Tag Archives: reading

Education, education reform, Educational Research, reading, reading proficiency, Science of Reading

What’s Missing in the “Science of” Education Reform Movements? Often, the Science

December 9, 2025 plthomasedd

[Header Photo by Andrew George on Unsplash]

In an analysis of how media represents teachers and education, Silvia Edling argues, “Newspapers do not just write about education, they also represent to their readers what education is ‘about.’”

Edling notes that teachers and education are often characterized by stereotypes, focusing on “four inter-related propensities”:

Viewing education as being in more or less permanent crisis

Taking the role as a spokesperson for teachers and on behalf of the field of education

Excluding the knowledge and experiences of teacher(s), educators and/or educational researchers in the public press

Simplifying the notion of being a good teacher through stereotypes and dualistic frameworks that overlook task and relational complexity.

At the core of effective journalism is the importance of compelling stories. However, one truism offers a problem with relying on narratives without ensuring that the broader evidence supports the anecdote: “a lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes.”

For media coverage of education, the softer version may be that an exciting story can attain a status of fact before educational research can confirm or refute the narrative as an outlier or misinformation.

One challenge is, of course, that journalism works much more quickly than scientific research, and this is compounded by the inherent complexity of conducting education research and then applying that evidence to the real world.

For about a decade now, education reform has mostly invested in an expanding “science of” movement that began with the “science of reading” and now includes an international focus on the “science of learning” as well as a parallel “science of math” movement.

The origin stories of the “science of reading” movement is grounded, in fact, in the journalism of Emily Hanford, notably Hard Words, the ironically named Sold a Story podcast, and There Is a Right Way to Teach Reading, and Mississippi Knows It.

As I have detailed, the Mississippi “miracle” and reading crisis narratives generated and perpetuated by the media are missing one key ingredient—scientific evidence for the hyperbolic claims and narratives.

In fact, the current “science of” movements fail all four of Edling’s concerns by presenting a crisis absent research to support the claims; creating non-education reading “experts” among journalists and advocates for commercial programs; cherry-picking teacher voices while also misrepresenting teacher expertise through stereotypes and caricatures; and framing both the crisis and solutions in simplistic either/or rhetoric along ideological lines (progressive v. traditional framed as vibe-based v. scientific).

While the most recent wave, for example, of reading reform reaches back to 2012, the tipping point was Mississippi’s 2019 grade 4 reading scores. Since Mississippi has a long history of unfairly being cast as “last in the nation in education,” that these grade 4 scores suddenly rocketed into the top 25% of state scores certainly qualifies as a compelling story.

It also doesn’t hurt that the appearance that Mississippi had proven that “poverty is an excuse” adds fuel to the hyperbole fire.

Quickly, a “science of” narrative erupted, resulting in copy-cat legislation and the same unverified story about a reading crisis and the Mississippi miracle across local, regional, and national media.

The “science of” story has, in fact, traveled around the world several times at this point, but the key element remains missing—the science.

For example, The Reading League and the 95 Percent Group have become powerful advocacy organizations that make narrow and absolute claims about the need for science-only reading instruction linked to the promise that 95% of student will become proficient readers.

Again, ironically, neither of these positions (or the advocacy of the organizations) is grounded in the science.

First, The Reading League simultaneously demands only scientific evidence (first image) while advocating for practices and programs (for example, decodable texts and O-G phonics) that literature reviews on the current state of reading science refute (second image):

And, even more problematic, the 95% claim is not a scientific fact, but a very weakly supported and likely aspirational argument with only a few research studies behind the over-sized claim. As I have noted, the only evidence I have found is a a blog post cited by NCTQ, who twisted the stat to 90% and issued a report on teacher education that failed to match claims with the science.

Recently, the science is now catching up with the Mississippi story—although education journalism has remained silent on the current body of research that contradicts the story.

First, if we stick to the science and not the story, poverty is not an excuse when considering reading proficiency; in fact, over 60% of measurable student achievement is causally linked to “social capital family income variables that influence the development of background knowledge. Background knowledge is a known predictor of standardized test results. Family income variables are immutable by schools. Only public policies, outside the control of school personnel, can influence family income.”

In fact, these researchers reject continuing to base education reform on testing data such as NAEP:

Policy makers and education leaders should rethink the current reliance on standardized test results as the deciding factor to make decisions about student achievement, teacher quality, school effectiveness, and school leader quality. In effect, policies that use standardized test results to evaluate, reward, and sanction students and school personnel are doing nothing more than rewarding schools that serve advantaged students and punishing schools that serve disadvantaged students.

Next, two analyses of reading reform—one targeting the larger early reading reform movement and another specifically addressing Mississippi reading reform—find that the early grade reading score increases are not linked to changes in teacher training, reading instruction, and reading programs, but are grounded in grade retention policies.

In the broader study, Westall and Cummings found that only states with grade retention in their reading reform achieved increased reading proficiency scores, and those increases faded from elementary to middle school (paralleling the drop from top 25% to bottom 25% of states in NAEP from grade 4 to grade 8 by Mississippi and Florida).

They, however, drew no conclusions about why retention appears to result in higher scores.

Now, however, Howard Wainer, Irina Grabovsky and Daniel H. Robinson offer a conclusive connection between retention and reading scores:

But it was the second component of the Mississippi Miracle, a new retention policy, perhaps inspired by New Orleans’ Katrina disaster a decade earlier, that is likely to be the key to their success….

Prior to 2013, a higher percentage of third-graders moved on to the fourth grade and took the NAEP fourth-grade reading test. After 2013, only those students who did well enough in reading moved on to the fourth grade and took the test.

It is a fact of arithmetic that the mean score of any data set always increases if you delete some of the lowest scores (what is technically called “left truncation of the score distribution”)….

It is disappointing, but not surprising, that the lion’s share of the effects of the “Mississippi miracle” are yet another case of gaming the system. There is no miracle to behold. There is nothing special in Mississippi’s literacy reform model that should be replicated globally. It just emphasises the obvious advice that, if you want your students to get high scores, don’t allow those students who are likely to get low scores to take the test. This message is not a secret….

The science now suggests that reading proficiency score gains do not equate with improved reading proficiency due to classroom teaching learning reform. Mississippi reform is a statistical veneer for a harmful policy.

Notably, the current science on grade retention also confirms a body of evidence that retention does more harm than any possible good:

[T]hird-grade retention significantly reduces annual earnings at age 26 by $3,477 (19%). While temporarily improving test scores, retention increases absenteeism, violent behavior, and juvenile crime, and reduces the likelihood of high school graduation. Moreover, retained students exhibit higher community college enrollment but lower public university attendance, though neither estimate is statistically significant.

