Science of Reading Guide: Research, Phonics, Structured Literacy, Dyslexia and State Laws

The science of reading is the body of research, drawn from cognitive psychology, linguistics, neuroscience, education and special education, on how children learn to read, why some struggle and which kinds of instruction help them. The Reading League, which published a guide defining the term, calls it “a vast, interdisciplinary body of scientifically-based research about reading and issues related to reading and writing.” In schools the phrase now stands for a set of practices that research supports, above all explicit, systematic teaching of how letters represent sounds, combined with deliberate work on vocabulary, background knowledge and comprehension. It has also become law: as of August 4, 2026, 43 states and the District of Columbia had passed laws or adopted policies on evidence-based reading instruction since 2013, according to an Education Week tracker. The urgency comes from results. On the 2024 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 31 percent of fourth graders read at or above the Proficient level, 4 points fewer than in 2019, and about 40 percent scored below Basic, the largest share since 2002 (The Nation’s Report Card; National Assessment Governing Board, January 29, 2025).

This guide to the science of reading explains what the term means and does not mean, the research behind it, the five components of reading, the debate over structured literacy, balanced literacy and three-cueing, the main criticisms, what NAEP shows, what states require, and how schools handle dyslexia, decodable books, curriculum, teacher preparation and reading intervention. It is written for district leaders, principals, literacy coaches and teachers, with a section for families. It covers K–12 schools in the United States, mainly kindergarten through grade 5, with a section on older struggling readers. Each section links to edCircuit’s more detailed coverage, and the Literacy and Reading hub collects all of it.

Updated October 2026.

In this guide

• The basics: What the science of reading is · The research base · The five components · Phonics
• The debate: Structured literacy, balanced literacy and three-cueing · Criticisms and overreach
• Results and policy: How students are reading · State and federal law
• In schools: Dyslexia · Decodable books · Choosing curriculum · Teacher preparation and professional learning
• Struggling readers: Reading intervention and MTSS · Older struggling readers
• People: Families · Questions to ask

What is the science of reading?

The science of reading is a body of evidence, not a program, a product or a single method. The Reading League’s Science of Reading: Defining Guide (2022), written by a coalition that met from September 2020 to July 2021, says the research has been conducted over five decades, across the world and in multiple languages, and informs how proficient reading and writing develop, why some people have difficulty, and how schools can most effectively assess and teach.

The same guide is explicit about what the term does not mean. The science of reading, it says, is not an ideology or philosophy; not a fad, trend, new idea or pendulum swing; not a political agenda; not a one-size-fits-all approach; not a program of instruction; and not a single, specific component of instruction, such as phonics. The list is worth keeping in view, because the phrase is often used to mean only phonics or to endorse a particular product.

Three ideas recur in nearly every account of the research: the written code has to be taught, because most children do not work it out from exposure; reading comprehension depends both on recognizing words accurately and quickly and on understanding the language they make; and skilled readers recognize familiar words from their spellings, not by guessing. The next section sets out where those ideas come from.

The movement’s critics, discussed below, object less to these ideas than to how the research is summarized and turned into law and marketing. edCircuit’s introductions:

• The Science of Reading: How Research Shapes Literacy
• How the Science of Reading Enhances Student Learning

What research is the science of reading based on?

The research base most often cited in schools rests on one federal review, the National Reading Panel report of 2000, and three models of how reading works: the Simple View of Reading, Scarborough’s Reading Rope and Linnea Ehri’s account of orthographic mapping.

The National Reading Panel (2000). In 1997 Congress asked the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), working with the U.S. Department of Education, to convene a panel to assess the research on teaching children to read. The 14-member panel of reading scientists, teachers, administrators and others submitted its reports on April 13, 2000 (NICHD). Faced with more than 100,000 reading studies published since 1966, it chose a limited set of topics and applied criteria for experimental and quasi-experimental research (Report of the National Reading Panel: Reports of the Subgroups). Its findings became the “five components” described in the next section. It did not address second-language learning, which a separate federal initiative was examining.

The Simple View of Reading (1986). Philip Gough and William Tunmer proposed in Remedial and Special Education that reading equals the product of decoding and comprehension, meaning language comprehension. Because the relationship is a product rather than a sum, a reader with no decoding ability cannot read with understanding however strong their language, and the reverse is also true. The authors drew a practical conclusion: there are three kinds of poor readers, those who cannot decode (which they identified with dyslexia), those who decode but do not comprehend, and those with difficulties in both.

