Michael J. Petrilli, David Griffith, Ph.D., Brian Fitzpatrick, Ph.D., Amber M. Northern, Ph.D.:
In recent years, states and districts have made a concerted effort to align early elementary school instruction with “the science of reading.” But how much progress has actually been made?
To find out, Fordham researchers David Griffith and Brian Fitzpatrick analyzed results from a nationally representative survey of K–3 teachers—developed by Fordham and fielded by RAND—that examined their knowledge of reading science and its relationship to the policies that shape instruction.
The takeaway: Progress is real, but incomplete.
Foreword
By Amber M. Northern and Michael J. Petrilli
Formal reading instruction in the United States predates our nation’s founding. Published in the 1680s, The New England Primer—the nation’s first major schoolbook—included spelling and sounding-out exercises that modern science of reading advocates would readily identify as early phonics instruction.
But it was the late nineteenth-century psychologist Edmund Huey who established the roots of the “science of reading” (SoR). Using rudimentary mechanical devices to measure eye movements, he showed that the act of reading was not a smooth process but rather a series of “rapid eye jumps and pauses,” reflecting the complex mental processes involved in decoding and comprehension.
In the decades that followed, a procession of influential scholars—including Edward Thorndike, Rudolf Flesch, Jeanne Chall, Keith Stanovich, and Marilyn Jager Adams—built an empirical foundation on how children learn to read. And in 2000, the National Reading Panel synthesized the best evidence and the takeaways for classroom implementation.
Yet this long research tradition has not produced uniform understanding or practice in today’s literacy classrooms. Instead, we’ve experienced significant bumps, detours, and even reading “wars,” as advocates of effective reading instruction have struggled to make their voices heard.
In 2022, Emily Hanford’s podcast series, Sold a Story, initiated a fresh wave of concern and advocacy, and state and local policies meant to improve reading instruction have proliferated in response. (At least 40 states and counting have enacted science of reading laws.) Whether these efforts ultimately succeed depends in large part on how clearly and consistently they are understood, supported, and enacted by teachers.