We are left with a significant problem and a question that must be answered: Since, as Edling shows, media controls what most people know and believe about education, teachers, and students, why are journalists committed to a story not grounded in evidence while also ignoring the science that seems essential for creating an authentic “science of” education reform movement?

Research Highlights “Science of Reading” Fails Equity, Teacher Autonomy, and Social Media Discourse

November 1, 2025 plthomasedd

[Header Photo by Jansen Yang on Unsplash]

I am currently reading two engaging and often challenging novels—Roberto Bolano’s huge 2666 and Ahmed Saadawi’s Frankenstein in Bagdad.

As an avid reader, writer, and teacher of literacy for over 42 years, I am deeply moved by stories, and both of these novels are engaging because they weave stories together while also forcing the reader to critically engage with the act of story telling itself (especially in Saadawi’s monstrous recreation of the Frankenstein myth).

As a writing teacher I seek to foster in my students not only an awareness of the power of story—the importance of vivid details and the narrative mode—but also the ethical implications of the stories we choose to tell as well as the stories we choose to ignore.

In public discourse, however, we are at the mercy of how traditional and social media portray complex and important topics.

Media creators who are successful are vividly aware of the power of story, and my fields of education and literacy, regretfully, suffer the brunt of compelling but misleading stories across all types of media. For media creators, compelling stories often trump accurate and credible stories.

Ironically, at the foundation of the current reading crisis labeled the “science of reading” (SOR) is a podcast, Sold a Story, that research is gradually exposing for being the mechanism for selling a story that is not credible and is in turn causing more harm than good (except for those profiting off the story).

Here are three relatively recent open-access publications that highlight SOR failing equity, teacher autonomy, and social media discourse:

Dimensions of Equity in the Science of Reading Research: A Systematic Review of Actual, Artificial, and Absent Up-Takes of Equity

JaNiece Elzy-Palmer, Alexandra Babino, Tee Hubbard

Abstract

The Science of Reading (SoR) movement is positioned as a pathway to equity in literacy development, yet little is known about how equity is defined and enacted within SoR scholarship. This systematic review examined 36 peer-reviewed studies published between 2014 and 2024 that addressed both SoR and equity. Using a framework of nine equity dimensions, we analyzed how equity was conceptualized and operationalized across this body of research. Findings reveal that only 17% of screened articles (36/211) engaged with equity dimensions in substantive ways. Analysis showed that equity was primarily conceptualized through access (n = 69) and opportunity (n = 83), with most studies giving limited attention to race, power structures, and the systems that uphold inequities. SoR research primarily focused on three student groups: emergent bilinguals, “struggling” readers without disabilities, and students from low socioeconomic backgrounds, while largely employing race-evasive language such as “diverse” or “struggling students.” By contrast, actual uptakes of equity, though limited, were most often found in international contexts where inclusion and representation were embedded through culturally and linguistically responsive adaptations. These findings highlight a persistent disconnect between SoR’s equity claims and its research base, underscoring the need to integrate transformative justice approaches so that equity efforts move beyond access and opportunity toward systemic change in literacy development.

Teacher Autonomy in Text Choices for Elementary Reading Instruction

Allison Ward Parsons, Kristin Conradi Smith, Margaret Vaughn, Holly Klee, Leslie La Croix, Jane Core Yatzeck

Abstract

Reading in elementary school is central to supporting student reading development. However, a gap exists in current research regarding the types of texts that teachers select for reading instruction and the instructional contexts in which that reading occurs. Teachers’ autonomy to select texts and activities for reading instruction is complex and not well understood. In this exploratory study, we surveyed a stratified sample of elementary teachers (n = 1250) in the United States to understand their perceptions of autonomy surrounding text use. Chi-squared analysis results raise questions of autonomy, access, and equity, particularly regarding digital text usage in younger grades and schools with fewer economic resources. Discussion highlights the differences in teacher autonomy regarding text use across school demographics and instructional contexts. Implications for practice and future research are discussed.

The Science of Reading on Social Media: TikTok Content Creators’ Discourse Patterns and Bodies of Knowledge

Lindsey W. Rowe, Sarah Jerasa, Heather Dunham, C. C. Bates, Tobi Pirolla, Meghan J. Malloy

Abstract

The Science of Reading (SOR) has become a public discourse with educational stakeholders, impacting legislative policy, reading content, curricula, and pedagogy across schools. Public engagement in this movement has transpired on social media, including TikTok, where viral content often promotes narrow or binary viewpoints through an authoritative discourse. Using a digital ethnography and walkthrough method, we collected and examined 156 TikTok videos on #ScienceofReading to address the following research questions: (1) What categories of SOR content are present on TikTok? (2) What are the common narrative trends and bodies of knowledge used to promote the SOR conversation on TikTok? Analyses found that SOR-related TikToks fell into four categories: (1) professional content knowledge, (2) direct demonstration, (3) resources and materials, and (4) identity formation. Furthermore, close analysis of all videos related to professional content knowledge gave insight into the narrative trends used by content creators to convey claims (plain speak, stop/start, brain research, rhetorical question, I used to… now I…), as well as the bodies of knowledge content creators drew on to make these claims (research, SOR, theory or scholar, deep personal experience, no source). Finally, implications are discussed for how this public discourse can shape policies that will ultimately impact schools, classrooms, and literacy instruction.

Thomas, P.L. (2025, Spring). Crisis as distraction and erasure: How SOR fails diversity and urban students. Journal of Literacy and Urban Schools (1), 6-23. https://theliteracyandurbanschoolsjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/issue-1-journal-of-literacy-and-urban-schools.pdf

Thomas, P.L. (2025). Breaking free of the “war,” “crisis,” and “miracle” cycles of reading policy and practice. In T.A. Price & M. McNulty (eds.), Public spaces, politics, and policy: historical entanglements with irrational momentism (pp. 93-112). Bloomsbury.

