… I believed that because of its weaknesses, the report was dangerous in its potential for misuse.
~ Joanne Yatvin, from Education Week (2003). Educator, former president of the National Council of Teachers of English, and member of the National Reading Panel (1997-2000).
In 2021, I advocated for a New National Reading Panel (NRP). It has been 26 years since the old one, and reading instruction has become a plethora of programs, most peddling the so-called Science of Reading (SoR), many online, exorbitantly profitable, whether research demonstrates a program’s worth or not.
Rep. Rosa DeLauro (CT) has called for a reconvening of the NRP (See the video below). A new NRP would be welcome if it fixed the problems of the old NRP, not rubber-stamping ideology. Otherwise, it would be a waste of time and tax dollars. What’s the point if only one side of the reading debate gets airtime?
DeLauro, a Democrat with whom I often agree, expresses great enthusiasm for the SoR, the old National Reading Panel, and the Mississippi Miracle (discussed below). She’s not alone. Many governors are climbing on board the SoR train.
A new panel would have to include classroom teachers, especially early learning and special education teachers, with degrees in reading, as they were left off the last panel.
There would need to be more inclusive research questioning the SoR, addressing the failures of policies, such as No Child Left Behind and the Every Child Succeeds Act, and the money spent on Race to the Top and the Common Core State Standards, which have affected curriculum and how and what students learn for years.
Would they consider a variety of reading concerns from prominent educators in the field of literacy?
DeLauro is from Connecticut, and I wonder if she has discussed reading with Professor Emeritus of Literacy, Elementary, and Early Childhood Education from Central Connecticut State, Jesse Turner. She needs only look at his podcasts. Here’s an older one I chose about assessment, with a beautiful ring story, worth the whole presentation.
Would a new NRP refer to the writings of Dr. Stephen Krashen, a long-time leader not only in second language acquisition but phonics and reading? They’d read Krashen’s Phi Delta Kappan report Whole Language and the Great Plummet of 1987-92: AN URBAN LEGEND FROM CALIFORNIA.
They wouldn’t ignore the Boston Globe Op Ed, The fallacy of settled science in literacy by Nancy Carlsson-Paige, professor emerita at Lesley University, and Lexington school superintendent Julie Hackett.
They state:
Science of reading laws prescribe or prohibit specific reading programs according to the “science of reading’’ criteria. The approved programs implement a singular model of reading in which the explicit teaching of decoding/phonics skills dominates reading instruction. Many approved science of reading programs are scripted lessons that tell teachers what to teach, when to teach, and how to teach. School authorities monitor teachers to ensure they are following the script.
Professor PL Thomas, writes about literacy and discusses concerns about the SoR, including retention. He listed research reports worthy of consideration.
Professor Elena Aydarova’s research What You See Is Not What You Get: Science of Reading Reforms as a Guise for Standardization, Centralization, and Privatization is critical.
Thomas Ultican wrote about billionaires driving the Science of Reading.
Would they include professors like Rachel Gabriel whose research (2020) raises questions. What happened to Success for All and Reading Recovery, two very different programs but considered successful by Johns Hopkins University and the National Center on Intensive Intervention?
Will a new NRP look into the concerns surrounding technology and big business including AI?
Historian Diane Ravitch has repeatedly written about her concerns surrounding the SoR. She recently added in a Substack essay:
The problem with “the science of reading” is that it’s not new. American schools have tried it, dropped it, tried it, dropped it, on and on.
The74 report by Jessica Harkay describes The Robust Reading Comprehension Report. Recent findings show children gain phonetic skills but lack comprehension skills later.
These are similar findings from the Reading First Impact Study (2008-2009) grown from the old NRP report. Reading First had a statistically significant positive impact on first graders’ decoding skills but did not produce a statistically significant impact on student reading comprehension test scores in grades one, two, or three.
They’d study Robert J. Tierney (Literacy Professor at the University of British Columbia) and P David Pearson’s (emeritus professor, the University of California, Berkeley) Fact-Checking the Science of Reading: Opening Up the Conversation.
They wouldn’t delete Heinemann publishing and the authors’ great reading and writing ideas and information, including Nancy Atwell and the late Kylene Beers, or other books and papers that might not fit the narrow parameters of the SoR.
Would they cover Crouch and Cambourne’s Made for Learning: How the Conditions of Learning Guide Teaching Decisions and Wyse and Hacking’s The Balancing Act: An Evidence-Based Approach to Teaching Phonics, Reading and Writing?
