I am reposting this commentary because the original post this morning did not include a link to the full post.
Denny Taylor is an accomplished scholar and author. She is Professor Emeritus of Literacy Studies at Hofstra University and has earned a long list of awards. She now has a Substack blog that is worth your time. In this post, she goes into detail about the origins of the “Science of Reading” and the poor quality of research on which it is based.
I provide only a small excerpt from a deeply researched post.
Taylor wrote this post to caution against a federal mandate based on flawed claims. Congress is currently considering HR 7890 Science of Reading Act of 2026. As she shows, it would be absurd if it passes. Congress should not tell teachers how to teach, nor should state legislatures.
Denny Taylor writes on her blog “Teaching in Dangerous Times”:
The Science of Reading Act of 2026 – H. R. 7890 is a catastrophic mistake for three reasons. First, it makes early 20th century phonics instruction the law of the land. Second, the NRP “5 pillars of reading instruction” are not based on science. Third, H. R. 7890 does not prepare children to live and thrive in a digital society that is filled with unforeseen hazards and dangers. We must think anew and act anew – before it’s too late.
H. R. 7890 “Evidence-Based Literacy Instruction Aligned to the Science Of Reading” is Not Based On Science
The six-year qualitative as well as the quantitative forensic analyses provides evidence that the scientific foundation undergirding the teaching of reading in America’s public schools is irreparably flawed. The “evidence-based literacy instruction aligned to the Science of Reading” that is described in the new federal Science of Reading Act – 2026 (H. R. 7890) is a political construct not a scientific one.
Nevertheless, Congress is in the process of making “fidelity” to the “Science of Reading” the law in all 50 states.
H. R. 7890, the Science of Reading Act – 2026 was unanimously approved by the House Education and Work Force Committee on March 17, 2026. It will amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to prioritize funds to promote the use of H. R. 7890. The legislation also aligns with U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon’s priorities for literacy improvement, but the Right-wing ideologs behind H. R. 7890 are far more formidable than McMahon.
H. R. 7890 Eliminates Reading and Writing Activities which Provide Opportunities for Children to Actively Engage with Meaningful Texts
The Science of Reading Act of 2026 will also officially prohibit the use of the “three-cueing” system in literacy instruction in U.S. public schools. My own pedagogical practices always begin with close observation of children who use many cues to read and write when they are not restricted by authoritarian “Science of Reading” laws that have already been enacted in most states.
H. R. 7890 will have the effect of eliminating reading and writing activities which provide opportunities for children to think. In such circumstances their thinking can be divergent and/or convergent, linear or lateral, abstract or concrete. Often it is meta-cognitive as they discuss with their teachers how they arrived at the meaning of a word. Often the clues are phonetic, and the sentence confirms their reasoning. All these pedagogical opportunities for teachers to support the learning of children are not understood by the public or by Congress. If they were, people would rally against passing the Science of Reading Act of 2026, and Congress would not pass H. R. 7890.
The Research Evidence for H. R. 7890 was Established Based on the False Findings of the 2000 National Reading Panel Report
Through dog whistles, lies, and tropes, the Right convinced people in many sectors of U.S. society that the “five pillars” of reading instruction that the NRP presented to Congress provided solid scientific evidence on how children should be taught to read. The publishers of reading programs that now call themselves technology companies, most prominently McGraw-Hill and HMH, marketed the findings of the NRP creating a bonanza in profits so large that Platinum Equity now owns McGraw-Hill and Veritas Capital now owns HMH.
Draw back the curtain and it is possible to document in minute detail how a false narrative about the National Reading Panel came to be accepted as the unquestionable scientific evidence for the massive changes in reading instruction that has taken place in U.S. public schools.
The “five pillars of reading instruction” and the Science of Reading have become embedded in the knowledge base of people in every sector of U.S. society. I asked AI “what are the five pillars of reading instruction?” AI responded:
The 5 pillars of reading instruction—phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension—are essential, evidence-based components for developing proficient readers. Defined by the National Reading Panel, these pillars provide a structured framework for teaching decoding, accuracy, and understanding in reading instruction.