Thomas, P.L. (2025, July 28). There is no literacy crisis in the U.S. Here’s what’s really happening. The Washington Post. https://wapo.st/474j758

Thomas, P.L. (2025). Navigating (another) reading crisis as an administrator: Rethinking the “science of reading” movement. Journal of School Administration, Research and Development, 10(1), 38-48. https://ojed.org/JSARD/article/view/6706

Thomas, P.L. (2024, November). We teach English in times of perpetual crisis: For all ELA teachers, “the time is always now.” English Journal, 114(2), 21-26. https://publicationsncte.org/content/journals/10.58680/ej2024114221

Thomas, P.L. (2024, September). We teach English in times of perpetual crisis: The media continue to misread teaching reading and literacy. English Journal, 114(1), 14-19. https://publicationsncte.org/content/journals/10.58680/ej2024114114

Thomas, P.L. (2024, May). Teaching English in the “science of reading” era: We teach English in times of perpetual crisis: Selling a story of reading. English Journal, 113(5), 16-22. https://publicationsncte.org/content/journals/10.58680/ej2024113516

Thomas, P.L. (2024, March). We teach English in times of perpetual crisis: The long (and tedious) history of reading crisis. English Journal, 113(4), 21-26. https://publicationsncte.org/content/journals/10.58680/ej2024113421

Thomas, P.L. (2023, November). Everything you know is wrong: The “science of reading” era of reading legislation. Perspectives and Provocations, (11), 1-17. https://drive.google.com/file/d/12fAfLV1pCh7ZXV-UFsTftFd7y_MLSK-O/view

Compton-Lilly, C., Spence, L.K., Thomas, P.L. & Decker, S.L. (2023). Stories grounded in decades of research: What we truly know about the teaching of reading. Reading Teacher, 77(3), 392-400. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.2258

literacy, Media, reading, Science of Reading

The “Southern Surge” in Reading: Another Media Manufactured Mirage

October 28, 2025 plthomasedd

[Header Photo by Michał Parzuchowski on Unsplash]

Growing up in the South, I was often warned not to beat a dead horse.

A lifelong love of science fiction and fantasy, however, has made me aware of zombie narratives and that sometimes the dead are the living dead.

In my career of literacy, the phonics gambit is just that—a zombie advocacy that just will not die.

The newest media iteration of the phonics gambit has been christened the “Southern surge” in reading, celebrated again in Chalkbeat: The ‘Southern surge’ offers lessons for student learning — but we don’t fully understand it yet.

This “Southern surge” narrative tends to center Mississippi but also includes Florida, Alabama, and Louisiana (the most recent “miracle” state based on an incomplete or misleading use of NAEP scores).

Like many media manufactured narratives, the “Southern surge” in reading falls apart when the data are carefully examined.

While I give the Chalkbeat article some credit for admitting that the so-called “surge” is not fully understood, Barnum—as Hanford did when christening Mississippi a “miracle” in 2019 (“What’s up in Mississippi? There’s no way to know for sure what causes increases in test scores”)—gives the “surge” narrative nearly complete credibility even with the headline hedge and a couple points made then glossed over (“Eighth grade results have been less impressive for these Southern exemplars, though”).

Here are the (likely fatal) flaws in the “surge” narrative:

Although Barnum cites an important and comprehensive analysis of reading reform, he fails to acknowledge its most important findings: States adopting reading reform (often popularly associated with Mississippi’s model even when states explicitly do not mimic those reform policies, such as California) has seen short-term test score gains in reading (note that score gains are not necessarily higher reading proficiency); however, while Barnum lists several reading policy components (“third grade retention, phonics-based curriculum, and statewide teacher training”), this study directly states that only retention is associated with higher scores (with the researchers noting their study did not identify why).
Barnum notes the drop by Southern states’ grade 8 reading scores, but fails to acknowledge that this data point may suggest that retention is inflating scores, not increasing reading proficiency. Notably states such as Florida and Mississippi have had these reform for over one to two decades without the “surge” appearing in grade 8 data.
The retention component also is troubling since these states continue to retain students as high rates. If the other policies were working, we should expect retention numbers to decrease significantly, but they have not.
Possibly the most damning ignored data from NAEP, however: Across all states, but including the so-called “surge” states, the race and poverty gaps remain persistent, typically the same as in 1998.

There are statistical realities also being ignored in the “surge” narrative.

Test scores for the lowest performing students are easier to improve that top-scoring students, for example.

But likely more significant is that early literacy test scores are strongly correlated with student biological age (England has almost twenty years of data on phonics checks that show this); therefore, when grade retention removes the lowest scoring students from the testing population (grade 3 retention laws impact grade 4 NAEP testing) and reintroduces them when they are biologically older, the possibility is that scores are being artificially inflated.

Reading “crisis/miracle” narratives and the phonics gambit should be dead horses; these unfounded claims have existed in the US well back into the 1940s, recurring decade after decade.

At best, “we don’t fully understand it yet,” and at worst, too many people profit off this zombie narrative, and children, teachers, and schools will continue to be sacrificed instead of putting these stories in the ground where they belong.

Fact Checking “The reading wars are ending. Phonics won.” (Washington Post Editorial Board)

October 14, 2025 plthomasedd

[Header Photo by Sincerely Media on Unsplash]

The Editorial Board at The Washington Post published a bold claim: The reading wars are ending. Phonics won:

The “reading wars” that raged in American schools for decades finally seem to be ending. The victor is clear: Phonics is the best way to teach kids how to read.

California is the latest state to re-embrace the tried-and-true teaching method, in which kids learn the sounds that each letter makes and then use them as building blocks for words and sentences. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) on Thursday signed reforms into law that will encourage schools to turn away from other unsupported teaching methods, despite resistance from teacher unions….

Momentum for re-embracing phonics started in Mississippi, which long had a reputation for sitting at the bottom of national education rankings. In 2013, state officials decided to enforce adoption of the old-school instruction method that is often referred to as the “science of reading.” The state explicitly discouraged methods such as cueing and started aggressively holding back third-graders who didn’t meet reading standards, angering many parents.

There are a few problems, however.

First, and most damning, California did not just pass Science of Reading legislation modeled on Mississippi, as detailed by Martha Hernandez:

The bill has been described in the media as California’s new “science of reading” bill, but this shorthand fails to accurately reflect the legislation’s comprehensive scope and intention.

Let’s be clear, AB 1454 is not about narrowing literacy instruction to one approach. Rather, it’s about realizing California’s long-standing, comprehensive vision for literacy that meets the needs of all students — including our state’s 1.1 million English learners.

Phonics and foundational skills are essential for teaching students to read, and they always have been. But effective literacy instruction is not just about sounding out words. Children also need strong oral language, vocabulary, background knowledge, writing and comprehension skills to thrive as readers.

AB 1454 accounts for this reality. At its core, it aligns with California’s English Language Arts/English Language Development (ELA/ELD) Framework, adopted in 2014. This framework is nationally recognized for weaving together multiple strands of research — including phonics and decoding — alongside research on how children learn a second language, how their home language knowledge supports English learning, and how their cultures and life experiences shape how they use and understand language.

For a comprehensive overview of how California’s new reading legislation does not conform to the Mississippi model, please see this excellent overview by Jill Kerper Mora, Edgar Lampkin, Barbara Flores, and Anita Flemington: Pushing back against Science of Reading mandates: The California story.

Next, the Editorial Board perpetuates the whole language Urban Legend about failure in California, a state that saw literacy test scores drop after a decrease in funding and an influx of multilingual learners in the late 1980s into the 1990s (in fact, Linda Darling Hammond found a positive correlation between whole language and higher NAEP scores in the 1990s).

