Research Contradicts “Science of Reading” Media Story Being Sold

"[TikTok] videos become situated as the credible source around a public discourse where misinformation is often communicated." (Rowe, et al., RRQ, 2025)

Photo by Reuben Juarez on Unsplash

“Newspapers do not just write about education, they also represent to their readers what education is ‘about,’” Edling (2015) explains (p. 401). This is powerfully true about education quality and reform in the U.S.

A review (Rowe & Thrailkill, 2025) of reading policy in North Carolina concludes:

Despite LETRS’ claim that it helps educators “distinguish between the research base for best practices and other competing ideas not supported by scientific evidence” (Lexia Learning, 2022, p. 4), we noticed a pattern of misinterpretation, selective inclusion, and omission of literacy research. LETRS is a prime example of a common problem with the deployment of research for educational policy and instructional decision-making, in that multiple claims are not substantiated by a close reading of the original research cited (cf. Hodge et al., 2020).

Below, then, is an overview reflecting this claim about “a common problem with the deployment of research for educational policy and instructional decision-making,” addressing the major elements of the “science of reading” media/social media and political story about reading.

Here are the current research patterns about the “science of reading”:

• No scientific studies identify a reading crisis in the US causally linked to balanced literacy, reading programs, lack of phonics instruction, or inadequacy of teacher education. (Aydarova, 2025; Reinking, Hruby, & Risko, 2023).

• The overwhelming causal sources for student reading achievement (test scores) are out-of-school factors (60+%), and teacher quality impact on student achievement is about 1-14%. (ASA, 2014; Maroun & Tienken, 2024).

• No credible evidence shows teacher education is failing to prepare teachers in effective and research-based ways. Typical criticism of teacher education relies on discredited “reports” from NCTQ, a conservative think tank created to dismantle teacher education. (Thomas, 2023)

• LETRS training for teachers is no more effective for raising student reading proficiency than other professional development models. (Gearin, et al., 2025; Rowe & Thrailkill, 2025)

• Orton-Gillingham (multisensory approaches) is no more effective than other instructional approaches. (Hall, et al., 2022; Stevens, et al., 2021)

• Special needs students and multilingual learners are not monolithic populations of students; they need a wide variety of instruction approaches to address their reading needs. (See Special Issues in RRQ; Seidenberg, 2026)

• Systematic phonics instruction can increase student pronunciation of real and nonsense words in early grades, but it does not increase reading comprehension. Whole language, balanced literacy, and systematic phonics are equally effective for addressing reading comprehension. (Bowers, 2020; Stephens, 2008)

• Structured literacy (scripted curriculum) is whitewashing the reading curriculum and restricting teacher autonomy and professionalism. (Khan, et al., 2022; Parsons, et al., 2025; Rigell, et al., 2022)

• States adopting “science of reading” legislation and policy have increased early grade (grade 4) reading test scores; however, only states adopting grade retention have experienced those increases, and by grade 8, the gains disappear. (Baker, 2026; Westall & Cummings, 2023)

• State adoption of reading legislation often lacks research support and is driven by “copy-cat” policy and education reform fads. (Chaffin, et al., 2023; Collet, et al., 2021; Cummings, 2021; Cummings, et al., 2021; Thomas, 2022)

• Studies and analyses have shown grade retention is harmful for students in the short (emotionally and socially) and long term (increasing dropping out and reducing lifetime earning) and test scores are inflated (not higher achievement but the result of changing the population of students tested). (Wainer, et al., 2026; Whinnery & Weyer, 2024; Zhong, forthcoming)

• Research rejects one-size-fits all approaches for the general population of students, special needs students (dyslexia), and multilingual learners. (See Special Issues in RRQ; Johnston & Scanlon, 2021)

• Brain research/cognitive science has not yet provided conclusive findings that can inform classroom instruction. (Seidenberg, et al., 2020; Yaden, et al., 2021)

• Media and social media advocacy for the “science of reading” depends on anecdotes and thus misrepresents research and oversimplifies both the problems occurring with reading instruction and proficiency as well as the solutions. (Hoffman, et al, 2020; Rowe, et al., 2025)

• The following are ineffective or unsupported by research, although some are rejected/banned by SOR policy while others are included:

• Close reading;

• Use of decodable text;

• Sustained silent reading;

• Multisensory approaches;

• The three-cueing system to support word recognition development;

• Teaching vocabulary in isolation to support reading comprehension;

• Word study and morphological analysis to support reading comprehension;

• Instructional programs used to support auditory or visual systems;

• Interventions that aim to “decrease visual confusion” or “modify transient channel processing;”

• Video games to support reading through increased visual attention; and

• Interventions to increase working memory. (The Science of Reading: A literature review, 2022)

References

Special Issue: Science of Reading Policies. Education Policy Analysis Archives.

The Science of Reading: Supports, Critiques, and Questions (Special Issue 1 and Special Issue 2). Reading Research Quarterly.

