In 2021, while teaching 5th grade in an elementary school in North Carolina, the Science of Reading movement took over NC. From 2021 until 2023, I was required by the state to complete the two-year-long LETRS (Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling) program by Lexia Learning. While many teachers grumbled about the intensive training, I was often the positive one saying that I enjoyed the training and had learned so much from it. I was amazed at the story of how Mississippi drastically increased their reading scores after teachers completed this training and implemented it in their elementary classrooms. Hearing this information from esteemed scholars, I was optimistic about what this could do for NC schools. Unfortunately, I had fallen prey to the narrative that the LETRS way is THE only way.

Flash forward two school years, and I am now a Certified Reading Specialist working in a middle school with readers in grades 6-8. I earned a Master’s Degree in Reading and Literacy Education which taught me to research for myself. Through my program, I learned about the Reading Wars that have been going on for decades, which frequently change how reading is taught in elementary schools and how this feeds into middle school (like using the Science of Reading approach to help those who are not on grade level). However, before taking masters courses, I had not previously learned to question things and read about both sides, at least not when it came to recommended instructional practices. I listened to what I was told to do by my peers and administrators and went with it (and let’s be real, I still do in many ways since I want to keep my job, but I do it with a new outlook and include other practices, too). I trusted what I was told by those at higher levels than me, like most of us do. I think very highly of those who work above me and didn’t stop to consider that they were also doing what they were told.

So, what is there to question about the Science of Reading? Dr. Paul Thomas of Furman University states in his article series We Teach English in Times of Perpetual Crisis, that “Currently, no peer-reviewed, experimental/quasi-experimental studies show LETRS training improves student achievement in reading” (2024, pg. 16). Additionally, much of the research shared at the training connects to the founders and funders with only a few external data sources and studies. This is important if the goal is to say that one type of reading instruction, documented by the science of data exploration and analysis, is better than others.

That is not to say that LETRS is all bad. There are some GREAT pieces of information and strategies used in LETRS. For instance, LETRS taught me teaching cohesive devices to connect ideas in complex sentences, explicit vocabulary strategies, and comprehension strategies that can be used in upper elementary and middle grades. However, and this is a big revelation here, I have come to realize that this does not mean it is right for every student, in every classroom, across all grade levels. LETRS often provides a one-size-fits-all approach to teaching reading, and this is not an equitable way to teach all students who may or may not need all aspects of LETRS instruction. I also wonder about the types of texts emphasized in this program and how that impacts all students. Only using decodable texts that match a phonics lesson leaves out the opportunity for using culturally responsive texts that reach and reflect diverse students and their experiences, especially when thinking about this implemented through the middle grades. These lessons often do not consider linguistic diversity such as various dialects or accents, either. And, I dare say they even leave out our more advanced readers who do not need repetitive phonics daily. Therefore, I am learning how to question things, even when they sound good at first, and to explore potential biases with an awareness that I need to use critical literacy skills when I read articles and research all things connected to reading and the Reading Wars..

Through conversations about this topic with a friend, I started thinking about how I teach my ELA classes. Sure, there may be some strategies that LETRS taught me that are beneficial to some students, but there is much more that needs to be taught, especially at the secondary level. There are countless articles out there about the best way to teach reading (hence, the term ‘Reading Wars’ that indicates the back and forth of this), but the truly best way (in my humble opinion) is to take a little bit from everything. From my experience, teachers in the schools I have worked in ARE doing this! We read books, teach morphology, vocabulary, comprehension strategies, how to understand things in context, and more, intentionally thinking about the content and standard requirements and the students sitting in our classrooms. When it comes down to it, teachers are doing what they are supposed to be doing…which brings me back to the Science of Reading movement. One of Dr. Thomas’s main concerns with the Science of Reading is how it paints a narrative of ineffective teachers and takes away teacher autonomy. While the phonics-based LETRS, one enactment of the Science of Reading movement, may benefit K-2 classrooms, upper elementary may be better off using a more differentiated approach. Of course, it depends on the make-up of students in the classroom, and that’s where our teacher expertise comes in. We know our students. We know what works best for them, and we should be trusted to teach them in an equitable manner using a variety of approaches that cover all aspects of reading.

At this point, you may wonder why I wrote this blog post, as it shares my story of learning. I hope to encourage teachers to research for themselves when new policies and initiatives are introduced in their state. This is not to say to go against them but to teach with an outlook that understands both sides of the coin and multiple narratives regarding what works best for your students. Being informed on the good and the bad of policies set into place by others will allow us to teach with an equitable lens for all learners.

References:

Thomas, P.L. (2024, September). We teach English in times of perpetual crisis: The media continue to misread teaching reading and literacy. English Journal, 114(1), 14-19. https://publicationsncte.org/content/journals/10.58680/ej2024114114

About the Author