For a debunking of the Urban Legend, see Whole Language and the Great Plummet of 1987-92: An Urban Legend from California by Stephen Krashen.

And finally, but not surprisingly, the Editorial Board falls for the Mississippi “miracle” narrative.

There currently is no research showing SOR instruction has succeeded in MS; in fact, research shows only grade retention is associated with some short-term test score increases. MS grade 8 scores remain in the bottom 25% of score in the US, the state continues to retain about 9000 K-3 students each year, and the race/poverty gap is the same as 1998.

For an overview of why Mississippi reading reform is not a “miracle,” please see Misunderstanding Mississippi’s Reading Reform: The Need to Resist Copycat Education Reform.

In short, the Editorial Board gets everything wrong, and once again, mainstream media falls for the phonics gambit.

Education, education reform, Educational Research, reading, Science of Reading

The Phonics Gambit: The Zombie Reading Policy that Fails but Won’t Die

October 7, 2025 plthomasedd

[Header Photo by Sasha San on Unsplash]

I am teaching for the second time a new course in my department, an introduction to educational philosophy.

At about midterm, we have covered the primary educational philosophies to prepare them for a major project over the second half of the course. When we covered Essentialism, I noted that this philosophy drives reading and education reform in several English-speaking countries, notably in the “Science of Reading” (SOR) and “Science of Learning” (SOL) movements.

Essentialism is summarized in this online, open-access text on educational philosophies (see 3.2):

Essentialism adheres to a belief that a core set of essential skills must be taught to all students. Essentialists tend to privilege traditional academic disciplines that will develop prescribed skills and objectives in different content areas as well as develop a common culture. Typically, Essentialism argues for a back-to-basics approach on teaching intellectual and moral standards. Schools should prepare all students to be productive members of society. The Essentialist curriculum focuses on reading, writing, computing clearly and logically about objective facts concerning the real world. Schools should be sites of rigor where students learn to work hard and respect authority. Because of this stance, Essentialism tends to subscribe to tenets of Realism. Essentialist classrooms tend to be teacher-centered in instructional delivery with an emphasis on lecture and teacher demonstrations.

Key beliefs of Essentialism advocate for basic skills instruction in core courses (notably reading and math), teacher-centered direct instruction, and conservative cultural norms.

Often Essentialist movements are popularly labeled “back-to-basics” movements, raising some problems for these arguments since calls for back-to-basics have existed in cycles reaching well back into the early decades of the twentieth century in the US. [1]

A cautionary tale about returning to Essentialism to form reading policy exists in the UK where phonics-centered reading reform has been implemented since 2006. [2]

Research has revealed that reform in the UK, in fact, has been implemented (including annual phonics assessments for all early literacy students), but that those reforms have not achieved the essential goal of improving student reading comprehension; and thus, researchers called for a more balanced approach to reading instruction.

A key lesson from the UK is that skills-based assessments (phonics checks) produce student achievement strongly correlated with birth month, suggesting that child development may be a significant factor in this data (see HERE for all the data from the 2024 UK phonics check):

Another cautionary tale exists right here in the US, notably in the misunderstood and misrepresented National Reading Panel (NRP) report and the subsequent reading reform that occurred after No Child Left Behind (NCLB) mandates in 2001. Two lessons must be emphasized:

First, the NRP report found that systematic phonics instruction for the early grades tended to increase student acquisition of phonics but did not increase comprehension. Further, when compared to students who received more holistic reading instruction, students receiving systematic phonics early were not significantly ahead of those students in later grades in terms of comprehension achievement.
NCLB mandated in 2001 all instruction had to be “scientifically based,” including adopted reading programs. [2] Yet, by 2012 and then accelerated in 2018, the US had once again declared a reading crisis and set in motion another round of back-to-basic reforms that center systematic phonics instruction for all students and another round of mandating SOR reading programs (often called “structured literacy”).

And the disturbing irony about the newest phonics gambit is that claims of a reading crisis directly caused by balanced literacy, popular reading programs, and a lack of phonics instruction are not grounded in evidence.

Literacy scholar Elena Aydarova explains:

Now moving to the reading instruction, there’s a narrative that has been sold to the American public and policymakers. There’s a literacy crisis because teachers do not teach the science of reading because they were not taught the science of reading in colleges of education. I have tried to identify the evidence that was used to construct this claim, and I actually have not found this evidence yet.

And Reinking, Hruby, and Risko directly assert:

A perceived crisis demands attention and creates an impetus for urgently needed solutions. The Course takes that tack, arguing that there is a national crisis in reading and then promoting phonics as the cause (there is not enough of it) and the solution (more of it is needed). As we argue here, there is no indisputable evidence of a national crisis in reading, and even if there were a crisis, there is no evidence that the amount of phonics in classrooms is necessarily the cause or the solution.

None the less, copy-cat SOR reading legislation has continued to gain momentum across the US, and some states such as Florida and Mississippi have produced over a decade of data on these reforms.

Further, just as the phonics gambit claims of a reading crisis are not supported by scientific research, the outcomes of SOR reform have not produced as promised (similar to the UK).

Notably, despite MS being touted as the gold-standard of reading reform, no research exists showing why MS continues to retain about 9000 K-3 students each years, why MS grade 8 reading scores drop back into the bottom 25% of states, and why the race/class achievement gap remains the same in MS as 1998.

And comprehensive research from 2023 on SOR reading reform has shown that only states including grade retention see some short-term test score increases that disappear in later grades (similar to FL and MS).

Yet, driven by Essentialist beliefs about reading and teaching, reformers have continued to double down on the MS model.

The mainstream media has played a significant role in this phonics gambit, even anticipating in 2023 both the lack of success from SOR reform and calling for advocates of SOR not to waver in the context of that evidence of failure:

And right on cue, two years after Hanford’s plea, we have this from North Carolina [3]:

Third graders experienced a two-point drop in reading proficiency — decreasing from 49% to 47% — though third graders who achieved an alternative pathway saw a two-point increase (from 31% to 33%).

First- and second-graders’ scores are based on their performance on the DIBELS 8 assessment. Third graders can pass the beginning-of-grade test, end-of-grade test, or the retest for proficiency. However, these students can also achieve proficiency through an “alternative pathway,” which include DIBELS 8, STAR Reading — the state-approved alternative assessment — or the Read to Achieve test, according to Dan Tetreault, DPI’s assistant director of Early Learning.

“We really need to freeze something around comprehension in grade three, and spend a lot of time in that area with our students so that we begin to see growth — some change in their achievement. And I think it’s buried somewhere in comprehension,” said Board member Dr. Olivia Holmes Oxendine….