Scarborough’s Reading Rope (2001). Hollis Scarborough, a senior scientist at Haskins Laboratories, developed the image from lectures for parents in which she compared skilled reading to strands twisted into a rope. As the International Dyslexia Association (IDA) describes it, the lower, word-recognition strands (phonological awareness, decoding and sight recognition of familiar words) become accurate, fluent and increasingly automatic with practice, while the upper, language-comprehension strands (background knowledge, vocabulary, language structures, verbal reasoning and literacy knowledge) reinforce one another and then weave together with word recognition to produce a skilled reader (IDA).

Orthographic mapping. Linnea Ehri, a member of the National Reading Panel, describes orthographic mapping as the formation of letter-sound connections that bond the spellings, pronunciations and meanings of specific words in memory. It explains how children come to read words by sight, spell them from memory and learn new vocabulary from print, and it is “enabled by phonemic awareness and grapheme-phoneme knowledge.” Ehri notes that sight words were once thought of as a limited set of high-frequency or irregular words, but that all words, once practiced, come to be read from memory by sight (Ehri, Scientific Studies of Reading, 2014).

The three models are frameworks for organizing findings and diagnosing difficulties, not lesson plans.

What are the five components of reading?

The five components of reading instruction, as the term is commonly used, are phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary and comprehension, the five areas in which the National Reading Panel reported findings. What the panel actually found in each area is more specific than the list:

Sources: National Reading Panel, Reports of the Subgroups (2000). Effect sizes are in standard deviation units; the panel treated 0.20 as small, 0.50 as moderate and 0.80 as large.

The components are taught together, not in sequence, and the panel’s finding on phonemic awareness taught with letters is a reminder that the oral and written parts of early reading are linked. A more recent federal summary, the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) practice guide Foundational Skills to Support Reading for Understanding in Kindergarten Through 3rd Grade (July 2016, revised December 2019), rates the evidence for its four recommendations: developing awareness of the sounds in speech and how they link to letters (strong evidence); teaching students to decode words, analyze word parts and write and recognize words (strong); ensuring each student reads connected text every day (moderate); and teaching academic language skills, including vocabulary (minimal, a rating of the available studies rather than of the skill’s importance).

Comprehension also depends on what a student knows about the world. In a lottery-based study of nine Colorado charter schools using the Core Knowledge curriculum, which is designed to build general knowledge, students who won kindergarten admission lotteries scored significantly higher in reading and English language arts in grades 3 through 6 (an intent-to-treat effect of 0.241 standard deviations); applicants came mainly from middle- and high-income districts, and the effect is of attending the schools as well as of the curriculum (Grissmer et al., EdWorkingPaper 23-755, July 2023). edCircuit’s coverage of the teacher knowledge each component requires:

• Using Deep Teacher Knowledge to Bridge Literacy Gaps
• Empowering Literacy Across the Curriculum
• Revisiting the Power of Independent Reading

What is phonics, and what does the research show?

Phonics is instruction in how letters and combinations of letters represent the sounds of spoken words, and how to use that knowledge to read and spell. The National Reading Panel defined systematic phonics as explicitly teaching a prespecified set of letter-sound relations and having students read text that gives practice using them.

The panel’s phonics meta-analysis drew on 38 studies and 66 treatment-control comparisons. Its main findings (National Reading Panel, 2000):

• Overall effect. Systematic phonics produced a moderate, statistically significant effect, d = 0.44, compared with unsystematic or no phonics. The effect held in the most rigorous studies: 0.45 in studies with random assignment and 0.43 in quasi-experiments.
• Timing. Effects were largest when phonics began early: 0.56 in kindergarten and 0.54 in grade 1, compared with 0.27 in grades 2 through 6.
• Struggling readers. Effects were 0.58 for kindergartners at risk of reading problems, 0.74 for first graders at risk and 0.32 for older students with reading disabilities. For low-achieving readers in grades 2 through 6, the effect, 0.15, was not statistically significant, based on only eight comparisons from three studies, and the panel drew no conclusion.
• Comprehension. Phonics improved younger children’s reading comprehension (0.51), but for readers above grade 1 the effect on comprehension was significant only for students with reading disabilities.

