What's next for the science of reading?
My favorite entries in the 2025 Fordham "Wonkathon"
This year, the Thomas B. Fordham Institute’s annual “Wonkathon” contest was about reading. Specifically, they asked contributors to answer this prompt:
What needs to happen next—at the state, district, and school levels—for the science of reading revolution to fulfill its promise and ensure that far more children learn to read well?
Meant to solicit input and drive a conversation, they got 48 (!) submissions. You can read all them here, or vote for your favorite here through 1:00 p.m. ET on Monday, November 24. (Note to the Fordham crew—next year you might want to consider ranked choice voting!)
Given my personal interests in this topic, I went through and read—okay, skimmed— through all of them. I had a hard time picking a favorite, but I identified five major themes.
Some things are still missing from the “science of reading”
Louisa Moats thinks we still have a long ways to go to help teachers, “recognize or anticipate when sentence structure may be interfering with [a student’s] comprehension.”
I think Kata Solow would agree with this sentiment, but she wants teacher professional development to be more focused on daily instruction. She writes that, “If the science of reading revolution is going to succeed, we need teachers to change how they teach reading. And for that to happen at any kind [of] scale, those teachers need good curriculum, continuously supported by practical and relevant professional development.”
Miah Daughtery points out that our assessment systems are often not designed to capture why students might be struggling in reading:
Most middle and high school reading assessments today prioritize comprehension. So, for many students, reading difficulty shows up as a comprehension problem, potentially masking ineffective decoding skills, weak reading fluency, lack of grammar understanding, a limited vocabulary, or dyslexia.
Additionally, Peter Greer calls for more frequent testing of student reading skills. In that same vein, Daniel Whitlock suggests that schools, “Measure average gains from fall to spring in phonemic awareness, decoding, and fluency. Monitor Tier 2 dosage delivered versus planned….At the school level, check how many students are reading aligned decodables within six weeks of each unit.”
Charles Sahm says we can’t forget about writing. He argues:
Teaching students how to construct complex sentences helps them to understand such sentences when they encounter them in their reading. Teaching students to plan and revise their writing helps them to think logically and develop critical thinking skills. Asking students to write about what they’ve been taught leads to deeper, longer-lasting learning.
And David Steiner reminds us about the importance of background knowledge to truly appreciate The Great Gatsby or to understand the meaning of the word “gyre” in the context of ocean currents.
Another missing ingredient: Parent engagement
David Wakelyn’s first recommendation is to, “offer clear feedback to parents and students.” He suggests looking at what Mississippi and Alaska have done on this front.
Bridget Cherry is speaking my language on how to engage parents, arguing they can be partners in accountability if they’re made aware of their child’s performance and needs and given clear guidance about how to help. Joan Kelley is on a similar wavelength and argues parents can be brought in to be “watchful eyes” and can also help with the dosage problem by giving kids extra support at home. Wendy Lopez-Afflito makes a similar point, noting that, “Parents are the experts of our kids but we can’t fix a problem we don’t know we have.”
The foundation for reading starts well before kindergarten
Amanda Rutter argues our current science of reading (SoR) policies are starting too late. She writes, “When we wait until decoding begins to address language, we ask phonics to bear the entire load of reading development, and the evidence is clear that it cannot. The SoR literature shows both strands, language and code, must be woven early. Combined approaches in preschool set children up for later reading success.”
Elliot Regenstein agrees, arguing that all of the science of reading work, “important as it is, will spark merely marginal gains if we don’t address kindergarten readiness.”
Leadership matters
Another big theme was leadership. Lisa Coons, for example, pointed to the leadership lessons from the “Southern Surge” states.
Todd Collins compared reading policy to New Year’s resolutions and noted that:
The key takeaway from Mississippi is clear: Achieving sustainable, transformative change in education requires more than just mandates and resources. It demands a new mindset within state education departments, often requiring different staffing and, crucially, leaders—from governors to state superintendents—who genuinely view improving student achievement as their paramount priority.
Jenn Vranek and Deshmukh Towery remind us that reading improvements are more like a marathon than a miracle, and they outline the steps to get across the finish line.
Implementation, implementation, implementation
Kristen McQuillian and Robert Pondiscio note that good reading instruction is a practice, not a policy. They note that, “The science of reading (SoR) describes how children learn to read, not how to teach them well at scale. The two are not the same.” Julie Wible and Maureen Mirabito strike a similar tone, reminding us that, “The real evidence of success lies in what every child can do.”
Megan Reder-Schopp says, “The next phase of the science-of-reading (SoR) revolution is simple to say and hard to do: States must set tight guardrails, districts must build coherent engines, and schools must deliver predictable, high-quality routines—every day, for every student.” She has an outline for what that should look like at each level.
Kunjan Narechania and Jessica Baghian argue for systems, not slogans and how good policy requires relentless implementation. They write about the “implementation chain” they followed in Louisiana:
As part of Louisiana’s literacy work, we identified not just what actions teachers needed to take, but also what supports they would need from all the other actors in the chain.
If we wanted teachers to plan and facilitate instruction using new materials, they needed professional learning, regular feedback from coaches, and planning tools to prepare units and lessons in collaboration with their peers. If we wanted principals to ensure teachers have skilled instructional coaches, they needed to set clear expectations, create time in the schedule for coaching, collect observation data to adjust their school’s approach, and so on.
Kymyona Burke writes about how Mississippi went beyond the science of reading checklist. I’ll let her have the final word:
Strong science of reading policies can spur progress but not without a lot of subsequent hard work. In Mississippi, our fourth graders went from 49th in the nation in 2013 to ninth in 2024 in reading. People often ask what changed. We’re still a poor state, we’re still rural, and the legacy of segregation lingers. But we put a stake in the ground, and with strong leadership and in partnership with schools and districts we continue to do the work required to ensure our landmark legislation lives up to its promise.
As a reminder, you can read all the submissions on the Fordham site here, or vote for your favorite here. Get your vote in by Monday!
Reading List
For Decades, Students of Color Denied Dyslexia Diagnosis and Intervention
Are Kids Making Progress in Reading? It All Depends on How You Measure It
There Really Was a ‘Mississippi Miracle’ in Reading. States Should Learn From It
6-Year-Olds in England Get a Phonics Check. American Kids Should Get One, Too
I’m so glad you addressed the parent engagement.