ASA statement on using value-added models for educational assessment. (2014, April 8). American Statistical Association. https://www.amstat.org/asa/files/pdfs/POL-ASAVAM-Statement.pdf

Aukerman, M. (2022a). The Science of Reading and the media: Does the media draw on high-quality reading research? Literacy Research Association Critical Conversations. CC BY 4.0 license. https://literacyresearchassociation.org/stories/the-science-of-reading-and-the-media-does-the-media-draw-on-high-quality-reading-research/

Aukerman, M. (2022b). The Science of Reading and the media: How do current reporting patterns cause damage? Literacy Research Association Critical Conversations. CC BY 4.0 license. https://literacyresearchassociation.org/stories/the-science-of-reading-and-the-media-how-do-current-reporting-patterns-cause-damage/

Aukerman, M. (2022c). The Science of Reading and the media: Is reporting biased? Literacy Research Association Critical Conversations. CC BY 4.0 license. https://literacyresearchassociation.org/stories/the-science-of-reading-and-the-media-is-reporting-biased/

Aydarova, E. (2023). “Whatever you want to call it”: Science of reading mythologies in the education reform movement. Harvard Educational Review, 93(4), 556–581, https://doi.org10.17763/1943-5045-93.4.556

Aydarova, E. (2024). What you see is not what you get: Science of reading reforms as a guise for standardization, centralization, and privatization. American Journal of Education. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/730991

Blaushild, N.L. (2023). “It’s just something that you have to do as a teacher”: Investigating the intersection of educational infrastructure redesign, teacher discretion, and educational equity in the elementary ELA classroom. The Elementary School Journal, 124(2), 219-244.

Bowers, J. S. (2020). Reconsidering the evidence that systematic phonics is more effective than alternative methods of reading instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 32(3), 681–­ 705.

Burrell, N., & Harbatkin, E. (2024). Beyond the school building: Examining the association between of out-of-school factors and multidimensional school grades. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 32. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.32.8497

Chaffin, M., Riesco, H.S., Hacket-Hill, K., Collet, V., Grizzle, M.Y., Y Warren, J. (2023). “Phonics monkeys” and “real life reading”: Heteroglossic views of a state reading initiative. Literacy Research and Instruction, 1–22. https://doi.org10.1080/19388071.2023.2271085

Collet, V.S., Penaflorida, J., French, S., Allred, J., Greiner, A., & Chen, J. (2021). Red flags, red herrings, and common ground: An expert study in response to state reading policy. Educational Considerations, 47(1). https://doi.org/10.4148/0146-9282.2241

Compton-Lilly, C.F., Mitra, A., Guay, M., & Spence, L.K. (2020). A confluence of complexity: Intersections among reading theory, neuroscience, and observations of young readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1), S185-S195. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.348

Compton-Lilly, C., Spence, L.K., Thomas, P.L., & Decker, S.L. (2023, November 2). Stories grounded in decades of research: What we truly know about the teaching of reading. The Reading Teacher. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.2258

Compton-Lilly, C., Spence, L.K., Thomas, P.L., & Decker, S.L. (2024, March 12). A response to our critics: Agreements, clarifications, and children. The Reading Teacher. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.2298

Cummings, A. (2021). Making early literacy policy work in Kentucky: Three considerations for policymakers on the “Read to Succeed” act. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. https://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/literacy

Cummings, A., Strunk, K.O., & De Voto, C. (2021). “A lot of states were doing it”: The development of Michigan’s Read by Grade Three law. Journal of Educational Change. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10833-021-09438-y

Edling, S. (2015). Between curriculum complexity and stereotypes: Exploring stereotypes of teachers and education in media as a question of structural violence. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 47(3), 399–­415. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2014.956796

Elzy-Palmer, J., Babino, A., & Hubbard, T. (2025). Dimensions of equity in the science of reading research: A systematic review of actual, artificial, and absent up-takes of equity. Reading Research Quarterly, 60(4). e70070. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.70070.

Gearin, B., Chattergoon, R., Kim, Y.S.G., Piasta, S.B., & Brooke, E.C. (2025). Evaluating a professional development program and third-grade reading achievement outcomes in the context of Colorado’s Read Act. The Elementary School Journal, 126(2), 280-306. https://doi.org/10.1086/737951

Hall, C., Dahl-Leonard, K., Cho, E., Solari, E.J., Capin, P., Conner, C.L., Henry, A.R., Cook, L., Hayes, L., Vargas, I., Richmond, C.L. and Kehoe, K.F. (2023), Forty years of reading intervention research for elementary students with or at risk for dyslexia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 58. 285-312. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.477

Hoffman, J.V., Hikida, M., & Sailors, M. (2020). Contesting science that silences: Amplifying equity, agency, and design research in literacy teacher preparation. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1), S255–S266. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.353

Johnston, P., & Scanlon, D. (2021). An examination of dyslexia research and instruction with policy implications. Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice, 70(1), 107-128. https://doi.org/10.1177/23813377211024625

Khan, F., Peoples, L.Q., & Foster, L. (2022) Lessons in (in)equity: An evaluation of cultural responsiveness in elementary ELA curriculum. The Education Justice Research and Organizing Collaborative, New York University. https://steinhardt.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/2022-10/Lessons%20in%20%28In%29Equity%20FINAL%20ACCESSIBLE.10.31.22.pdf

