There’s no easy shortcut to raising reading scores, a panel of experts told lawmakers during a congressional hearing on the “science of reading” on Tuesday.
As the movement to align literacy instruction with evidence-based practices has swept the country, states seeing the biggest gains have followed the same playbook, experts said—careful, consistent implementation, investment in teacher training, and equipping leaders with the knowledge to make research-based decisions. It is not as simple, they said, as swapping out curricula.
“Meaningful reading improvement does not come from isolated programs or short-term initiatives,” said Bonnie Short, the director of the Alabama Reading Initiative at the Alabama State Department of Education, in her testimony before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies.
Over the past decade, more than 40 states have passed legislation requiring that schools follow the research base that outlines how children learn to read—often referred to as the “science of reading.”
The movement gained traction after Mississippi enacted a suite of policies in 2013 requiring teacher training, the use of new instructional methods, screening students for reading difficulties, and retention of students not reading proficiently by 3rd grade. By 2019, the state saw substantial improvement in Mississippi elementary schoolers’ reading scores on state tests and national assessments.
But not all states that have passed similar laws have seen similar progress. Many district leaders can’t effectively shepherd instructional change, or lack the reading expertise to evaluate the potential effectiveness of new curriculum offerings, said Holly Lane, the director of the University of Florida Literacy Institute and one of the authors of UFLI Foundations, a researcher-developed phonics program.
“Many programs are marketed as being aligned to the science of reading, but there are no safeguards in place to ensure this is true. … This leaves schools and districts susceptible to every snake oil salesman that comes along—and there are many,” she said.
Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle underscored the importance of raising reading outcomes, an issue that enjoys rare bipartisan support. But they put forth competing narratives about how states have realized this goal, with Republicans emphasizing state leadership and Democrats underscoring the role of federal funding for research and teacher training.
Republican Rep. Robert Aderholt of Alabama, the appropriations subcommittee’s chair, recognized reading score gains in his home state, along with Mississippi, Louisiana, and Tennessee.
“Much of this progress has been achieved with fewer financial resources per pupil than are available in many other states, which demonstrates that increased spending alone is not always the answer. The key is the wise and prudent use of resources directed toward proven teaching methods and a strong focus on the fundamentals,” he said. “This record of success also underscores the importance of a bottom-up approach to education rather than a top-down mandate from Washington. States are rightly leading the way as laboratories of innovation.”
Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut and the subcommittee’s top Democrat, highlighted the role that the federal technical assistance centers, grants for teacher training, and federally funded studies of reading instruction have played in raising achievement.
“The science of reading would not exist without it,” she said of the research. “There shouldn’t be any question about our looking at increased investments.”
The federal government’s role in reading instruction
The federal government’s involvement in reading instruction has waxed and waned over time.
In the early 2000s, the U.S. Department of Education under President George W. Bush took a direct role, launching the Reading First grant program that offered funding to schools using “scientifically based” reading instruction. Congress ended funding for Reading First in 2009.
The more recent science of reading movement, though, has been propelled by state-level legislation.
Over the past few years, more states have passed laws or implemented new policies related to evidence-based reading instruction. Look below to see which states have such legislation and when it passed.
Click here to learn more about each state’s legislation or policy.
“There used to be a lot of discussion on education in a bipartisan way,” said Rep. Josh Harder, D-Calif., referencing the No Child Left Behind legislation passed under Bush in 2002 and former President Barack Obama’s Race to the Top initiative, contained in the 2009 economic-stimulus legislation.
“We’ve really had a lost decade, where there has not been an enormous amount of attention or enough concern at the federal level, but also in many states, on how we can make sure that kids are getting the reading and math outcomes that we need,” he said.
Still, experts highlighted how federal investment in research over that period has powered the shifts in instruction many states are making—and what the absence of that funding could mean for schools and students. Last year, the Trump administration canceled nearly $900 million in contracts for research projects and services and cut most staff in the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences.
“One of the things to understand about the science of reading is that the vast majority of that science is the result of federally funded research,” said Lane, of the University of Florida Literacy Institute. “This is where the science comes from.”
Short, of the Alabama Reading Initiative, referenced the Report of the National Reading Panel, a review of the evidence on how children learn to read that was published in 2000 and shaped guidelines for Reading First. The same House subcommittee that met on Tuesday ordered federal agencies to convene this panel in 1997.
“Building supports that put in front of us where the evidence is, [that] is important at the national level,” said Short.
There’s more research to be done now, said Lane, that evaluates how different student groups respond to specific instructional approaches, or whether the growth of technology-enabled reading programs is affecting student performance.
DeLauro said there is a need for another convening of a national reading panel. “It’s been 26 years since we did this,” she said. “This is the committee that did it, so we can do that.”
Lawmakers ask experts for practices with the highest return on investment
Aderholt and Rep. Andrew Clyde, R-Ga., pressed experts about what practices had the greatest return on investment in raising reading scores—what changes could move the needle the furthest for the money they cost to implement.
Short cited reading coaches, who work with teachers in every school in Alabama that serves students in grades K-3. “The first-string players, they have coaches,” Short said, drawing an analogy to football. “Coaches are not just for the weak. They’re for everyone.”
Lane said following the science of reading means using evidence-based practices across all aspects of literacy instruction, and not assuming that phonics alone is the “end all and be all.”
“If we don’t have those things together, we’re not going to see our return on investment at all,” she said.
Earlier in the hearing, she also underscored the importance of accountability for teacher-preparation programs. Some colleges and universities teach future teachers evidence-based methods, while others don’t emphasize them to the same extent, Lane said.
“You don’t see in medicine, or architecture, or pharmacy, or anything, the lack of consistency that we see in education,” she said. When teacher-preparation programs teach discredited methods, she said, “there is no real ramification for that, so it’s a problem.”
Several lawmakers questioned experts about how conditions outside of the classroom—from food insecurity to family structure—affected student reading performance.
“Certainly, when a child comes to school with extensive language exposure, where they’ve been spoken with a lot at home and in preschool settings, when they are healthy, and don’t have more urgent, pressing issues in their lives, and they can focus on learning … they do better,” said Lane.
But many students come from more challenging circumstances, she said.
“Those children exist, and we still need to teach them,” she said. “We need to not expect that they won’t be able to learn.”
