View in EDS

From the Teacher's Desk: A Science of Reading Progress Report

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: From the Teacher's Desk: A Science of Reading Progress Report
Language: English
Authors: David Griffith, Brian Fitzpatrick, Thomas B. Fordham Institute
Source: Thomas B. Fordham Institute. 2026.
Availability: Thomas B. Fordham Institute. 1701 K Street NW Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20006. Tel: 202-223-5452; Fax: 202-223-9226; e-mail: thegadfly@fordhaminstitute.org; Web site: https://fordhaminstitute.org/
Peer Reviewed: N
Page Count: 59
Publication Date: 2026
Sponsoring Agency: Oak Foundation
Charles and Lynn Schusterman Family Philanthropies
Thomas B. Fordham Foundation
Document Type: Reports - Research
Tests/Questionnaires
Education Level: Elementary Education
Descriptors: Reading Research, Reading Instruction, Instructional Effectiveness, Phonics, Beginning Reading, Elementary School Teachers, Reading Teachers, Teacher Improvement, Teacher Attitudes, Reading Comprehension, Teaching Methods, Reading Improvement, Knowledge Level, English Learners, Dyslexia
Abstract: The basic contours of the "science of reading" have been well-established since at least the turn of the century, when the National Reading Panel published its definitive report, Teaching Children to Read. Yet despite the unusual strength of the evidence behind the science of reading movement, millions of American students are still taught with ineffective instructional methods and materials. In recent years, reading reformers have finally begun to turn the tide, aided by the work of education authors and mainstream journalists such as Emily Hanford, whose 2022 podcast series, "Sold a Story: How Teaching Kids to Read Went So Wrong," brought unprecedented attention to the problems with reading instruction, including the degree to which explicit phonics instruction--which is critical to decoding unfamiliar words--was overlooked or crowded out by unscientific approaches such as whole language, three-cueing, and "balanced" literacy. In the wake of the podcast's release, many practicing educators came forward to corroborate Hanford's account, and a bipartisan coalition of stakeholders ignited a fresh wave of activity in statehouses, departments of education, and central offices that focused on science of reading--aligned professional development and instructional materials for kindergarten through third grade, which is the period when most children learn to read. In addition to explicit phonics instruction, this push has increasingly incorporated other "pillars" of effective reading instruction, such as a proactive approach to phonemic awareness and a broad curriculum that effectively builds knowledge and vocabulary through exposure to history, science, and other essential content. But is this flurry of activity having the desired effects? To find out, the authors conducted a nationally representative survey of K-3 teachers whose responsibilities included teaching reading or English language arts instruction. The research questions were as follows: (1) How well do K-3 teachers understand the science of reading?; (2) What science of reading supports are K-3 teachers receiving?; and (3) Which policies or supports are associated with a deeper understanding of reading science? Overall, the results suggest at least two conclusions. First, K-3 teachers' knowledge of the science of reading is improving. Second, there is an urgent need for continued progress.
Abstractor: ERIC
Entry Date: 2026
Accession Number: ED681226
Database: ERIC
FullText Text:
  Availability: 0
CustomLinks:
  – Url: https://eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED681226
    Name: ERIC Full Text
    Category: fullText
    Text: Full Text from ERIC
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: ED681226
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Report
PubTypeId: report
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: From the Teacher's Desk: A Science of Reading Progress Report
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22David+Griffith%22">David Griffith</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Brian+Fitzpatrick%22">Brian Fitzpatrick</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Thomas+B%2E+Fordham+Institute%22">Thomas B. Fordham Institute</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Thomas+B%2E+Fordham+Institute%22"><i>Thomas B. Fordham Institute</i></searchLink>. 2026.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Thomas B. Fordham Institute. 1701 K Street NW Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20006. Tel: 202-223-5452; Fax: 202-223-9226; e-mail: thegadfly@fordhaminstitute.org; Web site: https://fordhaminstitute.org/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: N
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 59
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: SourceSuprt
  Label: Sponsoring Agency
  Group: SrcSuprt
  Data: Oak Foundation<br />Charles and Lynn Schusterman Family Philanthropies<br />Thomas B. Fordham Foundation
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Reports - Research<br />Tests/Questionnaires
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Research%22">Reading Research</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Instruction%22">Reading Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Instructional+Effectiveness%22">Instructional Effectiveness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Phonics%22">Phonics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Beginning+Reading%22">Beginning Reading</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+School+Teachers%22">Elementary School Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Teachers%22">Reading Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Improvement%22">Teacher Improvement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Attitudes%22">Teacher Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Comprehension%22">Reading Comprehension</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Methods%22">Teaching Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Improvement%22">Reading Improvement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Knowledge+Level%22">Knowledge Level</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22English+Learners%22">English Learners</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Dyslexia%22">Dyslexia</searchLink>
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The basic contours of the "science of reading" have been well-established since at least the turn of the century, when the National Reading Panel published its definitive report, Teaching Children to Read. Yet despite the unusual strength of the evidence behind the science of reading movement, millions of American students are still taught with ineffective instructional methods and materials. In recent years, reading reformers have finally begun to turn the tide, aided by the work of education authors and mainstream journalists such as Emily Hanford, whose 2022 podcast series, "Sold a Story: How Teaching Kids to Read Went So Wrong," brought unprecedented attention to the problems with reading instruction, including the degree to which explicit phonics instruction--which is critical to decoding unfamiliar words--was overlooked or crowded out by unscientific approaches such as whole language, three-cueing, and "balanced" literacy. In the wake of the podcast's release, many practicing educators came forward to corroborate Hanford's account, and a bipartisan coalition of stakeholders ignited a fresh wave of activity in statehouses, departments of education, and central offices that focused on science of reading--aligned professional development and instructional materials for kindergarten through third grade, which is the period when most children learn to read. In addition to explicit phonics instruction, this push has increasingly incorporated other "pillars" of effective reading instruction, such as a proactive approach to phonemic awareness and a broad curriculum that effectively builds knowledge and vocabulary through exposure to history, science, and other essential content. But is this flurry of activity having the desired effects? To find out, the authors conducted a nationally representative survey of K-3 teachers whose responsibilities included teaching reading or English language arts instruction. The research questions were as follows: (1) How well do K-3 teachers understand the science of reading?; (2) What science of reading supports are K-3 teachers receiving?; and (3) Which policies or supports are associated with a deeper understanding of reading science? Overall, the results suggest at least two conclusions. First, K-3 teachers' knowledge of the science of reading is improving. Second, there is an urgent need for continued progress.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: ERIC
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: ED681226
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=ED681226
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 59
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Reading Research
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Instruction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Instructional Effectiveness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Phonics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Beginning Reading
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary School Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Improvement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Comprehension
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teaching Methods
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Improvement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Knowledge Level
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: English Learners
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Dyslexia
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: From the Teacher's Desk: A Science of Reading Progress Report
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Thomas B. Fordham Institute
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: David Griffith
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Brian Fitzpatrick
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 04
              Type: published
              Y: 2026
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Thomas B. Fordham Institute
              Type: main
ResultId 1