Some K-3 teachers aren't sold on 'science of reading'

Forty states have passed science of reading (SOR) laws, but what's really happening in classrooms? A quarter of K-3 teachers -- and a third of those in high-poverty schools -- "are not fully committed to the science of reading," concludes a Fordham report by David Griffith and Brian Fitzpatrick. Only half of K-3 teachers surveyed say they take a structured approach to reading instruction, relying on systematic and explicit instruction in phonics and decoding, a national survey found.

Few teachers say they learned about the science of reading in education school, and those who did understand less than those who learned through in-service training.

Furthermore, while effective reading curricula, such as UFLI Foundations, a researcher-developed phonics program, has become much more popular, many teachers are still using ineffective curricula, reports Fordham. It's hard to break old habits.

"Teachers in high-poverty, majority-nonwhite schools are still, on average, less informed about and committed to basic principles of reading science than teachers in whiter and/or more affluent settings," the report concludes. Students who need good instruction the most are the least likely to get it.

Since many education colleges "continue to teach discredited practices such as three-cueing," the report suggests states should require teacher-prep programs teach the science of reading and require "institutions to publish their graduates’ first-time pass rates on state science of reading licensure exams."

It also calls for licensure exams covering knowledge of reading science for new K-3 teachers and in-service training, and for districts to be required to "adopt a science of reading–aligned K–3 curriculum of their choosing from a state-approved list."

There's a lot of controversy over the quality of curricula, notes Sarah Schwartz in Education Week. A "science of reading" label on curricula doesn't guarantee it aligns with best practices.

For the past two decades, elementary teachers have focused on teaching "generalizable comprehension skills, like finding the main idea of a passage," Schwartz writes. Griffith thinks "we’re on the wrong track thinking about reading comprehension as some generalizable skill.” Instead he favors “knowledge-building curricula” to enable students to understand what they've learned to decode.

In the survey, "58 percent of teachers said they thought reading comprehension was dependent on a set of skills that could be applied to most texts, while 42 percent said that it depended on what students already knew about the topic and vocabulary," she writes.

However, "3 in 5 teachers said building background knowledge" was the best way to improve reading comprehension, while 19 percent said teaching students to identify the main idea, 17 percent said using leveled texts, and 5 percent said encouraging independent reading.