They’d reread books by Kozol and Ohanian, and many others, that teach us to celebrate children in America. These are only a few suggestions.
Is it a miracle or grade retention?
Mississippi and other states in the south have been getting attention for raising reading scores. The teachers involved, and all who work hard to help students learn to read deserve credit. But serious questions remain about the long-term gains of these state programs focused on the SoR.
Students look to be doing well in 4th grade, but most of these states have one thing in common. They hold third graders not performing well back, before 4th grade testing. Professor Andy Johnson another vocal student advocate and reading researcher, to prove a point, notes he can make Mississippi 4th graders taller. How? Hold back all the shorter students in third grade!
Research is clear, retention is stigmatizing. Students might initially do well, but later not so much. It’s also unnecessary. There are many ways to address reading difficulties without holding children back or pushing them forward without help.
A recent report showed benefits in Mississippi could be dissipating by 8th grade. There’s also a risk retained students will drop out later. In other words, it isn’t a miracle socially.
For years, the phonics v. whole language debate, and later balanced literacy, has lit a spark aptly labeled the Reading Wars. It has hurt instruction and there has been concern it’s intentional to make teachers and public schools appear to fail, for school privatization to take place, by focusing on drill that’s easily presented by tutors, or students in front of screens.
Children need a well-rounded curriculum in reading, developmentally appropriate, geared towards individualized needs, with phonics instruction and a variety of other reading activities.
A new NRP would have to include the voices that care about children, include parents, and those who are sincere and capable of pulling together the research, without having a financial interest in play. It would be truly an inclusive, democratic group. They would respectfully debate and argue and come to a workable solution to what constitutes great reading instruction.
Could Americans trust a new NRP? For what it’s worth I used to think so. But lately, and I don’t mean to be cynical, but after all these years, and witnessing what’s happening in the country today, I don’t have much hope for this to happen. There are too many individuals profiting from education and sadly greed rules supreme. I hope I’m proven wrong.
DeLauro can be seen here on a panel, 13:30 and 1:47:20 discussing a reconvening of the NRP.
References
Yatvin, J. (2003, April 30). I Told You So! The Misinterpretation and Misuse of The National Reading Panel Report. Education Week. Retrieved from https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/opinion-i-told-you-so-the-misinterpretation-and-misuse-of-the-national-reading-panel-report/2003/04.
Gabriel, R. (2020). The Future of the Science of Reading. The Reading Teacher, 74(1), 11–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1924.
Schwartz, S. (2026, February 10). Congress wants to know what makes the ‘Science of Reading’ work. Education Week. Retrieved from https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/congress-wants-to-know-what-makes-the-science-of-reading-work/2026/02.
This is an excellent summary of the current state of things. I’m going to send a link to it to several of my friends. I also sent you a direct message. Thanks, Dr.Sm
Thanks, Dr. Sam. However, I did not receive the message. I do appreciate the comment.
Follow-up to the previous comment. For a 2-minute entertaining view of what the mindset of scientists should be, please see this video by Dr. Tyson: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/kDHD-zcwDPI BTW , there are many SOR that show little evidence of having such a mindset. They are the folks I have labeled the Social Media Version of SOR. See what you think.
Thanks again. I appreciate the video. I know what you mean. You can go down a dark hole pretty quickly. Another reason why I’m not sure a new NRP is possible.
The assertion that Mississippi’s improvement in Grade 4 NAEP Reading performance has never shown in Grade 8 is now incorrect.
If you break the scores out by race and compare white students to white students, Mississippi was definitely behind the national public school average for NAEP Grade 8 Reading back in 2013 when the Magnolia State’s reform began. In 2024, the Magnolia State’s white 8th graders’ score was not statistically significantly different from the national public school average for white students. In fact, in 2013 Mississippi’s whites were statistically significantly outscored by whites in 43 other states. In 2024, whites in only 7 other states performed statistically significantly higher.
A similar situation holds true when you compare Black students in Mississippi to their counterparts in other states. Back in 2013, Blacks in 27 out of the 42 states that got scores reported for Black students statistically significantly outperformed Mississippi. In 2024, only 2 states out of the group with reported scores for Black students statistically significantly outperformed Mississippi.
