Journalists and politicians are both drawn to and depend on compelling stories.
Regretfully, whether or not those stories are factually true is less and less important, and in some cases, what makes the stories compelling is over-simplification while the truth is complicated or often not clearly defined.
The stories told about education have a long history of being trapped in compelling but false claims. Currently, the most popular and compelling education story is about reading proficiency among US students; this story is grounded in a very compelling story about reading reform in Mississippi, identified as reform labeled the “science of reading.”
The repetition of the so-called Mississippi “miracle” has occurred dozens of times since 2019—and here are just two of the most recent:
Rahm Emanuel on Twitter:
And yet another article in The New York Times: How Mississippi Transformed Its Schools From Worst to Best
Everything about the Mississippi story fits perfectly into the larger stories that Americans love.
So there is now a recurring accusatory question: If high-poverty poverty state with a large proportion of Black students can radically improve reading proficiency among their students, why don’t all states adopt that policy?
From that, it gets uglier because the implication and direct accusations that follow are damning: The education establishment, bolstered by teachers unions, simply don’t think poor and Black students can learn; the education establishment uses poverty as an excuse and will not let go of the soft bigotry of low expectations.
Throughout the stories being told about reading, teachers, and education, there is a discouraging pattern: The stories are not supported by the evidence (ironically, the stories behind the “science of reading” lack scientific research), and in many cases, the evidence contradicts the story being told.
Is poverty an excuse for student achievement and is teacher quality/knowledge a major reason students underachieve?
Poverty, inequity, and other out-of-school factors are the primary cause factors in measurable student achievement (test scores), accounting for 60% or more of those scores.
Teacher quality impacts measurable student achievement at rates of about 1-14%.
Research:
Maroun, Jamil, and Christopher H. Tienken. 2024. “The Pernicious Predictability of State-Mandated Tests of Academic Achievement in the United States” Education Sciences 14, no. 2: 129. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14020129
ASA Statement on Using Value-Added Models for Educational Assessment (2014)
Is there a reading crisis caused by instruction absent systematic phonics instruction (balanced literacy), and is the source of that failure teacher education?
Despite the widespread belief that balanced literacy and a few popular reading programs have failed students as readers, there is no evidence of a reading crisis and no research showing a lack of phonics instruction is the basis for low student reading proficiency.
The negative stories about teacher education are exclusively grounded in non-scientific reports by a conservative anti-teacher education think tank, NCTQ. None of those reports meet even low criteria for being scientific, and a number of reviews of the reports have discredited their claims and conclusions.
Research:
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
Thomas, P.L. (2023, September). NEPC review: Teacher prep review: Strengthening elementary reading instruction. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. Retrieved [date], from https://nepc.colorado.edu/review/teacher-prep
Is there scientific evidence to support Orton-Gillingham and LETRS as more effective instructional and teacher training programs?
The scientific evidence on Orton-Gillingham and LETRS [1] is limited, but the existed research shows that both are no more effective that other approaches or programs in terms of student achievement.
Research:
Hall, C., et al. (2022, September 13). Forty years of reading intervention research for elementary students with or at risk for dyslexia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly. Retrieved October 17, 2022, from https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.477
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
Evaluating a Professional Development Program and Third-Grade Reading Achievement Outcomes in the Context of Colorado’s Read Act, Brian Gearin, Rajendra Chattergoon, Young-Suk G. Kim, Shayne B. Piasta, and Elizabeth C. Brooke, The Elementary School Journal, 2025, 126:2, 280-306
Should 95% of students achieve reading proficiency?
The 95% rule is based on a few older speculative studies, but there is not clear body of scientific evidence that the 95% rule is valid. At best, it is aspirational rhetoric.
Evidence:
Are the key elements of the Mississippi model grounded in implementing “science of reading” instruction, teacher training, reading programs, and other comprehensive elements?
Current research shows that states have achieved short-term reading test score gains (grades 3 and 4), but those gains disappear by grade 8. Further the determining policy in those short-term gains is not instruction, programs, or teacher training, but grade retention [2], which has been shown to distort test scores by manipulating the population of students tested.
Research:
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
Research/analysis: On education miracles in general (and those in Mississippi in particular) [3]
What is the impact of “science of reading” policy on diversity and equity?
Evidence shows that as “science of reading” policy has increased, the diversity of texts used in instruction has decreased. While advocacy for the “science of reading” has often included rhetoric about serving diverse student populations, the consequences have been negative for diversity and equity in reading instruction.
Research:
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
Rigell, A., Banack, A., Maples, A., Laughter, J., Broemmel, A., Vines, N., & Jordan, J. (2022). 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
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.
Elzy-Palmer, J., A. Babino, and T. Hubbard. 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, no. 4: e70070. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.70070.
What is the impact of “science of reading” policy on teacher autonomy?
The instructional approach linked to the “science of reading” is structured literacy, which is often scripted curriculum. As a consequence, teacher autonomy is restricted and negative impacts teachers’ ability to serve the individual needs of students.
Research:
Parsons, A. W., K. C. Smith, M. Vaughn, H. Klee, L. L. Croix, and J. C. Yatzeck. 2025. “ Teacher Autonomy in Text Choices for Elementary Reading Instruction.” Reading Research Quarterly 60, no. 4: e70071. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.70071
The evidence is becoming clear that the “science of reading” movement is driven by compelling stories that are not true; therefore, there is no silver bullet, only fool’s gold.
Notes
[1] A 2025 study on LETRS includes:
Currently, empirical research provides limited support for the LETRS theory of action. The most rigorous study of LETRS to date was a randomized controlled trial that compared the effects of three conditions: an 8-day PD seminar based on LETRS 1st Edition materials, the LETRS-based seminar plus instructional coaching from the Consortium on Reading Excellence, and business-as-usual conditions (Garet et al., 2008). The study reported that both the LETRS-based seminar and the LETRS-based seminar plus coaching significantly improved educator knowledge (ES p 0.37 and 0.38, respectively) and use of explicit instruction (ES p 0.33 and 0.53, respectively). The effects of the intervention conditions on student reading achievement were not statistically significant (ES p 0.08 and 0.03, respectively).
[2] Research on grade retention shows negative consequences for students. See this recent study, Early Grade Retention Harms Adult Earnings, Jiee Zhong:
[3] Research/analysis: On education miracles in general (and those in Mississippi in particular)
If you want to help with the costs of keeping my public work open access and free, please DONATE.
