Four years ago, Taryn Rawson went all in on the science of reading.
Goldrick Elementary in Denver, where Rawson is the principal, changed its curriculum and assessments, schedule, and staffing structure to help young students master foundational reading skills, like phonics, and get them reading grade-level texts.
The work appeared to pay off. For the past three years, 80% of the school’s students in K-3 were at or above proficient on the short, periodic tests of reading fluency the school administers throughout the year.
But still, fewer than a third of Goldrick’s 3rd graders are proficient on state reading tests. The work Goldrick educators have done so far, Rawson said, has been “necessary, but not sufficient.”
Goldrick’s dilemma highlights the challenges schools are now facing as the science of reading movement continues to evolve.
The legislative battles have been fought and won: Almost every state has passed policies requiring, or encouraging, schools to use evidence-based approaches for teaching students how to read.
But national data show that elementary schoolers are still struggling in reading. Only a few states stand out as bright spots.
If state policy hasn’t yet moved students’ reading scores, what will? That’s one big instructional question facing schools as they head into the 2026-27 school year. But another looms, too, as a similar movement aimed at boosting math outcomes takes shape.
Between 2022 and 2025, 18 states passed legislation that pushed math teaching in a more “structured, intervention-oriented direction,” according to a report from the Center on Reinventing Public Education, published this past April.
A burgeoning “science of math” movement has encouraged schools and districts to align their instructional practices with findings from experimental research, a proposition that makes intuitive sense to some education leaders.
“I was like, wait a second, if there’s 50 years of multidisciplinary research about how we should teach reading that I hadn’t heard of until recently, that’s probably true about math,” said Rawson.
Over the past two years, Rawson and her team have reviewed their math curricula for alignment to research-based strategies, and put in place dedicated time for math screening and intervention.
But the renewed focus on math instruction has also restarted the “math wars”: the perennial debates over whether schools should emphasize explicit instruction and building math skills from the bottom up, or inquiry-based lessons that start with complex problems rather than skill-building. Both camps claim research is on their side, setting up a debate that isn’t as clear-cut as it is for reading.
How will states and districts navigate questions about what math instructional practices are, and aren’t, evidence-based? And what lessons can the math field learn in the science of reading movement’s wake?
A focus on implementation in the science of reading
More than 40 states have implemented science of reading policies, mandating changes to curriculum, screening and intervention practices, and teacher training.
The literacy field has undergone significant shifts as a result. Curricula that feature discredited practices have lost market share, with new programs taking their place. Hundreds of thousands of teachers have taken intensive training in reading instruction methods.
Some states have seen big gains in reading scores. Mississippi, whose 2013 reading law served as the blueprint for many states’ legislative efforts, saw 4th graders’ scores jump in the 2019 National Assessment of Educational Progress, though they’ve remained flat since. Louisiana’s 4th graders have also improved in reading, making it the only state to exceed pre-pandemic achievement in the subject on the 2024 NAEP test.
But nationally, elementary reading scores haven’t moved much since pandemic-era lows. The timing of legislation could play a role, some experts say.
Many states rolled out science of reading legislation during the 2021-22 school year, so it may not yet have been in effect long enough to produce positive results in student scores. (Some data suggest older elementary students may just now be starting to see gains.)
Another factor: Not all reading legislation is created equal. A 2023 study found that states with more comprehensive policies—those that provide teacher training and coaching, offer funding, support districts with guidance, and implement 3rd grade retention policies—had better outcomes than those that didn’t cover all of these pieces.
Harder to measure, but just as important, experts say, is states’ and districts’ infrastructure for implementing real change.
State policies may require, for instance, that schools screen students for dyslexia.
“But what happens after these students are screened or identified for dyslexia? What are you going to do?” said Eric Hengyu Hu, a research scientist who studies educational policy at the State University of New York’s University at Albany.
Last year, Hu and his colleagues Kristin Sayeski and Paul Morgan published a study that found mixed outcomes across 47 states that implemented dyslexia screening laws. In part, these results could stem from granular differences in implementation, Hu said—how often students get intervention, what materials teachers are using, how well-trained they are.
Now that some science of reading policies have been in effect for several years, debates over implementation—as opposed to simply debates over policy—are here, and are likely to persist.
One of the main goals of the science of reading movement has been to shift schools’ approach to teaching foundational reading skills like phonics, requiring them to adopt a more systematic and explicit strategy for teaching students how letters represent sounds. But now, some influential researchers are warning that schools may be spending too much time teaching these building-block skills, giving short shrift to other important parts of literacy instruction.
Reading curriculum has also become a political and cultural flashpoint, with observers arguing over which programs belong on state-approved lists and which options school districts should choose. To teach reading comprehension, some curricula rely more heavily on text excerpts and instruction in comprehension strategies kids can apply to different texts. Others primarily use whole books and focus more on building students’ background knowledge. Programs in both categories claim that they’re aligned to the science of reading.
