Navigating (Another) Reading Crisis as an Administrator: Rethinking the “Science of Reading” Movement
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32674/w257rm09Keywords:
Science of Reading, reading, leadership, reading legislation, education reformAbstract
The Science of Reading (SOR) movement puts administrators in a difficult position since they must navigate a wide range of educational stakeholders—students, teachers, parents, board members, political leaders, and the public. This discussion offers a broad but detailed overview of the problems created for administrators by the SOR movement (i.e., systematic phonics, teacher quality, reading programs, reading proficiency, and social justice/equity). This overview is followed by a series of new (and better) approaches for school administrators to become more effective instructional leaders of reading and advocates for addressing individual student needs and supporting teacher professionalism.
Downloads
References
Afflerbach, P. (2022). Teaching readers (not reading): Moving beyond skills and strategies to reader-focused instruction. Guilford Press.
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
Berliner, D. C., & Biddle, B. J. (1996). The Manufactured Crisis: Myths, fraud, and the attack on America’s public schools. Basic Books.
Bourque, M.L. (2009, March). A history of NAEP achievement levels: Issues, implementation, and impact 1989–2009. Paper Commissioned for the 20th Anniversary of the National Assessment Governing Board 1988–2008. https://www.nagb.gov/content/dam/nagb/en/documents/who-we-are/20-anniversary/bourque-achievement-levels-formatted.pdf
Briceño, A. (2024, February 26). Opinion: Should California schools stick to phonics-based reading ‘science’? It’s not so simple. Los Angeles Times. https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2024-02-26/california-schools-reading-literacy-science-bilingual-education
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
Calkins, L. (2024, March 21). My curriculum not the reason kids can’t read. Illinois Times. https://www.illinoistimes.com/news-opinion/my-curriculum-not-the-reason-kids-cant-read-18245143
Carnine, D. (2024, June 4). New initiative is creating evidence-based guidelines for educators. The 74. https://www.the74million.org/article/new-initiative-is-creating-evidence-based-guidelines-for-educators/
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
Deleuze, G. (1992, Winter). Postscript on the societies of control. October, 59, 3-7.
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.org10.1080/00220272.2014.956796
Garan, E.M. (2001, March). Beyond smoke and mirrors: A critique of the National Reading Panel report on phonics. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(7), 500-506. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170108200705
Hanford, E. (2018, September 10). Hard words: Why aren’t kids being taught to read? APM Reports. https://www.apmreports.org/episode/2018/09/10/hard-words-why-american-kids-arent-being-taught-to-read
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
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
Krashen, S. (2002). Whole language and the great plummet of 1987-92. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(10), 748-753.
Kristof, N. (2023, February 11). Two-thirds of kids struggle to read, and we know how to fix it. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/11/opinion/reading-kids-phonics.html
Lourde, A. (2012, August 12). Learning from the 60s. Black Past. https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/1982-audre-lorde-learning-60s/
Loveless, T. (2016, June 13). The NAEP proficiency myth. Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-chalkboard/2016/06/13/the-naep-proficiency-myth/
Loveless, T. (2023, June 11). Literacy and NAEP proficient (blog post). Tom Loveless. https://tomloveless.com/posts/literacy-and-naep-proficient/
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
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/
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2021a). Mapping state proficiency standards onto NAEP scales, 2007–2019. https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/studies/statemappingtool/#/subject-grade
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2021b). Scale scores and NAEP achievement levels. https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/guides/scores_achv.aspx#achievement
The North American Trainers Group. (2023, February 8). Understanding MSV: The types of information available to readers. Reading Recovery Council of North America. https://readingrecovery.org/understanding-msv-the-types-of-information-available-to-readers/
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
Research roundup: LETRS. (2022, April 12). https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HVs7h-18km68jirWvkiEDQIyA6GV02JP9LxKt6D_QJU/edit
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
Rosenberg, B. (2004, May). What’s proficient? The No Child Left Behind Act and the many meanings of proficiency. Washington, DC: American Federation of Teachers. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED497886.pdf
Schwartz, S. (2022, September 27). New curriculum review gives failing marks to two popular reading programs. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/new-curriculum-review-gives-failing-marks-to-popular-early-reading-programs/2021/11
Spiegel, D. (1998). Silver bullets, babies, and bath water: Literature response groups in a balanced literacy program. The Reading Teacher, 52(2), 114-124. www.jstor.org/stable/20202025
Stephens, D. (2008). The federal government wants me to teach what? A teacher’s guide to the National Reading Panel report. National Council of Teachers of English. https://cdn.ncte.org/nctefiles/resources/newsletter/magazine/nrp_report.pdf
Thomas, P.L. (2022a). How to end the Reading War and serve the literacy needs of all students: A primer for parents, policy makers, and people who care (2nd Ed.). Information Age Publishing.
Thomas, P.L. (2022b). 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
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. (2024, March). We teach English in times of perpetual crisis: The long (and tedious) history of reading crisis. English Journal, 113(4), 21-26
Tierney, R.J., & Pearson, P.D. (2021). A history of literacy education: Waves of research and practice. Teachers College Press.
Tierney, R.J., & Pearson, P.D. (2024). Fact-checking the Science of Reading: Opening up the conversation. Literacy Research Commons. https://literacyresearchcommons.org
Wilde, J. (2004, January). Definitions for the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001: Scientifically-based research. National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational Programs. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED484304.pdf
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.
Yandell, J. (2024, July 9). Teacher education, research and practice: addressing the recruitment and retention crisis through the reassertion of professional judgement. IOE Blog. https://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/ioe/2024/07/09/teacher-education-research-and-practice-addressing-the-recruitment-and-retention-crisis-through-the-reassertion-of-professional-judgement/
Yatvin, J. (2002). Babes in the woods: the wanderings of the National Reading Panel. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(5), 364–369, https://doi.org10.1177/003172170208300509
Yatvin, J. (2003, April 30). I told you so! The misinterpretation and misuse of the National Reading Panel report. Education Week, 44-45, 56. https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2003/04/30/33yatvin.h22.html
Yatvin, J. (2000, February 27). Minority View. https://www.nichd.nih.gov/sites/default/files/publications/pubs/nrp/Documents/minorityView.pdf
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Journal of School Administration Research and Development
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
All published articles are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 Unported License.
.png)