The same chapter contains cautions that are quoted less often than its effect sizes. The panel warned against “a blanket endorsement to all kinds of phonics instruction,” noted that “intensive” phonics is rarely defined, observed that some effective programs were scripted in ways that reduce teacher judgment, and concluded that “phonics instruction is never a total reading program” and “should not become the dominant component in a reading program, neither in the amount of time devoted to it nor in the significance attached.” It called for phonics to be integrated with read-alouds of quality literature and with vocabulary and comprehension work, and for children’s reading to be judged by their interest in books and understanding as well as by their phonics skills.

Read together, the findings support systematic, explicit phonics as an essential part of early reading instruction, especially in kindergarten and first grade and for children at risk, and they also support the panel’s insistence that it is one part of a complete program. edCircuit’s coverage of phonics in classrooms and in digital tools:

• How AI Is Transforming Reading for Students
• AI in K-5 Learning: Reading, Math & Problem Solving

Structured literacy, balanced literacy and three-cueing: what is the difference?

Structured literacy and balanced literacy are two broad approaches to teaching reading that differ mainly in how explicitly and systematically they teach the written code and in how children are taught to identify unfamiliar words; three-cueing is the word-identification method most associated with balanced literacy, and a growing number of states restrict it. Each term covers a range of practice.

Structured literacy. The IDA uses the term for instruction in phonology, sound-symbol association, syllable types, morphology, syntax and semantics that is systematic and cumulative, explicit (concepts are taught deliberately, not left for students to deduce) and diagnostic (adjusted through continuous assessment). The IDA says phonics is a component of structured literacy but “embedded within a rich and deep language context,” and that the approach helps students with dyslexia and, by substantial evidence, all readers (IDA, Effective Reading Instruction).

Balanced literacy. Balanced literacy describes approaches that combine literature-rich, meaning-centered practices associated with whole language with skills instruction. A March 2020 policy statement from the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) and Education Deans for Justice and Equity, updated in January 2022, describes it as an approach that “stresses the importance of phonics and of authentic reading” and of teachers prepared to use a full range of methods, and quotes the reading researcher P. David Pearson’s 2004 observation that exemplary teachers combine practices that look like whole language, such as process writing and literature groups, with explicit phonics, sight word practice and comprehension strategy instruction (NEPC). The IDA takes the opposite view of commonly used versions, stating that “popularly employed reading approaches, such as Guided Reading or Balanced Literacy, are not effective for struggling readers” because they do not focus on decoding.

Three-cueing. Three-cueing teaches children to identify an unfamiliar word by drawing on three sources of information: meaning (does the word make sense, often using the picture), structure or syntax (does it sound right in the sentence) and visual information (the letters), sometimes abbreviated MSV. In a 2019 investigation, the APM Reports journalist Emily Hanford traced the idea to a 1967 paper by Ken Goodman and to the work of the New Zealand researcher Marie Clay, and reported that cognitive scientists had found the opposite pattern in skilled readers, who identify words quickly from their letters, while poor readers rely more on context (APM Reports, August 22, 2019). Hanford is also the host of the APM Reports podcast Sold a Story.

The table describes typical practice rather than any one program, and the line has moved. When Lucy Calkins’s Units of Study curriculum was revised in 2022, Education Week reported that the samples had dropped three-cueing prompts in favor of prompts to sound words out, added a phonics scope and sequence and offered decodable books, while keeping the workshop format; researchers and educators disagreed about whether the changes went far enough (Education Week, October 25, 2022). The useful question is less which label a program carries than what it asks teachers to do when a child meets an unfamiliar word.

What do critics say about the science of reading?

Critics of the science of reading movement object mainly to the claim that the science is settled, to how research has been summarized for the public, to legislation that prescribes methods and to products sold under the label.

• Settled science and the National Reading Panel. The NEPC policy statement argues that recent advocacy has misrepresented the science of reading “as settled science that purportedly prescribes systematic intensive phonics for all students,” overstated the National Reading Panel’s findings, placed blame on teachers and teacher education without credible evidence, and celebrated Mississippi’s 2019 NAEP results without context. It urges legislators not to prescribe a one-size-fits-all approach, not to fund unproven private-vendor programs and not to adopt policies such as third-grade retention that may raise short-term scores at a longer-term cost (NEPC, 2020, updated 2022).
• Evidence from England. Dominic Wyse and Alice Bradbury reviewed 55 experimental trials and surveyed 2,205 teachers and concluded that England’s national emphasis on synthetic phonics “is not sufficiently underpinned by research evidence,” recommending “contextualised teaching of reading, or balanced instruction” (Review of Education, January 2022).
• Overreach within the movement. Some of the sharpest warnings come from researchers who support explicit phonics. Timothy Shanahan, a member of the National Reading Panel, writes that reviews of decodable texts do not show that their use improves reading achievement, and that “those who recommend a heavy and/or long-term dose of decodable text in beginning reading programs are not doing so based on the science of reading” (Shanahan on Literacy). The Reading League’s own guide asks educators to look closely at the sources “program vendors cite as support,” to treat a presenter’s or developer’s financial interest as a reason for “greater scrutiny,” and not to treat popularity as evidence.
• Marketing. Because many laws now call for materials “aligned to the science of reading,” the phrase appears on a wide range of products. The label is the seller’s claim; it is not evidence that a product reflects the research or improves reading.

