Abstract

“Is that actually what the science says… that I should disassemble my classroom library? Scrap read-alouds and read-ins?!” The young teacher’s frustration and distress following a Professional Learning Community (PLC) discussion about the Science of Reading was palpable, and it spilled out into a hallway conversation. Her takeaway from the meeting led by a district-level instructional coach was that phonics, phonemic awareness, and decodable books should be the primary focus of her literacy instruction. I knew that the science of reading research did not translate into restricting read-alouds – but somehow it had been misconstrued or perhaps misperceived into a mandative critique of this teacher’s classroom practices. I listened to her frustrated questions, and empathized because it took me back to the early aughts, when the Reading First movement barreled into schools.

Part of the sweeping No Child Left Behind act, RF funded curriculum and phonics-focused professional development, and earnest reading coaches were tasked with wandering in and out of classrooms, ensuring fidelity to approved curricula which promised results through “scientifically-based reading instruction.” It was 2002 and teachers like me were challenged not to spend time reading aloud and engaging in literature circles, suggesting these and other practices were responsible for U.S. children failing to make adequate yearly progress. Science, social studies, and art took a backseat to “double dips” of reading instruction time using decodable books and isolated skills practice. I remembered taking down my Graeme Base alphabet posters and replacing them with sound-spelling cards aligned to the new reading curriculum. As I listened to the frustrated young teacher before me, I started wondering… is this Science of Reading movement just history repeating itself? Are we in the midst of another swing of the pendulum? More importantly, how might we avoid reviving fruitless ideological debates, reorient this current moment, and coalesce around shared inquiry and purpose?

Recent experience gives me reasons to hope for more unified efforts going forward. The actual science of reading (that is, the body of research itself rather than the program) sheds light on the complexities of the reading process, and in doing so, highlights that engagement with rich literature and informational texts is a necessary, integral part of becoming a reader. I recently read evidence of this engagement happening in reflections written by the insightful teacher candidates with whom I work at a large urban university. Their writing revealed classroom practices of mentor teachers who are dedicated to embracing both evidence-aligned practices teaching the science-based components of reading and fostering literature rich classroom environments. This article presents an overview of the science of reading, its context in the national conversation, and insights from future teachers highlighting the good work of experienced educators enacting nuanced and comprehensive understandings about children learning to read. 

How to Cite:

Cort, C., (2025) “Children’s Literature and the Science of Reading: Essential Partners for Comprehension”, WOW Stories 12(1), 12-21. doi: https://doi.org/10.2458/wowstories.10465