The AI response is an accurate rendition of the official narrative that the nation has been deceived into believing through an Right wing initiatives gaining traction in the 1990s that have gaslighted the public through the use of dog whistles, lies and tropes. One of the think tanks on the Right that has had an unprecedented influence of how children are taught to read in public schools is the Thomas B. Fordham Institute (then the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation) advocated for a shift toward scientifically based reading research and explicit phonics instruction in 2002. The Fordham Institute established the National Council of Teacher Quality (NCTQ) that I have written about in previous Substack posts. NCTQ states that it is a “nonpartisan research and advocacy group.” Nothing could be further than the truth. NCTQ’s evaluations of U.S. teacher preparation programs, are flawed, unscientific, and ideologically driven.
Enforced by State Laws, the Five Pillars have Become the Structural Framework of Reading Instruction in Public Schools Across America
Once the Science of Reading Act of 2026 is signed into federal law one of the education goals of the Heritage Foundation will have been achieved. It is relevant that Mike Pence has been accused of “abandoning its principles” and transforming the Heritage Foundation from a traditional conservative organization into an enforcer for “big-government populism” and “America First” extremism. The forensic analysis has documented the initiative undertaken by the Right to control reading instruction in U.S. public schools, especially how Lindsey Burke has led the Right’s initiative to “reshape” public education. Burke spent 17 years at the Heritage Foundation where she was a principal author of the Education Section of Project 2025. She transitioned to the Department of Education where she serves as McMahon’s Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and Programs. Burke is attributed by leaders on the Right with “reshaping” – her word — reading instruction in public schools. Parenthetically, Burke is also associated with the Thomas B. Fordham Institute and NCTQ. She is featured on the Fordham Institute website in a podcast entitled, “Trump’s education agenda, with Lindsey Burke” (January 31, 2024). NCTQ is the focus of the October 19, 2025, Substack post entitled, “NCTQ Pressures State Governments, Rejects Teacher Preparation Programs, Dictates To School Districts, Discredits Reading Researchers, Bans Their Books, And Vilifies Teachers.“
Thank you for this, Diane! It used to be the case that when somebody shouted “The Emperor has no clothes!” that there were at least a few people who listened. But in so many of these cases, even if people listen and the attempt is fought off, the dumb ideas rise like zombies to walk again.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This proposal is flawed because the so-called science of reading is not science at all, and there are many effective alternative ways to teach phonics. Plus, it is an example of federal overreach since the federal government should not be in charge of curriculum, and it violates current law. The so-called science of reading is the result of big money trying to help favored vendors gain access to public school instruction in order to profit.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Easy to forget our neurodivergent populations. Using technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge: TPCK helps universally designed classrooms systematically thrive. This approach to teaching bridges a way to weave integration rather than focus on isolation
LikeLike
I had to look up the meaning of TPCK, which led me to this article: https://citejournal.org/volume-9/issue-1-09/general/what-is-technological-pedagogicalcontent-knowledge/#:~:text=This%20paper%20describes%20a%20framework,pedagogy%2C%20and%20content%20knowledge).
Not sure how this relates to your comment about neurodivergent population, or even to how it relates to the post on reading instruction, but was a very interesting read.
LikeLike
Hi Diane, I’ve been thinking about your mention that prioritizing phonics became associated, inappropriately in your view, with right wing politics. Although I did teach 1st and 5th grades way back, I am not by any means a reading expert. That said, I tend to think that the conservative predilection for over-emphasizing phonics and stressing memorization of algorithms first in early-grade mathematics fits with a particular way of thinking.
Two examples: Back in the late 1990s I was part of a group in Massachusetts reviewing the state’s mathematics and science standards. What ensued was a pitched battle between educators and Sandra Stotsky and a group who called themselves, Mathematically Correct. They pushed hard against anything associated with inquiry and building on student thinking. They wanted rule and compliance with received authority.
Early in the 1990s, I was part of a group of educators around the country, helping to develop a middle school science curriculum with folks at UC Berkeley’s Lawrence Hall of Science. In one discussion, we were deciding what to call the place where students recording what to call the place where recording their developing observations and sense making of scientific phenomena Some of us suggested calling it a journal. Teachers from Louisiana said, “We can’t call it that. The right wingers will object because they associate journaling with a place where student express their thoughtw outside the purview of adult authority.”