When you only look at overall scores, which is all that a number of people you mention in your post do, Mississippi’s performance in Grade 8 NAEP Reading isn’t as notable. Back in 2013 the Magnolia State was statistically significantly outscored by 48 other states. However, in 2024 only 26 states statistically significantly outperformed the Magnolia State for overall average scores. So, even this comparison, which puts high poverty, high minority Mississippi at a disadvantage, some improvement compared to other states is clear.
If you provide me your e-mail address I will be happy to send you the tables from the NAEP Data Explorer that support my comments. I encourage you not to add to the list of deniers who do not know what the 2024 NAEP actually shows.
Hi Richard, let me look at this. I will return with an answer soon.
The “improvement” across time is due to the National scores going down. Why haven’t MS scores gone up?
Feel free to send me the tables at nancyebailey@bellsouth.net.
Hi Richard, Thanks for sending the tables. I asked my husband, a superb researcher with better analytical skills, for advice, and who’s more objective. Here’s what he said:
Focusing on rankings confounds the performance of other states with the performance of Mississippi. Mississippi did not improve its scores. Whites went down from 266 to 264, while blacks improved from 239 to 243—neither being significant, I believe. A proper evaluation of the changes would consider what happened in the states that improved versus those that got worse. One could argue that just holding scores steady in the face of a national decline is a success, but consider that Hawaii also stayed steady at 274 for Whites and rose from 23rd to 4th. Did they have the same policies as Mississippi? Many factors are in play.
Nancy — this isn’t ideological. It’s about standards of argument.
In your exchange with Richard, you claimed Mississippi shows no sustained gains. He responded with subgroup NAEP data showing clear relative improvement versus other states. Instead of engaging that directly, you shifted metrics to absolute scores (“why haven’t MS scores gone up?”), then pivoted to national decline, then introduced Hawaii, then appealed to your husband’s authority, and finally dissolved everything into “many factors.”
That’s textbook bad-faith: goalpost shifting, selective skepticism, evasion of the core rebuttal, appeal to authority, and redirection.
If relative comparisons matter when criticizing Mississippi, they don’t suddenly become invalid when Mississippi improves.
This is why centralized panels won’t work. If you want national decision-making, you must follow basic standards of argumentative hygiene that have existed for centuries: don’t change metrics mid-argument, don’t dodge rebuttals, don’t substitute authority for evidence.
When those rules are broken, the process collapses into narrative defense and moral posturing.
That’s why decisions now have to disaggregate to parents and local accountability. Not because people prefer fragmentation, but because bad-faith discourse has made honest central deliberation impossible.
I’m sure you’re sincere. But intellectually, this exchange shows exactly why national “conversations” no longer function.
Brian,
While I rarely reject comments, I almost did this one. To suggest consulting with my husband, a statistician, is appealing to my husband’s authority, is rude. I could have simply disagreed with Richard with my own understanding (I’ve taken statistics classes). My husband’s objective response is well-taken. I don’t know Richard’s expertise. He has a foundation promoting school choice.
You can find many reports online about stagnant 8th-grade results in MS (I gave the link to one in the post). It’s controversial to say the least.
The means didn’t improve for 8th graders in the years considered, and the difference wasn’t statistically significant. Scores should have gone up. The MS reading proponents face a hurdle here.
In addition, the body of research on the harm of retention is extensive. Having taught middle school, I understand how painful it is in real time for preteens who are more developed than their peers. Even if holding children back helps them be better readers, there’s a reason why retained children often drop out later. Plus, 4th graders will naturally do better on tests if 3rd graders with reading difficulties are held back.
Also, there are other variables in providing teachers with resources and tutors. However, I’m not sure what children might be missing in school, such as other subjects like social studies, the arts, etc. I’m not sure about this, but I wonder.
And lastly, I’m not sure your point about the NRP. You think it’s O.K. for teachers to be left out as they were. You think there’s nothing more to be learned about reading instruction? If the old NRP was so wonderful 26 years ago, why are we still talking about kids with reading difficulties?
You often criticize my blog posts with a nasty tone, yet I don’t know who you are or what your expertise is. I hate to block comments, and I’m known for not rejecting posts and for responding respectfully, but Diane Ravitch once said her blog is like her living room: if you can debate respectfully, fine; if not, you will be blocked. She’s right.
In other words, next time, a post like this will not be posted.
Nancy — I want to respond briefly and on substance.
