Literacy Rates Are Low in All Schools - Will the “Science of Reading” Help?
By Saron Hatsey
Image by tirachard on Freepik
The United States literacy test scores have been falling in recent years. The NAEP reports that only 33% of 4th graders are reading at or above grade level. Amplified by the pandemic, student test scores across all subjects have tanked, ridding of decades of progress. This has prompted school districts across the nation to begin to look at and rethink their current systems, including their approaches to reading education. A total of 32 states have implemented new “science of reading” laws to reform their reading instruction in hopes of bringing scores up. But what is the “science of reading”? How does it differ from the current system? And how effective and sustainable is this system?
The Old System:
The current system has been in place since the 90’s, and is reported to be used in 72% of American schools. Created in response to the “reading wars” within the educational community in the 20th century, balanced literacy attempted to combine strictly technical instruction with strictly “whole word” instruction to address the 5 pillars of reading: phonemic awareness, phonics, comprehension, vocabulary, and fluency. This was done by teaching kids to use context clues when reading rather than focusing on the actual elements of the word. The switch to balanced literacy also changed the goal from just teaching kids how to read to also trying to develop a love for reading. In practice, balanced literacy looks different in almost all classrooms, although group work, read-alouds, and repetition of “high-frequency words” are common practices among classrooms.
However, balanced literacy has its many flaws, its open interpretation one of them. The lack of structure behind this approach leads it to become more of an ideology than an actual curriculum that can be used to guide students. The lack of structure also often leaves technical practices like phonics work on the back burner, leaving students without a foundational knowledge of how reading works. Lastly, without a universal standard, balanced literacy fails to provide the structure needed for students with reading disabilities like dyslexia. This sort of instruction only truly enriches about 30% of K-12 students.
The Science of Reading:
While not a form of reading education, the science of reading provides insightful context on how the human mind learns how to read. Its principles rely on a more technical approach to learning how to read, like developing phonemic awareness or types of affixes and how they affect a word. Research into the science of reading has spanned decades across numerous countries and languages and all meet the same consensus- nearly all children can learn how to read with detailed, technical, and intentional instruction.
The science of reading’s focus on phonics and syntax provides a clear-cut structure so all students can succeed, including those with dyslexia and other reading disabilities. Its foundation through research provides stability and consistency that reading education hasn’t had in past decades.
Theoretically, this system also helps close the gap between lower-income and higher-income students. Children in lower-income households are exposed to fewer words and literary media as a child, and the 60% of preschool programs that use balanced literacy often fail to address that. This has a huge effect on both the distant and immediate futures of these students. Only 19% of 4th graders who qualify for the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) could read at a proficient level, scoring 30 pts lower than their non-NSLP counterparts. Technical reading work and early intervention, both of which are prioritized by the science of reading, can help close the reading gap between classes and increase literacy rates.
LETRS:
LETRS is a training system based on the science of reading. Implemented in some states like North Carolina and California, the program focuses on providing information for teachers that aligns with the standards of the science of reading. North Carolina is one of the states that has started to implement this training, and the results are promising. One school district in North Carolina showed a 42% spike in proficient readers after just 1 year of implementing LETRS training.
LETRS, while offering more structure than the past balanced literacy approach by providing training, still fails to provide a set curriculum, leaving teachers to create their curriculums. These not only lead to inconsistencies but also often leave the students who need the most instruction, like those with reading disabilities, behind.
Moreover, the LETRS teacher training is expensive and time-consuming. The Rhode Island School District reports that LETRS training for 40 teachers costs nearly $50,000 for virtual training, and $60,000 for in-person training. School districts whose students suffer the most from improper literacy education are often unable to afford this special teaching. Overhauling the current system and creating new curricula will also be incredibly costly, leaving risk for greater class divisions. Evermore, the LETRS program can take up to 168 hours to complete in full. Teachers may not have the time to go through such extensive training, especially those in understaffed and underfunded schools, in turn further risking more class divisions.
Lastly, LETRS itself has returned some mixed results. An IES study that spanned 2 years found that LETRS alone improved the knowledge of teachers, but had no effect in terms of student outcomes. This cements the idea that LETRS itself is not enough. Without a supportive curriculum, LETRS fails to address the full scope of the literacy issue facing kids today.
Is “The Science of Reading” the answer?
