
What’s Not True with the Science of Reading
To say the term “science of reading” is ubiquitous is a gross understatement. In many ways, it’s fantastic that there is such robust discussion about the topic. But as with anything good, there are some pretty serious ways the discussion has gone wrong. All over social and news media there’s a lot said about the science of reading that’s correct…and a whole lot that’s not true.

First, the term itself. Just as the term “balanced literacy” has been seriously misinterpreted, so has “SOR.” The science of reading is not something that can be purchased. It’s not a program. It’s not just phonics. And it’s not one size fits all. Here are some definitions that tell us what it really is:
- ”A vast, interdisciplinary body of scientifically-based research about reading and issues related to reading and writing.” and that decades of research have shown “a preponderance of evidence to inform how proficient reading and writing develop; why some have difficulty; and how we can most effectively assess and teach and, therefore, improve student outcomes through prevention of and intervention for reading difficulties.” The Reading League
- “The “science of reading” includes more than phonics and phonological awareness. Any real “science of reading” would include all the methods or approaches that have been found, through research, to give kids a learning advantage in reading.” Tim Shanahan
- “The “science of reading” is a phrase representing the accumulated knowledge about reading, reading development, and best practices for reading instruction obtained by the use of the scientific method.” Florida Center for Reading Research
- ”A vast, interdisciplinary body of research explaining what happens when a reader is reading proficiently, how reading skill develops, and how to teach reading. Often drawing from fields such as neuroscience, cognitive psychology, education, linguistics, and more, the science of reading can help inform educators about how to support foundational skills such as phonics, comprehension development, executive functioning skills necessary for successful reading, and more. The science of reading is not an approach to teaching reading.” Jennifer Serravallo, from Reading Research Quarterly
Notice the through lines about what’s true about the science of reading?
Vast body of research. Accumulated knowledge from a variety of fields. Scientific method– based. Includes all the methods that are proven to help kids learn to read.
It means that the instructional approach a teacher takes should consider all of this. It’s about a comprehensive approach to literacy, as P. David Pearson says in a conversation with Jennifer Serravallo. It means not falling prey to loud and condescending social media voices, shiny “science of reading” stickers slapped on everything from purchased curriculum to TPT products. And it means not blindly following what you’ve been handed to follow without some discernment.

So when a company, product, or even teacher claims to “do science of reading,” there’s reason to be wary. There’s reason to question. Shanahan warns that this “ requires that our prescriptions for teaching be tempered by rigorous instructional evaluations. If a claim hasn’t been tried out and found effective, then the claims – no matter how heartfelt – aren’t part of reading science.”
“When someone tells you that something is part of the science of reading, you need to ask for the study or studies that proved that to benefit learning. Finding support for those claims shouldn’t be on your shoulders but on theirs”.
Shanahan on Literacy
Some of the claims that are pretty popular right now–and loudly proclaimed all over social media– but not actually backed by scientifically researched studies to show an effect on students’ reading?
-Heavy/exclusive use of decodables
-LETRS training improves student reading
-Sound walls are effective
-Print to speech over speech to print
-95% of all students can learn to read
-It’s necessary to teach syllable division rules
You might be shaking your head right now, saying, “but these things are researched-based!” Maybe so, but when you look at how that research was conducted, who sponsored it, in what type of setting, with what group of children, what it’s being compared to, and what the results were, to date you will find that they’re actually not true. Research does not equate to evidence. The science of reading has yet to find evidence that these things actually make a positive impact on kids’ reading.
It’s all about being informed.
Thankfully, more and more about what’s not true with the science of reading is coming to light, so I thought I’d share some of those resources with you here. This is where you’ll find discussion on each of the things that are not true with the science of reading I listed above that you may have shaken your head at.
Rather than listing quote after quote after quote, here are some of the resources that I’ve found particularly helpful. I share them here so you can read/hear/watch the entire conversation:
What We Know Now: Science of Reading-NYSED Literacy Brief
NYC Brief: Science of Reading: Debunking Common Myths
Reading Research Quarterly: SOR Supports, Critiques, and Questions
Debunking Common Myths About the Science of Reading
Lexia (the company that publishes LETRS) statement
What Constitutes a Science of Reading Instruction? ILA article, Tim Shanahan
Comprehensive overview from Humanrestorationproject.org
Shanahan blog post on SOR myths
Shanahan blog post on speech to print vs print to speech
Shanahan blog post on decodables, sound walls, and too much phonemic awareness instruction
Addressing SOR misconceptions Literacy Talks podcast
Mark Seidenberg Reading Matters blog post
Literacy View podcast with Nathan Clemons and Sharon Vaughn
Fact-Checking the Science of Reading, P. David Pearson & Robert Tierney
Dr. George Hruby video on SOR limitations
We have such an important opportunity right now to truly put best practices into place this time around. We’ve learned that a phonics-only approach (like what was done in the 1960s) doesn’t work. The 80s showed us that simply immersing kids into print a la whole language isn’t enough. The 90s aimed to center us so that there was a balance of both. And since that time, we’ve learned so much more about how language and comprehension develop.
It’s a science, and it’s an art. It’s about deepening our knowledge and keeping an open mind. With that, I leave you with one final quote. A quote that must be our guiding light as we move forward:
“Teaching is an act of practical reasoning, persuasiveness, problem solving, and communication. It need be shaped by science but much of it is improvisation rooted in experience. Science may contribute to that, but it will never be sufficient. Art must have a place.”
Tim Shanahan
What’s one thing that resonated with you in this post? I’d love to hear about it! Send me an DM on Instagram, let me know in the Facebook group, or simply leave a comment below!

Who is Coach from the Couch?? I’m Michelle, a 25-year veteran educator, currently a K-5 literacy coach. I continue to learn alongside teachers in classrooms each and every day, and it’s my mission to support as many teachers as I can. Because no one can do this work alone. I’m available to you, too, through virtual coaching calls!
Add A Comment