One influential research report from more than two decades ago has long served as a cornerstone of the 鈥渟cience of reading鈥� movement, shaping state legislation, curriculum, and teacher professional development.
Now, it鈥檚 time for that document to get an update to reflect another quarter-century of research, say U.S. House of Representatives lawmakers.
The report of the National Reading Panel, a group of experts convened by Congress to synthesize the best available research on how kids learn to read, was published in 2000.
Its findings informed the design of Reading First, a federal grant program launched under President George W. Bush, which offered funding to schools to use 鈥渟cientifically based reading research鈥� to shape teacher training and reading instruction.
Reading First ended in 2009, but recent state legislation on the teaching of reading has once again given the panel鈥檚 report sway in the policy arena. At least 34 states that have passed laws promoting evidence-based reading instruction reference the specific components of literacy that the panel studied, according to a 2023 analysis from the Shanker Institute.
Language in one of the House鈥檚 2027 fiscal appropriations bills calls for convening another panel, more than 25 years later.
鈥淲hat鈥檚 different today than 20 years ago is we can really learn from some of the states that are implementing the science of reading effectively,鈥� said Rep. Josh Harder, D-Calif., who championed the reestablishment of the panel. He referenced Mississippi, where systemic changes to teacher training and instructional approaches were followed by large gains on national achievement tests.
That language isn鈥檛 guaranteed to be included in a final funding bill. But the call for another national evaluation of reading science comes amid growing congressional interest in literacy instruction.
Earlier this month, Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., introduced the bipartisan Reading Excellence and Achievement for Development (READ) Act, which would shift some federal funding through the $194 million Comprehensive Literacy State Development grant to support evidence-based approaches to reading instruction.
And this past February, the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies held a hearing on the 鈥渟cience of reading,鈥� questioning experts about how some states had moved the needle on student scores.
At the same time, though, President Donald Trump鈥檚 administration has canceled contracts for federally funded education research and attempted to shutter federal technical assistance centers, resources that Democratic lawmakers have said have helped propel the science of reading movement.
鈥淚f you look at the platform of both parties, reading and education in general was a top priority 20 or 30 years ago,鈥� said Harder. 鈥淓verybody running for president had education as one of their top goals, from Bill Clinton through to President Bush through to President Obama. And then for the past 15 or so years, we have lost our ambition at a federal level.鈥�
Reading, he said, could be a catalyst to 鈥渞eignite federal excitement about education again.鈥�
How this panel could differ from the first
The first National Reading Panel studied five components of reading:
- phonemic awareness, or the ability to identify and manipulate the sounds in spoken language;
- phonics, or connecting written letters to spoken sounds that form words;
- fluency, or the ability to read accurately and at an appropriate pace;
- vocabulary; and
- comprehension.
鈥淭hey wanted to know what the science had to say about teaching reading and what the classroom readiness of that information was鈥攃ould it actually be implemented?鈥� said Tim Shanahan, an emeritus professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and a member of the original National Reading Panel.
Perhaps the most famous findings from the group鈥檚 2000 report are related to foundational reading skills. Evaluating the research literature, the panel found that systematic and explicit instruction in phonemic awareness and phonics helped young children become stronger readers.
But there are other aspects of reading ability that the panel didn鈥檛 study. Members whittled down an initial list of more than 30 topics to limit the scope of the project鈥攁nd even on the five they did select, the research has advanced in the decades since.
鈥淭he Committee recognizes the need for additional scientific insights for a contemporary context,鈥� reads the provision for a new panel, included in the explanatory report accompanying the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies appropriations bill.
The text proposes a few potential areas of study: 鈥渢he relationship between reading books rather than passages in building reading stamina; the relationship between writing instruction and reading comprehension; optimal amounts of time for different aspects of reading and writing instruction in the average classroom; the essential components of effective reading curricula; the relationship between teacher preparation, professional development, and effective reading and writing instruction; and out-of-school factors that impact reading proficiency, including oral language development.鈥�
Like the original National Reading Panel, this second iteration would be convened by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
Investigating the 鈥榮cience of reading鈥� movement鈥檚 wins
Revisiting the research literature in this way is a good idea, said Shanahan, of the original National Reading Panel. But the list of proposed areas of study outlined in the appropriations bill gives him pause.
The original report focused on broad topics, like reading comprehension, while some of the questions posed now are much more specific, making them harder to answer, he said.
He does support investigating the relationship between writing and reading, though鈥攁 topic he said he initially championed for inclusion in the first panel that wasn鈥檛 chosen. He鈥檇 also want to see a new panel sift through the research on teaching children at their purported reading 鈥渓evel,鈥� a popular practice embedded in some curricula that research has shown can actually stunt kids鈥� reading growth.
Some of the original report鈥檚 topics could benefit from revisiting, too, he said. The research on reading comprehension, in particular, has evolved over the past 25 years, Shanahan said.
The 2000 report focused mainly on comprehension strategies, generalizable techniques students can use to make sense of what they read. Those are one important piece of reading comprehension, Shanahan said, but so are other factors鈥攊ncluding developing students鈥� oral language and their background knowledge.
Danielle Dennis, the incoming president of the International Literacy Association鈥檚 Board of Directors, would like to see the panel evaluate research on organizational leadership as it relates to reading.
鈥淪cience of reading hasn鈥檛 been a panacea,鈥� she said. Not every state that has passed a science of reading law has seen students鈥� scores improve.
States that have had success, like Mississippi, restructured school leadership and professional development formats; they didn鈥檛 just swap out curricula, she said. 鈥淎 new National Reading Panel could really break that down and have that out and in the open for other schools,鈥� said Dennis.
Will the reading wars return?
In the 2000s, the panel鈥檚 work was embroiled in the 鈥渞eading wars鈥濃�攑erennial philosophical debates about approaches to instruction, and how to parse the vast body of published research on literacy learning.
At the time, debates raged between supporters of explicit, systematic instruction in foundational skills for beginning readers and supporters of the 鈥渨hole-language method,鈥� an approach that held students would learn to read through immersion in literature and minimal explicit instruction in alphabetics.
Most of the evidence for phonics instruction came from experimental and quasi-experimental studies, research that can prove a discrete intervention has specific effects on student outcomes, either in lab or classroom settings. Whole-language instruction, by contrast, was more often studied in qualitative, observational research that took place in schools.
Some reading researchers and observers objected to the panel鈥檚 decision to only include quantitative research, and argued that the members were ideologically biased.
Could a new panel face similar battles? 鈥淲e certainly still have controversies on reading, but compared to where we were 20 years ago, the reading wars have largely died down,鈥� said Harder.
Still, Shanahan and Dennis offer opposing perspectives on what research they鈥檇 want to see considered.
Quasi-experimental studies are important, but shouldn鈥檛 be the only evidence the field turns to, said Dennis. 鈥淲e鈥檙e dealing with real people, real teachers, real leaders, real children, so I think there needs to be the inclusion of high-quality qualitative research, to understand the nuances of these interventions,鈥� she said.
Shanahan disagreed. 鈥淚f we鈥檙e doing this as the basis of policy that we鈥檙e going to mandate and fund, then we鈥檙e trying to determine what instructional moves or actions will improve kids鈥� literacy attainment. If you鈥檙e going to do that, I would argue you need research that can identify causation,鈥� he said.
鈥淚f you can鈥檛 show that you can make those changes and benefit kids, then I don鈥檛 think the government should be mandating that.鈥�
