A data-rich but disappointing report on reading legislation in the US from 2019-2022 has been released by the Shanker Institute.

The report concedes “legislative efforts have at times been criticized widely,” but chooses to applaud the “science of reading” (SOR) movement without considering the considerable scholarly criticism raising cautions about claims of a reading crisis and mandates in that legislation.

Further, the report ignores how the SOR movement fits into decades of political education reform since the 1980s, reforms that have repeatedly failed to produce positive outcomes for students or teachers.

While the report lacks critical grounding, it also offers a couple key points to consider. First:

There are no quick fixes: The path to improvement will require time, consistent investment and a holistic approach to reform. The magnitude of the task should motivate us to persevere and collaborate more effectively. Yet, we are concerned about the polarizing rhetoric surrounding reading and hope that this review can foster a more measured dialogue about the strengths and limitations of state efforts and reading improvement more broadly.

Reading Reform Across America

The emphasis on avoiding one-size-fits all solutions is important and supported by many critics of the SOR movement. And certainly the “polarizing rhetoric” of the SOR debate is harmful; yet, this report’s positive spin on harmful legislation is certain to trigger, not ameliorate that caustic debate.

Valid criticism isn’t any more “polarizing” than idealistic endorsements.

Next, and more importantly for this post:

Whether we see the current state of American students’ reading achievement as a new crisis or as part of a stable trend, the truth remains that more than one-third (37 percent) of the nation’s fourth-graders performed below the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) “Basic” level in 2022. Because there is no achievement-level description for below “Basic,” it is difficult to make full sense of this statistic.

Reading Reform Across America

Here is the central problem with the SOR movement as well as nine decades of reading wars: The truth is that we know very little empirically about reading proficiency in the US because we have no stable or unified metric or assessment to understand what proficiency is or how well students are developing as readers.

There simply has never been a single day in the US since at least the 1940s that the media, public, and political leaders have declared reading proficiency adequate.

What does it mean to have been in a continual reading crisis in the US for almost a century and yet the country has experienced no major or catastrophic decline?

What does it mean to have been in a continual reading crisis in the US for almost a century because we claim reading is essential for student and societal success and yet the dooms day messaging never materializes?

That leads us to this: What do we really know about reading proficiency in the US?

As the report notes, one aspect of reading proficiency in the US is quite clear and easy to document with multiple data points: Reading proficiency data expose a significant inequity among marginalized groups of students—notably Black and brown students, students in poverty, multi-lingual learners (whom the report advocates for admirably), and special needs students.

Yet this fact about reading is replicated in all other educational measurements, and thus, is not a unique reality about reading proficiency, suggesting something other than reading legislation (or any educational legislation) is needed in the US.

Also, it seems fair and supported by the evidence that we have to note that reading progress by students (how well any students gains reading proficiency in relationship with their peers) is a strong marker for educational progress in general.

While over-emphasizing reading proficiency at grade 3 is problematic, no one suggests that early reading progress should be ignored. Yet, many states persist in adopting harmful grade 3 retention that has been shown to correlate strongly with negative consequences.

The report does concede about grade retention: “Consequently, there are reasons to be cautious about the policy.”

Beyond these two points, however, claims about reading proficiency are at best speculation and at worst ideological assertions without empirical support.

The latter, regretfully, is the crux of most reading wars for decades.

So here is what we don’t have but urgently need in order to address reading in ways that are supportive of students and teachers and avoids the “polarizing rhetoric” with which the report seems deeply concerned:

• A standardized definition of “proficiency” that is age-based and not grade-based.
• A comprehensive documentation of reading programs and instructional practices implemented in the US over the last decade.
• A set of diverse assessments grounded in a standardized definition of “proficiency.”
• Patience and a willingness to admit that human behaviors occur on a spectrum; not all students learn at the same rates.
• Reading legislation that neither mandates nor bans practices or policies, but provides a funding framework that supports educators as autonomous professionals.

The polarization in public and political debates about reading is in part driven by all that we do not know and do not have regarding reading proficiency, allowing too many people (some without good intentions) to make melodramatic claims that reinforce political, media, and market interests, not student achievement or teacher/teaching quality.

Ultimately, this current trend in reading legislation is far more dangerous than promising since the decisions being made for teachers and students are not grounded evidence-based claims.

The inequity exposed in data on reading achievement is itself enough to justify that we do something, but continuing to do the same thing over and over while expecting different results is a tremendous political and educational mistake.

We simply do not know what we need to know about reading proficiency, but we do know that reading achievement is not uniquely inequitable; and thus, education reform broadly has failed for decades, and we are far past time to re-evaluate political educational reform.

This report eagerly endorsing more of the same political educational reform; therefore, it fails in its central mission.