How and what we choose to teach, and not teach, is inescapably linked to our values and world views.
Thanks, Arthur
LikeLike
Thanks, Arthur, for your thoughtful comment. Rightwingers carried the banner of phonics, but phonics is not inherently political.
LikeLike
Arthur– Fascinating.
I do get the connection between those two examples of pedagogy and conservative ideology– I think… (tho it doesn’t completely parse). Conservative ideology generally seeks to conserve traditions, and view innovations skeptically. I.e., methods that worked for past generations should (by this logic) work for present generations, so should not be discarded/ replaced.
Yet, as regards phonics, it has gone in and out of style regularly every decade or so for over a century. So, when did it “work”? Seems a purely subjective opinion, probably based on one’s own vague memory of how they think they learned to read, rather than any data.
The math example is interesting and a bit different, as dependence on rote algorithms in early grades was pretty steady for about 50 ys, then was increasingly challenged, but change in pedagogy only showed up about 35 yrs ago [when the conceptual method won the math wars]
I’ve never been able to rediscover the link, but about 20 yrs ago I read about a 1980’s exchange between US & Chinese math teachers who studied & reported on each others’ pedagogical methods. I remember only the Chinese math teachers’ critique. They said that US students memorize arithmetic algorithms [and later algebraic formulas] to start with, then spend the majority of their time practicing using the algorithm/ formula on various sets of data, until the process becomes automatic.
Chinese method was opposite. Students from a young age, using manipulables [balls in baskets or whatever], are asked to develop methods for answering mathematical questions. They work in teams; each team presents their method; teacher guides them to compare to determine whether algorithm obtains correct answer, and how efficient/ user-friendly it is compared to other teams’ results.
Chinese teachers felt US methods favor only those with intrinsic sense of numeracy gleaned through the practice; many others are left behind, because they have no real sense of why the logarithm/ formula works.
LikeLike
In my experience teaching high school, reading levels have gotten much worse in the last 20 years. So if schools have been using “science of reading” approaches, they are not working.
LikeLike
Literacy has declined because many students are rarely reading, writing and thinking. They are spending too much time in front of screens both in school and at home.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wow. Denny Taylor’s full post is comprehensive and enlightening.
I especially liked her take on banning “3-cuing” in reading instruction. Up until now I had only read of it as a universally discredited, obsolete method, which somehow stole from the child “meaning” that would be revealed by phonics methods.
Taylor says “forget the ‘three’ cues”: this is hypothesizing meaning from contextual clues (including illustrations). Which is exactly how I learned to read more advanced works quite early. I had already learned from my mother how to sound out words by age 3 or 4. My fave early childhood fare was Oz books, which were loaded with ornate early-20thC language, featuring many words one didn’t encounter in contemporary conversation (or radio or TV). Of course I comprehended via contextual clues (incl illustrations, plot/ action et al). ” Luckily, due to inborn aptitude, I didn’t have to depend on this method being taught in elementary school. But others without that could benefit from direct instruction/ encouragement in such hypothesizing. It is absurd to imagine fed govt could forbid certain methods & prescribe others exclusively.
Not only that: isn’t HR 1790 illegal? 20 USC 1232a says “No provision of any applicable program shall be construed to authorize any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system, or over the selection of library resources, textbooks, or other printed or published instructional materials by any educational institution or school system…” (Current law, based on precedents that go back decades.)
The most disgusting cite from Taylor’s article, said by some bureaucrat or another: “Conflicts of interest are endemic in the reading field. Ignoring the parameters of statistical analyses compromises the science but sustains the relationships some reading researchers have with publishers of reading programs. This is the case with the NRP phonemic awareness and phonics meta-analyses. The effect sizes are compromised, but they are of high value politically and economically.” [In other words– it’s not science.]
LikeLike
This is an important debate, and there are legitimate questions here about the National Reading Panel and about how far legislatures should go in prescribing classroom practice. But the Science of Reading is not a “hoax,” and the argument in this post doesn’t come close to showing that it is.