The disagreements are narrower than the public debate suggests. Supporters and critics generally accept that children need to be taught how the written code works and that comprehension and knowledge matter. They disagree about how much time and structure phonics needs, which texts beginners should read, how tightly legislatures should regulate instruction and how to read the trial evidence.

How well are American students reading? What NAEP shows

American students’ reading scores have fallen for a decade and are now roughly where they were in the early 1990s, with the largest losses among the lowest-performing students. The 2024 NAEP reading assessment, given to fourth and eighth graders between January and March 2024 and released on January 29, 2025, found (The Nation’s Report Card; NAGB):

• Grade 4. The average score was 2 points lower than in 2022 and 5 points lower than in 2019. Thirty-one percent of students performed at or above Proficient, and about 40 percent scored below Basic, the largest share since 2002. Scores were lower than in 2022 at the 10th, 25th, 50th and 75th percentiles; the 90th percentile was the exception.
• Grade 8. The average fell 2 points from 2022, following a 3-point drop between 2019 and 2022. About 30 percent of students were at or above Proficient, and about a third scored below Basic, the largest share on record.
• States. No state improved in reading in either grade compared with 2022. Louisiana was the only state whose fourth-grade reading score exceeded its 2019 level.
• Gaps. The lowest-performing students now score about 100 points below the highest-performing students. Martin West, vice chair of the National Assessment Governing Board, said the gap narrowed until around 2010 and has been widening since.

Mississippi is frequently cited as evidence for science of reading policy. Its fourth-grade average rose from well below the national public-school average in 2013 to about level with it in 2019 and above it in 2024; the share of its fourth graders at or above Proficient rose from 21 percent in 2013 to 32 percent in 2024 (NAEP Data Service). Mississippi began passing a series of reading laws in 2013 that overhauled how reading is taught and how reading teachers are prepared (Education Week). Because the laws changed several things at once, from classroom instruction to teacher preparation, the results cannot be credited to any single practice, and NEPC has cautioned against treating them as a model without context.

NAEP’s achievement levels are not the same as a state test’s. Scoring at NAEP Proficient, the Governing Board says, “means consistently understanding written text and interpreting its meaning,” while a fourth grader below Basic likely cannot recognize a reason for a character’s action implied in a story. State proficiency rates and NAEP rates are therefore not comparable. For edCircuit’s coverage of what the results mean for classrooms, see How AI Is Transforming Reading for Students, which discusses the 2024 results.

What do state and federal laws require?

Most states now have laws on early reading instruction, and the newer ones are increasingly specific about curriculum, teacher training, screening and banned practices. Education Week’s tracker counts 43 states and the District of Columbia that have passed laws or implemented policies related to evidence-based reading instruction since 2013, in six categories: teacher preparation, certification or license renewal, professional development or coaching, assessment (including tools to identify reading difficulties), materials and instruction or intervention (Education Week, updated August 4, 2026). At least 14 states have required schools to stop using materials that include three-cueing, according to a tracker kept by the advocacy organization ExcelinEd, as Education Week reported in September 2026. Examples from primary sources:

As of Education Week’s September 17 report, the House bill was headed to the Senate. Leaders should read their own state’s statute and guidance directly; the examples here are limited to the laws this guide examined.

What should schools know about dyslexia?

Dyslexia is a specific learning disability that affects word reading and spelling, and schools are responsible both for teaching students with dyslexia effectively and for identifying them through screening and, where needed, special education evaluation. This section concerns schools, not medical diagnosis.