Now, having solidified their routines for teaching foundational skills, Rawson’s team at Goldrick Elementary is digging into the research behind other components of reading instruction. They’re in the process of shifting their approach to teaching writing and building students’ spoken language, Rawson said.
Other districts have started applying some lessons learned to middle and high school grades, where educators say many of their older students still struggle with basic reading skills.
Now that so many schools are in years two, three, or four of big changes to reading instruction, there’s a need for more observational studies to understand what barriers are standing in the way of better outcomes, said Hu.
“What’s actually happening in classrooms?” he said. “This is particularly where I feel like qualitative or mixed-methods research comes in handy.”
The ‘math wars’ are heating up again
In math, newly enacted laws echo some of the same priorities of the science of reading movement.
Laws often include a focus on foundational skills in grades K-5, requirements for universal screening and targeted intervention for struggling students, and mandates for data-based decision-making and explicit, systematic instruction, according to the analysis from CRPE. Some laws also require districts to use high-quality instructional materials and provide teacher training.
I hope that we look back in 15 years and go, ‘Wow, the idea that we would just … have kids muddle their way through a task as the beginning of the lesson really doesn’t align with what we now know about how kids learn.’
Perhaps the best known of these policies is the Alabama Numeracy Act. The 2022 law required interventions for students struggling in math, math coaches in each elementary school, and the use of state-approved materials. Alabama has seen gains on national math achievement tests in the years since it was enacted.
Some states are now following Alabama’s lead, said Lindsey Henderson, the policy director for math at ExcelinEd, an advocacy group founded by former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. The organization, which has also been active in the science of reading movement, has created a model math policy and tracks state-level changes.
Last year, Oklahoma passed math legislation with a similar screening and intervention structure in the elementary grades. The law also forms a state office of math improvement, as Alabama’s did. Legislation proposed in Alaska incorporates principles from Alabama’s law, too, Henderson said.
More states have also passed legislation related to dyscalculia, a math learning disability that affects 5-8% of kids, said Alexander Kurz, a senior fellow at CRPE, and an author on the organization’s recent math report.
The science of reading movement brought new awareness to the prevalence of, and challenges associated with, dyslexia, a reading disability that can make it harder for students to crack the code of written language. But although dyslexia and dyscalculia occur at similar rates, far fewer school systems have intervention protocols for the latter.
That may soon begin to change, Kurz said.
With this legislative momentum also come renewed battles in the “math wars.” While these laws usually require “evidence-based” approaches and curricula, they don’t always outline what exactly that means. The math field is divided.
On one side are those who favor explicit, systematic instruction in foundational math skills and repeated practice. Students need to build their math knowledge from the bottom up, they argue, mastering basic skills before moving on to more demanding work. The “science of math” movement has recently championed this perspective, citing studies that show this kind of teaching can lead to better outcomes on math tests.
On the other side are those who support more inquiry-based, student-led instruction, and say children are more likely to internalize math concepts when they learn them through wrestling with complex problems—even if they haven’t mastered all the basics.
Most researchers and educators on both sides of this divide say good math teaching should include a bit of both approaches: some explicit instruction, and some time for students to tackle problems on their own. But debates continue over how to prioritize and sequence these components in the classroom.
The new state math policies so far lean more traditionalist, Kurz said, with their focus on foundational math skills and test-based screening. But most of these laws don’t prescribe instructional methods, and as such leave many math wars unresolved.
“A lot of the nuts and bolts are contingent, in my opinion, on the curriculum choices being made,” he said.
Some districts are making big bets on more inquiry-based methods. New York City’s school system now requires almost all its high schools to use Illustrative Mathematics, a program that emphasizes building students’ conceptual understanding, to teach Algebra 1. Teachers have offered mixed reviews.
Rawson, the Denver principal, has shifted her school away from an inquiry-based program to a new core curriculum that includes more teacher-led instruction, and added in a supplemental resource for students to practice math facts. She faults most math curricula on the market for not including enough explicit instruction and practice.
“We’re living at the zenith of the ‘whole math’ era,” said Rawson, referencing the “whole language” approach to literacy instruction, which promoted immersing kids in books and deemphasized explicit instruction in phonics and other foundational skills.
“I hope that we look back in 15 years and go, ‘Wow, the idea that we would just … have kids muddle their way through a task as the beginning of the lesson really doesn’t align with what we now know about how kids learn,’” Rawson said.
As states and districts start to implement new legislation, wading through curriculum choices and intervention practices, the field needs clearer information about how findings from research translate into classroom instruction, Kurz said.
State and district leaders are busy, he said. “Are they going to read all these articles? No.”