My comment wasn’t rude or “nasty.” It was a process critique. I pointed out specific argumentative moves in your exchange with Richard: switching from relative to absolute metrics, appealing to authority (“my husband”), redirecting to Hawaii, and dissolving into “many factors.” Those are concrete issues of reasoning, not personal judgments.
Calling that “rude” or “nasty” is unfounded and out of bounds.
I did not attack you personally. I did not question your character. I did not insult you. I critiqued the structure of the argument. That’s normal, necessary, and entirely appropriate in a serious discussion.
By contrast, your reply focused on tone, questioned Richard’s motives (school choice), emphasized credentials defensively, and ultimately invoked moderation authority. None of that addresses the core critique.
That’s the problem.
You dismissed Richard’s data-driven argument, then characterized my pointing this out as hostile. That’s unfair — especially after Richard engaged carefully and in good faith.
There’s also a contradiction here: you argue for inclusive national deliberation, yet when someone critiques reasoning standards, the response becomes personal and procedural rather than substantive.
My argument was about logic and evidence. Your response shifted to tone, authority, and control of the space.
And this is precisely why we struggle to have a serious national conversation about literacy. When one side resorts to motive questioning, rhetorical pivots, and inconsistent standards — while the other engages data directly — the conversation stops being inquiry and becomes narrative defense.
Richard is a well-respected expert in this field. I have every right, as a parent and citizen, to say his arguments were coherent, evidence-based, and logically consistent. Pointing that out isn’t rude. It’s accountability.
Given that no personal attack was made, I respectfully ask that you retract the claim that my comment was “rude” or “nasty.”
If we can’t maintain shared standards of reasoning, there is no meaningful national discussion to be had — only noise.
My reply to Richard was respectful. I simply disagreed. He sent me state rankings. My husband and I studied them. In fact, we spent a chunk of time doing so.
And I don’t know his research background, or yours. You tell me he’s an expert, but I don’t know why. I don’t know who you are. Not an insult.
It’s fine to disagree with me, and agree with Richard, but you accused me of “textbook bad-faith: goalpost shifting, selective skepticism, evasion of the core rebuttal, appeal to authority, and redirection,” simply because I disagreed.
I looked up “appeal to an authority.” This is what it says:
“An appeal to authority (argumentum ad verecundiam) is a logical fallacy where a claim is accepted as true solely because an authority figure endorses it, rather than based on evidence.” So, yes, I find that insulting.
Also, it sounds like what you’re doing with Richard, who, I believe, supports retention when MANY studies show it doesn’t work.
I can’t help it if we disagree; that doesn’t mean that what I stated wasn’t based on evidence.
Richard has a foundation promoting school choice. That’s a statement, not an insult.
I was deeply disappointed in the congressional hearing conversation. It only landed on throwing more money into programs and teacher training, which, as you’ve pointed out here, haven’t done much of anything for us before. I even wrote my own blog post about this disappointment (and what I think we SHOULD be putting money toward) to share on my little corner of the Internet. While I always think we should continue to learn more about literacy instruction, I’m not sure a new NRP would work, either, for the reasons you well point out here. Who would fund it? Who would oversee it? Who would be chosen, and how? What kinds of studies would be included this time? How would we avoid the current echo chamber of findings, so that researchers like Krashen, Aydarova, and so many more are represented? Thank you for your work in sharing such important considerations!
Thank you, Michelle. And I love your blog post about this. You make many points about the presentation, and I agree with them. Hope you don’t mind me sharing it. And I’ll add your blog to my blog list under Reading.
Also, I’ll share it on Bluesky if it’s ok.
https://coachfromthecouch.com/2026/02/15/low-reading-scores/
I’m honored that you found my blog useful and that you’re sharing it! I love your work, and very much respect your ideas. Thank you for being a needed voice in this field!
Great! Thanks again!
Nancy —
We disagree about the interpretation of the Mississippi data and about what constitutes consistent evaluative standards. That’s fine.
My original comment was about reasoning structure, not character. When metrics shift mid-discussion — from relative comparisons to absolute scores to national decline — it weakens analytical clarity. That observation stands.
On the “appeal to authority” point: the issue wasn’t that your husband is a statistician. The issue is that citing any authority does not resolve the methodological question at hand. The evidence has to stand on its own terms.
You’re free to weigh that evidence differently. I’m free to point out inconsistencies as I see them.
I won’t continue the thread further.
— Brian
Thanks, Brian. I’ll leave you with the last word. ( :