The results reflect the first drop in reading proficiency results for third-graders since science of reading implementation officially began during the 2022-23 school year. Reading proficiency among third graders at the end of that school year was 47%, rose to 49% by 2023-2024, and has now dropped back to 2020-2021 levels.

During the back-to-basics movements under the Reagan administration (which gave us the flawed A Nation at Risk report spawning endless education reform), Lou LaBrant wrote her memoir, completed in 1987 as she approached 100. LaBrant taught from 1906 to 1971, and in her memoir, she lamented having taught through and rejected multiple back-to-basics movements throughout her career and life.

And here we are again, facing another phonics gambit that isn’t working, that will never work because we always start with the wrong problems and cannot resist reform typically given the veneer of “science” while being mostly driven by ideology and beliefs about teaching and learning.

Like the Queen’s gambit in chess, the phonics gambit is old, misleading, and only works on those who don’t really understand the context of the game being played.

The major difference, of course, is that the losers in this gambit, again, are our students, especially the most vulnerable students who deserve something other than a game and a mostly petty contest of “my beliefs can beat up your beliefs.”

[1] See the following:

[2] See another cautionary tale currently in the UK: Disadvantaged pupils see drop in phonics results:

The proportion of disadvantaged pupils meeting the government’s “expected standard” in their year 1 phonics screening test has fallen this year, as overall progress since the pandemic has plateaued.

Government data published today shows 67 per cent of disadvantaged pupils taking the test for the first time met the standard this year, compared with 68 per cent last year.

Overall, 80 per cent of pupils passed the test in year 1, the same figure reported last year.

Achievement rates remain below pre-pandemic levels….

Summer-born pupils remain less likely to meet the government’s benchmark. Seventy-three per cent of pupils born in August met the standard this year, compared to 86 per cent of those born in September.

[3] See Closing the Books on Open Court Reading, Jeff McQuillan

[4] Note NAEP reading data for NC:

Education, education reform, Educational Research, Lou LaBrant, Writing

Persistent Straw Man Claims about Literacy Skills: Grammar Edition

August 19, 2025 plthomasedd

[Header Photo by Anthony on Unsplash]

Since the “science of reading” (SOR) has now expanded into a “science of learning” (SOL) movement, the same problems among SOR advocates have appeared among SOL advocates—misinformation and misunderstanding about teaching and learning combined with a bait-and-switch approach that offers anecdotes as if they prove the so-called “science,” for example:

There is so much wrong with this that it is mind boggling, but let’s focus on, first, this is merely an anecdote, which proves nothing except that it happened.

Second, that direct instruction can be effective for students demonstrating simple recall is not very shocking; in fact, many would recognize that direct instruction/recall is asking far too little of students, especially in literacy instruction.

At one point in my education, I could name all the presidents in order as well as all the state capitals. It would have been better if I had developed a more sophisticated understanding of the presidency and the political realities of the US.

Through direct instruction over a brief amount of time, I can say one word, “inside,” and my poodle will happily trot into our apartment. I didn’t let her discover that; direct instruction produced pretty reliable recall in that sweet dog.

But she isn’t smarter; she is well trained.

Here, then, I am going to expand some on a third point: Furey clearly does not understand the issue he seems to be attacking, grammar instruction (with the implied agents being woke progressives who worship at the alter of discovery learning).

Let’s start by acknowledging Stephen Krashen’s explanation of “three different views of phonics”:

Intensive Phonics. This position claims that we learn to read by first learning the rules of phonics, and that we read by sounding out what is on the page, either out-loud or to ourselves (decoding to sound). It also asserts that all rules of phonics must be deliberately taught and consciously learned.

Basic Phonics. According to Basic Phonics, we learn to read by actually reading, by understanding what is on the page. Most of our knowledge of phonics is subconsciously acquired from reading (Smith, 2004: 152)….

Zero Phonics. This view claims that direct teaching is not necessary or even helpful. I am unaware of any professional who holds this position.

Furey seems to be posting a Gotcha! aimed at what he believes is a Zero Grammar view so let me follow Krashen’s lead and clarify: “I am unaware of any professional who holds this position.”

The Big Irony of a “science of” advocate attacking a straw man position on grammar is that there is pretty solid body of research/science on grammar instruction (note that many people use “grammar” to encompass grammar, mechanics, and usage).

To understand the research on direct (and isolated) grammar instruction, we first must clarify our instructional goal. If a course is a grammar course, and the goal is for student to acquire grammar knowledge, then some or even a significant amount of direct instruction can be justified and effective.

Even in the context of teaching students to acquire distinct grammar knowledge, however, many would caution against viewing grammar as “rules” and instead would encourage seeing grammar as a set of contextualized conventions that also carry some degree of power coding.

For example, subject/verb usages are a feature of so-called standard English, and some dialects can be identified by varying from those standards. It is important to acknowledge that one is not “right” or “better” linguistically, although the so-called standard forms tend to carry some cultural or social capital. And there may be cultural/social negative consequences for using dialects considered not standard.

As an analogy, direct (isolated) grammar instruction can be effective for teaching students grammar knowledge just as having students diagram sentences can be effective for teaching students how to diagram sentences.

The problem is when we make our instructional goal teaching students to write with purpose and with awareness of language conventions (grammar, mechanics, usage).

There is a long and deep research base reaching back into the early 1900s showing that direct (isolated) grammar instruction fails to transfer into student writing and can even have negative outcomes for the quality and amount of student writing.

For example, LaBrant (1946) noted: “We have some hundreds of studies now which demonstrate that there is little correlation (whatever that may cover) between exercises in punctuation and sentence structure and the tendency to use the principles illustrated in independent writing” (p. 127).

This does not mean “do not teach grammar,” but does mean that direct grammar instruction needs to in the context of student writing.

Students who are writing by choice and with purpose are much more likely to engage with and understand (and thus apply) language conventions (grammar, mechanics, usage) than when we directly teach those in isolation.

So let me be clear: Teaching students to write without direct instruction would be inexcusable, but teaching grammar through direct and isolated instruction is malpractice when our goal is teaching writing.