Yes and no. Alone, the science of reading and its existing teaching methods like LETRS don’t suffice for the complex issue facing the education system in America today. Its inability to be cost-efficient and provide a stable curriculum leaves many disadvantaged students behind. However, the effects in states like North Carolina can’t be ignored. The research has proven right - a more technical approach to reading is necessary for pupils in the U.S. With time, more curricula and clearer standards will most likely go into motion around the United States. Nationwide, many school districts and legislators are eager to pass and overhaul their current reading systems in favour of a more scientific approach. It will take time, but I believe the U.S. is finally on the right path to leading its students to success.
Works Cited
“Balanced Literacy vs. Structured Literacy: Understanding the Key Differences.” Strobel Education, 20 April 2023, https://strobeleducation.com/blog/balanced-literacy-vs-structured-literacy/. Accessed 20 December 2023.
Fofaria, Rupen. “The 'Transformation is Real' as Science of Reading Takes Hold in N.C. Schools – The 74.” The 74, 21 April 2023, https://www.the74million.org/article/the-transformation-is-real-as-science-of-reading-takes-hold-in-n-c-schools/. Accessed 20 December 2023.
“A Guide to the Science of Reading Curriculum.” Lexia, 21 April 2023, https://www.lexialearning.com/blog/science-of-reading-curriculum-guide. Accessed 20 December 2023.
“NAEP Reading: National Achievement-Level Results.” The Nation's Report Card, https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading/nation/achievement/?grade=4. Accessed 20 December 2023.
“Reading Revolution: The Science of Reading in Education.” Online master's in education degrees at KU, https://educationonline.ku.edu/community/reading-revolution-the-science-of-reading-in-education. Accessed 23 December 2023.
Schwartz, Sarah. “Which States Have Passed 'Science of Reading' Laws? What's in Them?” Education Week, 20 July 2022, https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/which-states-have-passed-science-of-reading-laws-whats-in-them/2022/07. Accessed 20 December 2023.
Schwartz, Sarah, et al. “4 More States Pass 'Science of Reading' Mandates.” Education Week, 10 May 2023, https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/4-more-states-pass-science-of-reading-mandates/2023/05. Accessed 20 December 2023.
“The science of reading and balanced literacy | Part One: History and context of The Reading Wars - Reading Partners.” Reading Partners, 21 June 2023, https://readingpartners.org/blog/the-science-of-reading-and-balanced-literacy-part-one-history-and-context-of-the-reading-wars/. Accessed 20 December 2023.
“Science of Reading and Structured Literacy Professional Learning Provider Information Sheet Language Essentials for Teachers of.” RI Department of Education, 1 March 2021, https://ride.ri.gov/sites/g/files/xkgbur806/files/Portals/0/Uploads/Documents/Instruction-and-Assessment-World-Class-Standards/Literacy/RightToReadAct/LETRS-info-sheet.pdf. Accessed 20 December 2023.
“The Science of Reading Research.” ASCD, 1 March 2004, https://www.ascd.org/el/articles/the-science-of-reading-research. Accessed 20 December 2023.
“The Science of Reading vs. Balanced Literacy.” Lexia, 23 August 2022, https://www.lexialearning.com/blog/the-science-of-reading-vs-balanced-literacy. Accessed 20 December 2023.
Sparks, Sarah D., and Gina Tomko. “Two Decades of Progress, Nearly Gone: National Math, Reading Scores Hit Historic Lows.” Education Week, 24 October 2022, https://www.edweek.org/leadership/two-decades-of-progress-nearly-gone-national-math-reading-scores-hit-historic-lows/2022/10. Accessed 20 December 2023.
Tadayon, Ali. “How one California elementary school sees success after overhauling its reading program.” EdSource, 8 March 2022, https://edsource.org/2022/how-one-california-elementary-school-sees-success-after-overhauling-its-reading-program/668351. Accessed 20 December 2023.
“A Timely Reminder: There Are No Silver Bullets, Even With Professional Learning.” Rivet Education, 5 January 2023, https://riveteducation.org/a-timely-reminder-there-are-no-silver-bullets-even-with-professional-learning/. Accessed 20 December 2023.
Winter, Jessica. “The Rise and Fall of Vibes-Based Literacy.” The New Yorker, 1 September 2022, https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-education/the-rise-and-fall-of-vibes-based-literacy. Accessed 20 December 2023.
