| Abstract: |
The basic contours of the "science of reading" have been well-established since at least the turn of the century, when the National Reading Panel published its definitive report, Teaching Children to Read. Yet despite the unusual strength of the evidence behind the science of reading movement, millions of American students are still taught with ineffective instructional methods and materials. In recent years, reading reformers have finally begun to turn the tide, aided by the work of education authors and mainstream journalists such as Emily Hanford, whose 2022 podcast series, "Sold a Story: How Teaching Kids to Read Went So Wrong," brought unprecedented attention to the problems with reading instruction, including the degree to which explicit phonics instruction--which is critical to decoding unfamiliar words--was overlooked or crowded out by unscientific approaches such as whole language, three-cueing, and "balanced" literacy. In the wake of the podcast's release, many practicing educators came forward to corroborate Hanford's account, and a bipartisan coalition of stakeholders ignited a fresh wave of activity in statehouses, departments of education, and central offices that focused on science of reading--aligned professional development and instructional materials for kindergarten through third grade, which is the period when most children learn to read. In addition to explicit phonics instruction, this push has increasingly incorporated other "pillars" of effective reading instruction, such as a proactive approach to phonemic awareness and a broad curriculum that effectively builds knowledge and vocabulary through exposure to history, science, and other essential content. But is this flurry of activity having the desired effects? To find out, the authors conducted a nationally representative survey of K-3 teachers whose responsibilities included teaching reading or English language arts instruction. The research questions were as follows: (1) How well do K-3 teachers understand the science of reading?; (2) What science of reading supports are K-3 teachers receiving?; and (3) Which policies or supports are associated with a deeper understanding of reading science? Overall, the results suggest at least two conclusions. First, K-3 teachers' knowledge of the science of reading is improving. Second, there is an urgent need for continued progress. |