Here, then, are some ways to insure direct grammar instruction in the context of student writing is effective:

Establish direct instruction of grammar in context based on student writing and demonstration of need. This can be effective for both individual student writing conferences and whole-class instruction (if most student demonstrate the same needs).
Recognize that some language conventions are abstractions that may be difficult to grasp for students at early stages of brain development; holding students accountable for usage should be tempered by their development (see Weaver below).
Avoid the “error hunt” (see Weaver below) and do not frame language conventions as “right/wrong” or revising and editing as “correcting.” The goal is language convention awareness and purposeful writing by students.
Avoid traditional grammar textbook and exercises. Prefer instead research-based direct instruction that transfers to writing such as sentence combining and lessons on the history of the English language (see Style below).
Adopt either a workshop approach to writing or integrate workshop elements (choice, time, and feedback) into the course.
Forefront and help students understand that revising writing is their primary responsibility as writers in order to communicate as well as possible; however, editing (addressing language conventions) is a part of that process, although it may be delayed until a piece is worthy of editing and before publishing or submitting. As LaBrant (1946) cautioned: “I am not willing to teach the polishing and adornment of irresponsible, unimportant writing” (p. 123).
The surface features of student writing need not be perfect when writing is part of a course. Seeking perfect surface features can and often is a goal for published writing.

As this discussion shows, another failure of the “science of” movement is the urge to attack caricatures and to oversimplify.

Teaching grammar is not a simple thing to address, and, again, I will note using Krashen, there simply is no credible professional saying teachers should not teach grammar. In fact, no credible educator would reject direct instruction of grammar as long as that instruction is in the context of student writing.

LaBrant (1947) made an assertion about teaching almost 80 years ago that may sound familiar: “A brief consideration will indicate reasons for the considerable gap between the research currently available and the utilization of that research in school programs and methods” (p. 87).

I have always regarded this as accurate, and have repeated the claim myself for decades.

Straw man fallacies, caricature, and anecdotes, I fear, are not the path to making this less true.

The “science of” movement is failing here, and the consequences are to the detriment of students and teachers who deserve better.

The Reading Proficiency Bait-and-Switch: Manufacturing Crisis for Profit [SC Update]

August 15, 2025 plthomasedd

[Header Photo by Ines Kopu on Unsplash]

First, the bait.

As I have detailed, the mainstream media, education reformers and pundits, and politicians repeat a misleading claim that US students are not “proficient” readers, and thus, we are experiencing a reading crisis.

The bait in this misinformation is almost always misrepresenting NAEP scores. Again, the confusion and misinformation is grounded in NAEP’s achievement levels that use “proficient” as an aspirational goal for students that is well above grade-level reading as measured on state assessments of reading, as I recently explained:

The disconnect lies with the second benchmark, “proficient.” According to the NAEP, students performing “at or above the NAEP Proficient level … demonstrate solid academic performance and competency over challenging subject matter.” But this statement includes a significant clarification: “The NAEP Proficient achievement level does not represent grade level proficiency as determined by other assessment standards (e.g., state or district assessments).”

NAEP provides a correlation that shows almost all states set “proficient” at the NAEP basic level:

The bait, however, manufactures the perception of a crisis by making claims about NAEP proficient—2/3 of students are not proficient—that at least exaggerates the state of reading achievement among students:

Next, the switch.

Since about 2012, most states have revised or introduced new reading legislation grounded in the “science of reading” (SOR); in other words, states have made significant political and financial investments in both that there is a reading crisis and that the reforms will improve student reading achievement.

Mississippi, for example, has been christened a “miracle” and many states are rushing to copy their reforms despite a lack of research or evidence about the impressive grade 4 reading scores (which disappear by grade 8). [See three questions that need to be answered about MS.]

Many states are also beginning to adjust their proficiency cut scores [1], complicating any claims of reform being effective versus a misleading change in how students are labeled:

Wisconsin isn’t the only state that recently instituted changes that effectively boost proficiency rates. Oklahoma and Alaska recently made similar adjustments. New York lowered passing or “cut” scores in reading and math last year, while Illinois and Colorado are considering such revisions.

Now, here is the switch.

SOR advocates use the proficient level of NAEP to manufacture a crisis, but then celebrate state-level proficiency (that correlates with NAEP basic) to make claims that the SOR reforms are working:

Here are some fun facts, however, about Indiana and other states: These state proficiency gains are equal to NAEP basic, which, again, SOR advocates refuse to acknowledge when discussing the state of reading the US today; note the correlations below of states with NAEP proficient (appears to be nothing to celebrate, right, if we accept the original bait that NAEP proficient is the correct standard?):

While I do maintain that crisis rhetoric isn’t an effective approach to education reform—especially when that crisis is built on misinformation and misunderstanding test data—I will concede there is a reading reform crisis driven by market, political, and ideological agendas among the adults who seem more interested in scoring gotcha points and profiting off reform than improving student reading.

First, the most current evidence available suggests that reading reform that appears to raise test scores in the short term only is primarily driven by grade retention, not changing reading programs, teacher training, or instruction.

Next, recent research again reveals “63% of the variance in test performance was explained by social capital family income variables that influence the development of background knowledge,” leading the researchers to argue:

The influence of family social capital variables manifests itself in standardized test results. Policy makers and education leaders should rethink the current reliance on standardized test results as the deciding factor to make decisions about student achievement, teacher quality, school effectiveness, and school leader quality. In effect, policies that use standardized test results to evaluate, reward, and sanction students and school personnel are doing nothing more than rewarding schools that serve advantaged students and punishing schools that serve disadvantaged students.

One of the political purposes of NAEP is to hold states accountable for state assessments. If you look carefully at the correlation above, students moving from one state to another would result in that student being labeled differently in terms of reading achievement [2].

Despite the negative responses to my argument, I maintain that the US needs a common standard for age-level reading that includes clear achievement levels that can support valid reading reform and develop a data base that better reflects if reform produces higher student achievement.

We cannot and should not be shouting “crisis” because we do not have the data to draw any valid conclusions about the overall state of reading in the US.

What we do have is permanent reform for the market and political benefit of those perpetuating crisis rhetoric and selling solutions.

The current state of NAEP and state testing allows rampant market and political manipulation of claims about reading and reading reform.

To maintain permanent crisis and reform, many are willing to sacrifice students, teachers, and public schools.

I am not.

[1] For some background on changes to how tests measure student achievement, I recommend exploring the controversial and often misunderstood re-centering of the SAT.

[2] State achievement levels vary widely:

Update

The reading proficiency bait-and-switch has come to South Carolina (another grade retention state that has much lower grade 8 reading scores than grade 4; see below):

U.S. Secretary of Education on yesterday's SC READY scores: https://t.co/6f3wxA6IZ0
— Ian Grenier (@IanGrenier1) September 3, 2025

This is more partisan political grandstanding, but the grandstanding in on incredibly thin ice.

SC, like IN above, sets state reading proficiency in the NAEP basic range; however, note that SC is toward the lower end of basic (see the correlations above).

