it all—indeed, some (like EdReports) have faced criticism for their outsized influence and under alignment with reading research – even though EdReports has recently updated its review criteria in their version 2.0 tools to reflect better alignment with the SOR. Even so, EdReports are far from our only option. We can expand both the criteria we use to assess curricula, the processes and actors involved in vetting materials, as well as the degrees of flexibility in final selection (recommendation versus mandate). Letting everyone fend for themselves, by contrast, is bad policy.
(3) Each Child Is Unique, but Their Path Into Reading Is Similar
Of course, each child is unique—in temperament, background, and much more. But the way their brains learn to read is remarkably consistent [cite], which makes certain instructional emphases nonnegotiable. All children must connect the sounds of spoken language (phonology) with written symbols (orthography) and link that “bundle” to meaning. All must also receive instruction that builds language comprehension, including vocabulary and content knowledge. What varies is not the pathway itself but the amount of instruction, practice, and support each child needs to travel it—whether they are multilingual learners, students with dyslexia, or children with other special needs. Meeting these needs through scaffolds, targeted supports, and oral language development is entirely compatible with a structured, systematic approach to reading instruction. And because the pathway itself does not vary wildly from child to child, certain instructional features remain universal.
That is why explicit instruction in sound–letter correspondence is a cornerstone of early reading instruction for all children—at least until they reach what David Share called “self-teaching” and Mark Seidenberg more recently terms “escape velocity.” Both capture the point that once students know enough of the code, they can figure out the rest through practice and well-designed literacy activities. Explicit instruction is the onramp to this stage, where independent, implicit learning kicks in.
Because the evidence for phonics as the entry point to decoding is so robust, many states have enshrined it in law while discouraging or prohibiting practices like three-cueing, which divert attention from sound–symbol relationships. The question is not whether to move away from such methods – we must strive to do so, but how to do so in ways that are constructive and supportive of teachers given their prior training. Supporting teachers through this shift is essential.
But decoding is only part of the equation. Equally critical is language comprehension—including vocabulary, knowledge building, and more. For these competencies to solidify, students also need ample opportunities to practice, to apply decoding in connected text, and to engage in independent reading that draws on their interests and curiosity. Balanced literacy has strengths here: its emphasis on motivation, engagement, and student interest in reading. As renowned literacy researcher Maryanne Wolf has noted, in foundational skills instruction “there is often insufficient attention to immediately applying fluent decoding skills to stories and connected text—an area where balanced-literacy and whole-language-trained teachers excel. The skills of these teachers should never go unutilized.”
This kind of sustained practice, however, depends not only on instruction but also on motivation and engagement. Many advocates argue that relevance and inclusiveness – taking into account students’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds – are also important, though the evidence base here is less developed and should be strengthened. These examples illustrate how research and science are not static.
In sum, while the path into reading is complex and multifaceted, as well as and broadly similar for all students, the conditions and supports they need to succeed may differ. For legislatures, this is an important reminder: screening and assessment, which reading laws generally address well, are necessary but not sufficient. Equally vital are teachers’ and parents’ observations of students and, above all, the comprehensive supports that show follow those assessments — an area where many states still have much room to grow. All these elements matter in guiding each child uniquely down this shared pathway to proficient reading.
***
To recap, yes—science evolves, but we already know enough to do better. Yes—selecting materials is complex, and we need better processes, but curriculum and professional development matter and we have tools to help distinguish stronger options. And yes—every child is unique, but all children must build the same core neural connections to become skilled readers, and all benefit from instruction that supports the forging of those connections.
For all these reasons, aligning instructional practices and materials with the strongest available evidence is not only our best chance to help students — it is also a hallmark of professionalization and a step toward elevating teaching as a true profession. The steady and deliberate alignment of materials and instruction with the scientific consensus on reading should be nonnegotiable. Not because it solves everything, not because there aren’t other barriers, but because it is essential good practice.
——
I am grateful to Susan B. Neuman for her thoughtful feedback on an earlier draft of this piece.
View the original article and our Inspiration here