The IDA adopted a revised definition on October 22, 2025, replacing the definition it adopted in 2002, which many state laws incorporate. The new definition begins: “Dyslexia is a specific learning disability characterized by difficulties in word reading and/or spelling that involve accuracy, speed, or both and vary depending on the orthography.” It adds that the difficulties occur along a continuum of severity and persist even with instruction that is effective for the individual’s peers, that underlying phonological and morphological processing difficulties are common but not universal, and that support before and during the early years of education is particularly effective. The 2002 definition had described the difficulties as typically resulting from a deficit in the phonological component of language that is often unexpected in relation to other cognitive abilities (IDA). States and districts whose laws or policies quote the 2002 wording should note the change.

Federal special education law covers dyslexia. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) names dyslexia among the conditions included in “specific learning disability.” In an October 23, 2015, letter, the Department of Education’s Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services said “there is nothing in the IDEA that would prohibit the use of the terms dyslexia, dyscalculia, and dysgraphia in IDEA evaluation, eligibility determinations, or IEP documents,” and reminded schools that a multi-tiered system of supports “may not be used to delay or deny” an evaluation of a child suspected of having a disability (OSERS Dear Colleague letter). Under federal regulations, either a parent or the school may request an initial evaluation, which must generally be completed within 60 days of parental consent or within the state’s own timeline (34 CFR 300.301).

For schools, the implications are practical. Universal screening in kindergarten through grade 2, now required in states such as California, identifies children at risk of reading difficulties early; a screener identifies risk and is not a diagnosis. Children at risk can begin explicit, systematic instruction at once while any evaluation proceeds, and an intervention system is not a reason to postpone an evaluation a parent has requested.

edCircuit’s coverage of dyslexia, including advice for parents and the role of technology:

• Five Tips to Successfully Advocate for Your Dyslexic Child
• Taking Action Before Dyslexia and Identity Collide
• Differentiating Dyslexia From ADHD
• AI for the Neurodiverse Classroom: How AI Tools Help Students With ADHD and Dyslexia
• Special Education Guide: IEPs, 504 Plans, IDEA and Parents’ Rights

What are decodable books, and do they work?

Decodable books are texts written so that most words follow letter-sound patterns students have already been taught, giving beginning readers practice applying phonics in connected text. They are widely used in kindergarten and first grade, but the research on them is thinner and more mixed than their popularity suggests.

Timothy Shanahan’s review of the studies describes “only a handful of investigations” since the 1980s and little agreement on what counts as decodable or what it should be compared with (Shanahan on Literacy). Some examples he summarizes:

• In a 1985 study, first graders taught with more decodable texts outperformed others on word reading in November and February, but by the end of the year there were no differences in decoding or overall achievement.
• In a 2004 tutoring study, students who practiced with texts that were 11 percent decodable and those who practiced with texts that were 85 percent decodable did equally well.
• A recent meta-analysis of more than 90 early reading intervention studies, which Shanahan cites, found that the programs that combined decodable texts with other texts produced stronger decoding gains than those that used only decodables, used no decodables or used no text at all.

Shanahan reports that the published reviews, including Cheatham and Allor (2012), reach similar conclusions: decodable texts encourage children to apply their phonics knowledge, though for most children only during a brief period in first grade, and the prudent course is to use both decodable and other texts. The practical guidance that follows is to use decodable books as a bridge while children are learning the code, to move children out of them as their decoding grows, and not to replace read-alouds, rich literature and knowledge-building texts with them. Predictable, patterned books that invite children to guess from pictures are a different matter; both critics of three-cueing and Shanahan advise against teaching children to identify words that way.

How should a district choose reading curriculum?

A district choosing reading curriculum should look for a systematic foundational skills sequence, substantial work on vocabulary, knowledge and comprehension, evidence of effectiveness with students like its own, and a realistic plan for training teachers, rather than relying on a label or a single review. Three kinds of information help, each with limits:

• State approved lists. In states such as Ohio, districts must choose core materials and interventions from state lists. A list narrows the choice; it does not tell a district which option fits its students and teachers.
• Curriculum reviews. EdReports, an independent nonprofit launched in 2015 and funded by foundations including the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Gates Foundation and the Walton Family Foundation, publishes educator-led reviews of instructional materials against its own criteria, which center on alignment to college- and career-ready standards (EdReports). Its reviews describe how well materials meet those criteria. They are not studies of whether students who use the materials learn more, and districts should treat them as one input.
• Evidence of effectiveness. The What Works Clearinghouse, run by IES, reviews studies of specific programs and practices against published standards. Where studies exist, districts should check whether they involved similar grades, students and the current version of the program.