SC sits just above the national average in grade 4 reading (2024), but like MS and FL, the impact of grade retention seems to be in play because by grade 8, SC falls down toward the bottom, again similar to MS and FL:

Crisis, Education, education reform, Educational Research, opportunity gap, reading, Science of Reading

Why I Reject Crisis Rhetoric about Reading and Education: My Agenda

August 12, 2025 plthomasedd

[Header Photo by Mick Haupt on Unsplash]

When I had my OpEd on the manufactured reading crisis and NAEP misinformation published in The Washington Post, I anticipated that SOR advocates would continue their misinformation campaign, including targeted attacks on me that repeat false claims and innuendoes (“hidden agenda”).

I do find it a bit odd that my OpEd claims have ruffled so many feathers because, to be blunt, the OpEd is pretty moderate and factual. For those not interested in reading the piece, here is the TL;DR:

Many SOR advocates and education reformers misrepresent or misunderstand NAEP data and achievement levels, reading “proficiency” and “grade level,” reading programs, and reading theories. I call for accurate and honest discourse and claims.
The wide range of achievement levels between NAEP and state accountability testing should be standardized, and in my informed opinion, that should be a shift to a standard for age-level reading proficiency.
Many states have chosen as reading policy to implement third-grade mandatory retention based on state testing, and current research shows that SOR-based reform is only raising test scores in the short term when states have retention. Grade retention disproportionately impacts Black and brown students, poor students, multilingual learners, and students with special needs; as well, retention is punitive with many negative consequences. I caution states against choosing grade retention since it likely distorts test data and does not contribute to authentic achievement gains.

However, most of the negative responses to this commentary that I have seen focuses on one element—my rejecting crisis rhetoric about reading.

Since I began teaching in 1984, I have worked as an educator entirely in the post-A Nation at Risk era of high-stakes accountability education reform.

I reject crisis rhetoric about reading and education for the following reasons:

The test-score gap by race and socioeconomic status is not unique to reading; all standardized testing exposes that gap regardless of content area. There is no unique gap in reading.
Reading and education crisis have been declared every moment over the past 100 years (at least), and thus, I maintain that the current status of education in the US is the norm that our society has chosen to accept. That norm, by the way, is something I have worked diligently to change for over 40 years as an educator and scholar.
“Crisis” in reading and education is manufactured to feed the reform industry, and not to improve teaching or learning. Two things can be true at once: Education reformers manufacture hyperbolic stories about education and reading crisis to maintain a culture of perpetual reform (for market and political/ideological reasons), and the US public education and social safety net are historically and currently grossly negligent about the serving individual needs of all students (notably those vulnerable populations most negatively impacted by test-based gaps).
“Crisis” reform in the US has created a culture of blame for students, teachers, and public education that distracts from the evidence on the primary sources for low test scores and test-based gaps. Over 60% of those test scores and thus that gap is causally driven by out-of-school factors. Current research suggests that test-based evaluations of schools and students have failed and must be replaced for most effective reform.
There simply is no settled evidence that the US has a “crisis” in reading or that any specific reading program or reading theory has contributed significantly to low student reading proficiency. As well, there simply is no monolithic settled body of science or research on how to teach reading that supports a one-size-fits-all reading program or theory (such as structured literacy); there is a century of robust and complex research on teaching reading that can and should be better implemented in day-to-day classroom instruction; however, the greater causes for ineffective instruction and inadequate student achievement are, again, out-of-school factors and a failure to provide students and teachers the learning/teaching conditions necessary for better outcomes.

Again, to be clear, the US does not currently have the data to make any sort of valid claim about reading proficiency in the US. The only verifiable claim we can or should make is that there is clearly an opportunity gap grounded in race and socioeconomic status as well as ample evidence that multilingual learners and students with special needs are far too often neglected in our schools.

As I argue in the commentary, we need better data, and we need a more honest and nuanced public discourse about reading and education that is not corrupted by market and political/ideological agendas.

Further, journalists, politicians, and even parents should not be controlling the discourse or the reform in reading and education.

Yes, they are and should be stakeholders with a voice in a democracy, but ultimately, education is a profession that has never had autonomy—and I suspect that is because more that 7 out of 10 educators are women (notably even higher in the early grades when students are first taught to read).

I do not—like many in the SOR and education reform movements—have a “hidden agenda.”

I have never and would never sell a reading or education program. I have never and would never endorse any program or theory or ideology. I provide the vast majority of my work for free, open-access publications and my blog.

Over 40+ years, I have presented many dozens of times with well over 90% of that for free or at my own expense.

I am a critical educator and scholar, and I have never been paid to make any claims or to endorse any organization. My published and spoken work is mine and mine only.

I am fortunate to be a university-based scholar, and thus, I have academic freedom and am beholden to no one except me.

My agenda?

I work to support the professional autonomy of teachers so that the individual needs of students can be fully served in our public education system.

And thus, my agenda includes calling out misinformation, identifying the market and political/ideological agendas driving permanent education reform, and providing for all stakeholders counter-evidence to the crisis story being sold.

Since I am an older white man with university tenure in the US, I am not much impacted by the persistent lies and distortions about me and my “hidden agenda”; however, those lies and distortions are in the service of other people maintaining the education reform gravy train that feeds their bank accounts and political/ideological agendas.

Here is another TL;DR version of my WaPo commentary: If you have to misinform or lie to make your argument, you likely do not have a valid argument.

SOR advocates and education reformers are mostly misinforming and outright fanning the flames of crisis to promote their own agendas.

Suggesting I have a “hidden agenda” is a whole lot of projection.

We can and should do better in our rhetoric and our claims.

We can and should create better systems of assessment and thus better data.

We can and should reform reading and education in ways that address the lives of our students as well as the learning and teaching conditions of our schools.

Punishing thousands of Black, brown, and poor students with grade retention because we are addicted to permanent education reform is inexcusable; test-based grade retention is not reading reform.

The accountability era of education reform begun in the early 1980s has never worked, except to perpetuate constant cycles of crisis/reform.

There is no reading or education crisis.

There is a culture of political negligence in the US that has existed for many decades—that culture is grounded in rugged individualism and bootstrapping myths of the US that are contradicted by (ironically) scientific evidence and research.

Students and teachers (mostly women) are not broken beings that need to be fixed.

Students and teachers reflect the negative systemic forces that somehow we as a society refuse to acknowledge or reform.

I should not be surprised that in the Trump/MAGA era there are many people offended by a call for honest and accurate rhetoric about reading, education, students, teachers, and schools.

I think those people being offended says more about them than me.

Three Questions about the Mississippi Reading “Miracle” [Updated December 2025]

June 30, 2025 plthomasedd

[Header Photo by USGS on Unsplash]

Update [December 2025]

Here I want to note that Q1 and Q3 have been answered, and the answer is exactly what I have been suggesting.

First, let me recommend How much of “Mississippi’s education miracle” is an artifact of selection bias?, which examines the analysis answering two of the questions below: On education miracles in general (and those in Mississippi in particular), Howard Wainer, Irina Grabovsky and Daniel H. Robinson.

