Five things the ‘science of reading’ is not, one that it is and what it will do – help NC kids read.

We have allowed one of the most amazing and sophisticated human accomplishments – learning to read – to be politicized in North Carolina.

Last week, Gov. Roy Cooper signed into law the Excellent Public Schools Act of 2021, mandating teachers be trained to use “the science of reading.” Regardless of how one might feel about this bill (and there are many different opinions), it creates an opportunity to look closely at the instruction occurring in our state and consider why only 36 percent of North Carolina’s fourth graders can read proficiently, according to a 2019 national assessment. To do that, though, we need a common understanding of what the science of reading really is.

As professors who have dedicated their careers to literacy education, we worry that an immense and critical body of research is being turned into a catchy slogan, a bumper sticker that misrepresents what the science of reading really offers for improving reading instruction. This oversimplification has at times reduced the science to only one of its parts – a focus on phonics, or sounding out letters to read a word. Now it’s up to state policy makers to work closely and collaboratively with our educators to include and implement all the dimensions of the science of reading.

We offer six key principles that can inform this work:

The science of reading is not just about phonics. To become skilled readers, children must be taught how letters and sounds come together to make words, and how to comprehend the meaning of the text. Without comprehension, it’s just word calling, not reading. Phonics is absolutely necessary, but it is not the entirety of the science of reading.

It is not a narrow program. Rather than a simple recipe for how to teach reading, science is the accumulated knowledge of how literacy develops through a coordinated emphasis on language acquisition, phonological and phonemic awareness, phonics and spelling, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension.

It does not limit teachers. An approach grounded in science puts teachers in charge. It requires investing in teachers, building knowledge of how children learn to read and what type of instruction is most effective.

It does not limit student engagement. Children need to read more to read better, and have to want to read to read more. Children need to be exposed to a wide variety of text formats and genres in which they can see themselves and others represented. The science of reading requires classroom libraries rich with authentic, diverse and engaging literature and informational texts.

It includes writing. Reading and writing are reciprocal processes that develop in tandem. We would not expect an infant or toddler to learn language by only listening and never speaking; we should not expect literacy to develop by only reading and never writing.

It is not a magic cure. While science makes a few principles of effective instruction clear, and rules out what doesn’t align with the evidence (like asking children to guess words), it is not a “plug and play” set of instructional routines. Many questions about how to translate the principles into classroom practice are still being examined by researchers.

The new law’s declaration that classroom instruction should be aligned with the “science of reading” is a good start, but not the end of improving literacy instruction. We need to invest in teachers and provide quality coaching as they grow in their careers. These are the investments that pay dividends. It is not a simple solution, but it is what will work.

Dennis Davis, PhD, is associate professor of literacy education at N.C. State. Rebecca Lee Payne Jordan, PhD, is assistant professor of reading education at Appalachian State. Kimberly Anderson, PhD, is associate professor of education at East Carolina.