Before adoption, districts can ask what the program tells a teacher to do when a child cannot read a word, how phonics is sequenced, how much time goes to read-alouds, vocabulary and content knowledge, and what training and coaching the price includes over five years. For one district’s account of adopting a supplemental program, see edCircuit’s Walton County Teacher Finds a Districtwide Solution to Boosting Literacy Schools for Readers of All Levels; for the use of AI in early assessment, see AI in Early Student Assessment and Intervention.

How are teachers prepared to teach reading?

Teacher preparation is one of the six areas Education Week’s tracker follows in state reading laws, alongside certification and professional development, and the evidence on both preparation and training is less settled than the policy activity suggests. The National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) reviewed 693 elementary teacher preparation programs in its June 2023 report and found that 25 percent adequately addressed all five components of reading instruction, another 25 percent addressed none adequately, and 40 percent taught multiple practices it considers contrary to research, such as running records and three-cueing (NCTQ, Teacher Prep Review: Strengthening Elementary Reading Instruction). NCTQ’s ratings rely mainly on syllabi and course materials; an NEPC review by Paul Thomas of Furman University argued that the method is weak and that the report is more advocacy than sound analysis (NEPC, September 19, 2023).

LETRS (Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling), a professional learning course now sold by Lexia and used in statewide initiatives such as Kentucky’s Reading Academies, is useful as an example of what has and has not been shown. In a federal randomized trial of second-grade teachers in high-poverty schools, published by IES in September 2008, an eight-day content-focused institute series, with or without in-school coaching, improved teachers’ knowledge of scientifically based reading instruction and one of three targeted teaching practices, but “neither intervention resulted in significantly higher student test scores at the end of the one-year implementation period” (IES, NCEE 2008-4030). The What Works Clearinghouse lists that study, with 3,450 second graders, as an evaluation of a professional development program based on LETRS, meeting its standards without reservations and finding no statistically significant positive effects (WWC). More recently, the Kentucky Department of Education reported in April 2026 that a Kentucky Reading Research Center analysis of 574 elementary schools found stronger growth in the share of proficient readers in schools with more LETRS-trained teachers, a comparison of schools rather than a randomized design (Kentucky Teacher, April 21, 2026). In 2024, IES awarded a research team $4 million to study LETRS’s effects on K–3 literacy, as edCircuit reported; this guide did not find published results from that study.

In these studies, training changed what teachers knew more clearly than it changed student results. That argues for pairing knowledge-building courses with coaching, aligned materials and time, and for measuring classroom practice, not only course completion. edCircuit’s coverage:

• 10 Reasons to Pair Literacy Programs With Professional Development
• Most Parents Think Teachers Are Fully Prepared to Deliver Science of Reading-Aligned Instruction; Educators Are Less Optimistic

How should schools organize reading intervention?

Schools usually organize reading intervention through a multi-tiered system of supports (MTSS), often called response to intervention (RTI) when applied to academics: all students are screened, those at risk receive additional small-group instruction, and those who do not respond receive more intensive help and, where appropriate, a special education evaluation. The IES practice guide on the model rates the evidence for its recommendations (Assisting Students Struggling with Reading, February 2009):

• Screen all students for potential reading problems at the beginning and middle of the year (moderate evidence).
• Provide intensive, systematic instruction on up to three foundational reading skills in small groups to students who score below the benchmark (strong evidence).
• Differentiated instruction for all students, monthly progress monitoring in tier 2 and intensive daily tier 3 instruction for students who make minimal progress (minimal evidence for each).

Two large federal evaluations show that putting a student into intervention is not the same as helping the student, and that results depend on what the intervention teaches and how it connects to classroom instruction:

The practical lessons match the IES guide: target the specific skills a screener and diagnostic assessment identify, add to good core instruction rather than replace it, check progress regularly, and move students who are not responding to more intensive help or evaluation. The 2015 evaluation also found that in grade 1, 45 percent of the schools studied provided intervention to some groups at all reading levels, not only to groups reading below grade level, a reminder that tiers can blur in practice. For more, see edCircuit’s AI in Early Student Assessment and Intervention and Special Education Guide.

How can schools help older struggling readers?

Federal guidance for older struggling readers points to explicit work on decoding long words and on fluency as well as on comprehension, rather than comprehension strategies alone. The case for attention is clear in NAEP: about a third of eighth graders scored below Basic in 2024, the largest share on record, and the declines were driven mainly by lower-performing students.