Maroun, J., & Tienken, C.H. (2024). The pernicious predictability of state-mandated tests of academic achievement in the United States. Education Sciences, 14(2), 129-142. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14020129

McQuillan, J. (2022, January). The case against decodable texts. Language and Language Teaching, (21), 45-50. https://llt.org.in/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/issue-21-The-Case-Against-Decodable-Texts.pdf

Mora, J.K. (2023, July 3). To cue or not to cue: Is that the question? Language Magazine. https://www.languagemagazine.com/2023/07/03/to-cue-or-not-to-cue-is-that-the-question/

Newkirk, T. (2024). The broken logic of “Sold a Story”: A personal response to “The Science of Reading.” Resources section of https://literacyresearchcommons.org/resources/

Parsons, A. W., Smith, K.C., Vaughn, M., Klee, H., Croix, L.L., & Yatzeck, J.C. (2025). Teacher autonomy in text choices for elementary reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly,60(4). e70071. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.70071.

Reinking, D., Hruby, G.G., & Risko, V.J. (2023). Legislating phonics: Settle science of political polemic? Teachers College Record. https://doi.org/10.1177/01614681231155688

Rigell, A., Banack, A., Maples, A., Laughter, J., Broemmel, A., Vines, N., & Jordan, J. (2022, November). Overwhelming whiteness: A critical analysis of race in a scripted reading curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 54(6), 852–870, https://doi.org10.1080/00220272.2022.2030803

Rowe, L. W., Jerasa, S., Dunham, H., Bates, C.C., Pirolla, T., & Malloy, M.J. (2025). The science of reading on social media: TikTok content creators’ discourse patterns and bodies of knowledge. Reading Research Quarterly, 60(4). e70057. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.70057.

Rowe, M.W., & Soulen, R.R. (2023, November/December). The science of reading and school libraries. Knowledge Quest, 52(2), 38-45.

Rowe, M. W., & Thrailkill, L. D. (2025). A view from within: A critique of North Carolina science of reading policy for teacher professional development. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 33(82). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.33.8621

The Science of Reading: A literature review. (2022, April). Prepared for the Connecticut State Department of Education. Hanover Research. https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/sde/academic-office/reading-leadership-implementation-council/the-science-of-reading--a-literature-review-april-2022-update.pdf

Seidenberg, M.S., Cooper Borkenhagen, M., & Kearns, D.M. (2020). Lost in translation? Challenges in connecting reading science and educational practice. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1), S119–S130. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.341

Semingson, P., & Kerns, W. (2021). Where is the evidence? Looking back to Jeanne Chall and enduring debates about the science of reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 56(S1), S157–­ S169. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.405

Stevens, E. A., Austin, C., Moore, C., Scammacca, N., Boucher, A. N., & Vaughn, S. (2021). Current state of the evidence: Examining the effects of Orton-Gillingham reading interventions for students with or at risk for word-level reading disabilities. Exceptional Children, 87(4), 397–417. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402921993406

Thomas, P.L. (2024a, 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. (2024b, 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. (2024c, 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. (2024d, 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. (2023, September). NEPC review: Teacher prep review: Strengthening elementary reading instruction. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. https://nepc.colorado.edu/review/teacher-prep

Thomas, P.L. (2022). The Science of Reading movement: The never-ending debate and the need for a different approach to reading instruction. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/science-of-reading

Tierney, R.J., & Pearson, P.D. (2024). Fact-checking the Science of Reading: Opening up the conversation. Literacy Research Commons.

https://literacyresearchcommons.org

Wainer, H., Grabovsky, I., & Robinson, D.H. (2026, January). On education miracles in general (and those in Mississippi in particular). Significance. https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Mississippi-MIracle-Galleys-1.pdf

Westall, J., & Cummings, A. (2023, June). The effects of early literacy policies on student achievement. Education Policy Innovation Collaborative. https://edworkingpapers.com/sites/default/files/ai23-788.pdf

Whinnery, E., & Weyer, M. (2024, January 11). Early grade literacy: Is third grade retention effective? Education Commission of the States. https://www.ecs.org/early-grade-literacy-is-third-grade-retention-effective/

Wyse, D., & Bradbury, A. (2022). Reading wars or reading reconciliation? A critical examination of robust research evidence, curriculum policy and teachers’ practices for teaching phonics and reading. Review of Education, 10(1), e3314. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3314

Wyse, D., & Bradbury, A. (2023). Teaching phonics and reading effectively: ‘A balancing act’ for teachers, policy makers and researchers. Review of Education, 11, e3429. https://doi-org.libproxy.furman.edu/10.1002/rev3.3429

Wyse, D., & Hacking, C. (2024). The balancing act: An evidence-based approach to teaching phonics, reading and writing. Routledge.

Yaden, D.B. Jr., Reinking, D., & Smagorinsky, P. (2021). The trouble with binaries: A perspective on the science of reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 56(S1), S119-S129, https://doi.org10.1002/rrq.402.

Zhong, J. (forthcoming). Early grade retention harms adult earnings. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics. TBD. https://jieezhong.com/files/pdf/JMP_May2025.pdf

---

If you want to help with the costs of keeping my public work open access and free, please DONATE.