Here are the highlights, although I recommend reading the entire piece:

In 1748, famed Scot David Hume defined nature. He elaborated such a law as “a regularity of past experience projected by the mind to future cases”. He argued that the evidence for a miracle is rarely sufficient to suspend rational belief because a closer look has always revealed that what was reported as a miracle was more likely false, resulting from misperception, mistransmission, or deception….

A careful examination confirms that enthusiasm to emulate Mississippi should be tempered with scepticism….

This provides a boost of about $111.63 of extra funding annually for each pupil. Comparing this amount to what are annual contemporary per pupil expenditures nationally, we have to agree that if such small expenditures can make a visible difference in student performance it truly is a miracle – a Mississippi version of St. John’s loaves and fishes.

But it was the second component of the Mississippi Miracle, a new retention policy, perhaps inspired by New Orleans’ Katrina disaster a decade earlier, that is likely to be the key to their success….

Prior to 2013, a higher percentage of third-graders moved on to the fourth grade and took the NAEP fourth-grade reading test. After 2013, only those students who did well enough in reading moved on to the fourth grade and took the test.

It is a fact of arithmetic that the mean score of any data set always increases if you delete some of the lowest scores (what is technically called “left truncation of the score distribution”)….

Strangely though, for the eighth-grade literacy test, the state’s rank dropped to a tie for 42nd place!…

(Note that this works especially well for student height, for after retaining the shortest third-graders for an extra year they will likely be taller when they are measured again a year later. It would be nice if the same were true for students struggling in academic subjects.)…

Were we to do this we would find that most of Mississippi’s gains are due to the retention rate.

It is disappointing, but not surprising, that the lion’s share of the effects of the “Mississippi miracle” are yet another case of gaming the system. There is no miracle to behold. There is nothing special in Mississippi’s literacy reform model that should be replicated globally. It just emphasises the obvious advice that, if you want your students to get high scores, don’t allow those students who are likely to get low scores to take the test. This message is not a secret….

Find a way to prevent the lowest test scorers from taking the exam and the average score will increase….

Second, besides weak empirical data, educational reformers like Patrinos should have given greater weight to the extant literature on the Mississippi Miracle. The miracle had already been convincingly debunked.10 Fourth-grade gains had vanished by the time the students reached eighth grade.

Question 1: Why is Mississippi retaining about 9000-12,000 K-3 students annually since 2014?

One of the key assertions of the “science of reading” (SOR) movement is that students across the US are mostly not proficient readers because teachers rely on balanced literacy to teach reading.

And then, SOR advocates argue that 95% of students can be proficient readers, and the key to that success is SOR.

That raises an important question about Mississippi, which has implemented both SOR reading policy and grade retention for over a decade.

SOR advocates have called MS’s jump in grade 4 NAEP scores a “miracle”; however, MS has continued to retain about 9000-12,000 students annually in K-3.

Certainly, a decade is enough time to reach the 95% rate of proficiency, and thus, retention numbers should have dropped dramatically or be near 0.

Question 2: How is Mississippi a “miracle” if the achievement gap for race and socioeconomic status is the same as 1998?

As shown in MS’s 2024 NAEP reading scores for grade 4:

Question 3: Why has Mississippi’s grade 8 NAEP scores remained in the bottom 25% of states despite the grade 4 NAEP scores jumping into the top 25%?

For 2024, MS NAEP grade 8 reading scores drop to eleventh from the bottom of state scores:

An analysis of reading reform found that states with comprehensive reform that includes grade retention have experienced short-term increases in test scores.

However, the analysis does not identify why these comprehensive reforms (including grade retention) are correlated with those short-term scores increases.

Research on education “miracles” have found that virtually none exist, and even when a school or program appears to be “high flying” there is little evidence those can be scaled up meaningfully.

Mississippi’s grade 4 NAEP scores in reading, then, raise questions that must be answered; instead, it is now politically cool to adopt copy-cat legislation from the state without proper evidence that there is valid success or a solid understanding of what is happening and why.

Court Rejects Reading Lawsuit, Media Accountability Must Follow

May 23, 2025 plthomasedd

[Header Photo by Tingey Injury Law Firm on Unsplash]

While many fear the irrevocable decline of the US from Presidential executive orders, there appears to be some hope that courts may save us—and recently specifically save public education.

The Supreme Court allowed the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s rejecting religious charter schools to stand, and a federal judge “blocked President Donald Trump’s executive order to dismantle the Education Department and ordered the agency to reinstate employees who were fired in mass layoffs.”

Although likely not as prominent on the national radar, more good news:

While parents, the media, and political leaders have uncritically supported false claims about reading for about a decade now, this ruling supports what scholars have noted about the “science of reading” (SOR) movement.

For example, Elena Aydarova explains:

Now moving to the reading instruction, there’s a narrative that has been sold to the American public and policymakers. There’s a literacy crisis because teachers do not teach the science of reading because they were not taught the science of reading in colleges of education. I have tried to identify the evidence that was used to construct this claim, and I actually have not found this evidence yet.

And Reinking, Hruby, and Risko directly assert:

A perceived crisis demands attention and creates an impetus for urgently needed solutions. The Course takes that tack, arguing that there is a national crisis in reading and then promoting phonics as the cause (there is not enough of it) and the solution (more of it is needed). As we argue here, there is no indisputable evidence of a national crisis in reading, and even if there were a crisis, there is no evidence that the amount of phonics in classrooms is necessarily the cause or the solution.

To be blunt, the mainstream argument that the US has a reading crisis caused by a few balanced-literacy based reading programs lacks scientific research—a disturbing fact considering that claim is the basis for the SOR movement.

This court decision also comes on the heals of Snopes confronting Secretary of Education McMahon’s claim on social media, “When 70% of 8th graders in the U.S. can’t read proficiently, it’s not the students who are failing—it’s the education system that’s failing them”:

National Assessment of Educational Progress scores are not representative of grade-level performance, per the Department of Education’s website. According to 2022 data, most state reading standards are closer to the NAEP Basic level, and 67% of eighth-graders in 2024 met that standard.

You can add to the fact-free claims of the SOR movement, then, that 2/3 of students are not “proficient” (used incorrectly to mean not on “grade level”) readers based on misrepresenting or misunderstanding NAEP data.

As a country, we have never been happy with the reading achievement of our students. But decades of education reform and the current reading crisis based in misinformation and hyperbole are not serving our students, teachers, or schools well.

All of this reinforces a garbled truism: “A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes” (a quote misattributed to Mark Twain, somewhat ironically).

Maybe the truth about reading is finally putting on its shoes and will finds its legs.