The IES practice guide Providing Reading Interventions for Students in Grades 4–9 (March 2022) makes four recommendations:

• Build students’ decoding skills so they can read complex multisyllabic words (strong evidence).
• Provide purposeful fluency-building activities to help students read effortlessly (strong evidence).
• Routinely use a set of comprehension-building practices to help students make sense of text (strong evidence).
• Provide opportunities to practice making sense of stretch text, challenging text that exposes students to complex ideas and information (moderate evidence).

The National Reading Panel’s phonics findings explain why older readers need a different approach from beginners: phonics effects were smaller after first grade, and the panel could draw no conclusion for low-achieving readers in grades 2 through 6, calling for research on adequate remedial instruction. In practice, a low comprehension score in middle school can hide a word-reading or fluency problem, so diagnostic checks matter, and intervention scheduled in place of science or social studies costs students the knowledge they need to comprehend. Content-area teachers have a role too; see edCircuit’s Empowering Literacy Across the Curriculum.

How can families support the science of reading at home?

Families can support reading by reading aloud and talking with their children, practicing what the school is teaching, and asking clear questions about how reading is taught and how their child is doing:

• Read aloud and talk. Reading to children builds the vocabulary, background knowledge and language comprehension that the Simple View of Reading and the Reading Rope describe, and it gives children access to books above the level they can yet read themselves.
• Practice sounds and letters. Rhyming games, breaking words into sounds and asking a beginning reader to sound out a word, rather than guess from a picture, reinforce what early grades teach.
• Ask how reading is taught. Families can ask which program the school uses for phonics, what a teacher does when a child is stuck on a word, and, where screening is required, what their child’s results showed and what the school is doing in response.
• Request an evaluation if concerned. Under federal rules, a parent may request an initial special education evaluation at any time; an intervention program is not a reason for a school to delay it.

edCircuit’s Five Tips to Successfully Advocate for Your Dyslexic Child, Family Engagement Is the Intervention and AI for Students: A Parent’s Guide by Age are written with families in mind.

Questions to ask about the science of reading in your schools

For school and district leaders

• What does our state now require on curriculum, screening, teacher training and three-cueing, and when did we last check the statute and guidance?
• Does our core program teach foundational skills systematically and explicitly, and does it give equal care to read-alouds, vocabulary and content knowledge?
• What do our materials tell teachers to do when a child cannot read a word, and do any of them still teach children to guess from pictures?
• Do we screen every student in kindergarten through grade 2, and does each result lead to a specific instructional response?
• How do we know whether our interventions are working, and do students who are not responding move to more intensive help or evaluation?
• What evidence did we see before adopting each program, and did we distinguish a review of alignment from a study of student outcomes?
• Do our dyslexia policies reflect the IDA’s 2025 definition and federal guidance that schools may use the word in evaluations and IEPs?

For teachers and literacy coaches

• Do I know where each student stands in phonemic awareness, decoding, fluency, vocabulary and comprehension, rather than only their “reading level”?
• When a student is stuck on a word, do I prompt them to look at the letters and sound it out?
• Do my students read connected text every day, and do they move beyond decodable books as their decoding grows?
• Am I building vocabulary and knowledge on purpose, through read-alouds and content-rich texts?
• Are my small groups formed around specific skills, and do I regroup as students progress?

From research to reading

The science of reading has given schools a clearer account of how children learn to read: the written code must be taught, word recognition and language comprehension both matter, and children who struggle need help early. The evidence for systematic phonics in the early grades is strong; the evidence for three-cueing and for heavy, long-term use of decodable books is weak. The movement’s critics are right that the research does not dictate a single program and that a label is not a guarantee. The work that remains is practical and local: choosing materials with care, preparing and supporting teachers over years rather than workshops, screening early and acting on the results, and keeping the goal in view, which is children who can read the words on the page and understand what they mean.

Related reading

• Literacy and Reading: all of edCircuit’s coverage
• The Science of Reading: How Research Shapes Literacy
• How the Science of Reading Enhances Student Learning
• Using Deep Teacher Knowledge to Bridge Literacy Gaps
• Special Education Guide: IEPs, 504 Plans, IDEA and Parents’ Rights

Subscribe to edCircuit to stay up to date on all of our shows, podcasts, news, and thought leadership articles.

More on Literacy and Reading