Start with the leap at the center of the argument. Suppose Denny Taylor has found serious methodological problems in the 2000 NRP report. That would establish problems with the report. It would not establish that phonics doesn’t work, that phonemic awareness doesn’t matter, or that 25 years of subsequent research disappears. Criticizing the evidence for a proposition is not the same as disproving the proposition.
We’ve already seen the NRP challenged and reanalyzed. In 2003, Gregory Camilli and colleagues challenged the NRP’s phonics analysis. In 2008, Karla Stuebing and colleagues used Camilli’s own coding of the NRP studies in multilevel regression analyses. They concluded that the reanalysis did not contradict the NRP’s finding of small-to-moderate effects favoring systematic phonics. The debate didn’t end there, since Camilli and colleagues responded. But that’s precisely the point: this is what an actual scientific dispute looks like. It doesn’t look much like declaring an entire field a “hoax.”
And the evidence didn’t stop in 2000 or 2008. Castles, Rastle and Nation reviewed the science in 2018 in Psychological Science in the Public Interest, in an article aptly titled “Ending the Reading Wars.” Their conclusion was hardly “phonics is everything.” Learning an alphabetic writing system requires children to grasp how written symbols represent speech sounds, and most children need explicit help acquiring that principle. That help is foundational rather than sufficient. Skilled reading requires much more.
Then there’s the guilt by association: Heritage, Fordham, NCTQ, Project 2025, Lindsey Burke, private-equity firms. That history might belong in a piece about the politics of education reform. It says nothing about whether explicit phonics instruction helps children learn to decode. If the case against the Science of Reading is scientific, make the scientific case. A genealogy of who funded or associated with whom is not a substitute.
The post also attacks a position the framework doesn’t hold. Taylor calls this “early 20th century phonics instruction,” as though the Science of Reading meant drilling phonics all day. But the familiar NRP framework includes phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary and comprehension precisely because phonics alone is not sufficient. Showing that phonics by itself doesn’t produce comprehension refutes a claim the framework never made.
The three-cueing argument fails on Taylor’s own terms. She says banning three-cueing will “eliminate” activities that let children think. Yet her own description of good practice is that “often the clues are phonetic, and the sentence confirms their reasoning.” That’s decode first, then check against context. It is much closer to what reading researchers recommend than to teaching children to identify unfamiliar words mainly from pictures or sentence context.
And nothing about a decoding-first approach prevents a teacher from discussing a word’s meaning, making predictions, interpreting a story, writing about it, connecting it to background knowledge or asking a child to explain her thinking. The conclusion simply doesn’t follow from the premise.
Then the rhetoric takes over: “lies,” “dog whistles,” “gaslighting,” a “false narrative.” Those are claims about intentional deception. A methodological error is not a lie. An advocacy group’s ideology doesn’t make research it cites false. Publishers making money from reading programs doesn’t demonstrate that the instructional principles behind those programs don’t work.
On the mandate question, I understand the instinct that legislators shouldn’t micromanage classrooms. There are good arguments about exactly where legislation should stop and professional judgment should begin.
But the broader question is not new. Governments have long set minimum standards for professional practice when the public can’t independently evaluate that practice:
The common principle is not that Congress should dictate every professional decision. Where ordinary people must rely on specialized expertise they can’t evaluate themselves, government routinely sets a floor for acceptable practice. Professionals retain enormous discretion above that floor.
Education is no exception. Federal special-education law has required participating schools to provide eligible children individualized educational programs since the 1970s.
Children learning to read fit the underlying rationale especially well. A six-year-old cannot evaluate the quality of her reading instruction. She cannot assess competing pedagogical theories, determine whether her teacher’s methods are supported by evidence, or simply hire another professional if the instruction fails. Yet she may carry the consequences of ineffective instruction for years.
As a parent, I don’t care whether a useful practice is championed by Heritage, a teachers union, Harvard or Fordham. I care whether the evidence says it helps children read.
There are serious questions to argue about:
Have those arguments. They matter.
But “the Science of Reading is a hoax” is not a serious answer to any of them. It is a sweeping conclusion reached through non sequiturs, a misrepresented framework, guilt by association and unsupported claims about other people’s motives.
LikeLike