NCLC Educator Resources
“The reading crisis is not inevitable. We know what works. We just have to use it.”
– The Knowledge Gap (2019)
— NATALIE WEXLER
Reading Compass
Your Guide to Navigating the Science of Reading
Explore curated collections of frameworks, practical tools, articles, policies, and success stories – all grounded in science. (The Reading League)
Evidence Advocacy Center
EAC’s mission is to transform the education system to ensure all students, especially the most vulnerable and marginalized populations, receive an outstanding education that enables them to grow academically, thrive socially and emotionally, and realize satisfying adult lives.
IES Practice Guides
A practice guide is a publication that presents recommendations for educators to address challenges in their classrooms and schools. They are based on reviews of research, the experiences of practitioners, and the opinions of a panel of nationally recognized experts.
CA Project Arise
Project ARISE is a statewide professional learning initiative developed through California’s Reading Instruction and Intervention Grant Program. Our mission is to elevate literacy instruction for every learner by equipping educators with free, high-quality resources grounded in inclusive, evidence-based practices.
FAQs
What is the Science of Reading (SOR)?
The Science of Reading refers to a large, interdisciplinary body of research—spanning cognitive psychology, neuroscience, linguistics, education, and developmental psychology—examining how children learn to read and how skilled reading develops.
SOR is not a program. It is a convergence of evidence built over 50+ years and synthesized in hundreds of studies and meta-analyses.
What are the major components?
SOR supports five essential, interdependent components:
Phonological Awareness
Phonics / Decoding / Alphabetic Principle
Fluency
Vocabulary & Language Development
Comprehension
This aligns with the NRP (2000) report and subsequent WWC practice guides.
Is SOR the same as “balanced literacy”?
No.
Balanced literacy is an approach or philosophy, whereas SOR is a research base.
SOR overwhelmingly supports explicit, systematic instruction in foundational skills—especially phonics—whereas balanced literacy models often rely on implicit or discovery-based word solving (e.g., cueing).
What is “systematic and explicit instruction,” and does it matter?
Explicit instruction = clear, direct teaching of skills
Systematic instruction = skills taught in a planned, logical sequence
Research shows that children—especially those at risk for reading difficulties—learn to read best when foundational skills are taught explicitly and systematically, rather than relying on inference, discovery, or picture cues.
What about multilingual learners—does SOR apply to them?
Yes.
SOR applies broadly, but instruction must consider:
Learner’s language background
Transfer of linguistic features from L1 → L2
Explicit vocabulary, morphology, and syntax instruction
Research affirms phonics benefits multilingual learners when integrated with oral language scaffolds.
Who struggles most when instruction is not aligned to research?
Students who are:
low-income
multilingual learners
students with dyslexia
historically underserved groups
SOR-aligned instruction is an equity strategy that everyone can support.
What’s the role of MTSS in implementing the Science of Reading?
MTSS provides the system to implement evidence-based reading instruction:
Tier 1: high-quality, SOR-aligned core
Tier 2: targeted small-group intervention
Tier 3: intensive, individualized support
“Every child deserves a teacher who understands how reading develops.”
— Dr. Nell Duke
Understanding the Difference.
Science of Reading (SOR)
Based on 50+ years of interdisciplinary research
Explicit, systematic phonics
Decoding as primary strategy
Teaches PA → Phonics → Fluency → Comprehension
Decodable texts early
High teacher knowledge required
Supported by WWC, NICHD, NRC
Balanced Literacy
Based on philosophy & teacher interpretation
Phonics embedded or optional
Cueing strategies (MSV)
Emphasis on meaning-making first
Predictable/leveled texts early
High teacher autonomy required
Not supported in decoding research
Read the Research.
These foundational studies, reports, and books represent the most influential and widely cited research on how children learn to read and which instructional approaches improve outcomes for all learners.
-
National Reading Panel (2000).
A landmark review of research identifying the five critical components of reading:
phonological awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension.
This remains one of the strongest consensus documents in literacy research.Snow, Burns, & Griffin (1998), National Research Council.
Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children.
Defines essential early literacy practices and the importance of early intervention.Seidenberg, M. (2017). Language at the Speed of Sight.
Explains the cognitive science behind reading, why many children struggle, and what must change in instruction.Dehaene, S. (2009). Reading in the Brain.
Neuroscience explaining how the brain rewires itself to read; strongly supports explicit phonics-based instruction. -
Ehri, L. (2005, 2014).
Orthographic mapping theory explaining how children store and retrieve words efficiently.
Foundational for understanding why phonics is essential.Scarborough, H. (2001).
The Reading Rope — illustrates how word recognition and language comprehension intertwine to produce skilled reading.Castles, Rastle, & Nation (2018).
“Ending the Reading Wars.”
A modern, highly cited synthesis confirming the evidence for systematic decoding instruction and rich language comprehension. -
Archer & Hughes (2011). Explicit Instruction.
A clear guide to the teaching principles supported across reading research.Foorman et al. (2016).
IES Practice Guide on foundational reading skills.
Provides actionable strategies aligned to the NRP findings. -
August & Shanahan (2006).
National Literacy Panel report on effective instruction for language-minority learners.Genesee et al. (2006).
Comprehensive research on bilingual education and literacy acquisition.Goldenberg (2008).
Clarifies what the research supports (and does not support) for English learners. -
Kilpatrick, D. (2015).
Explains why cueing systems conflict with how the brain learns to read; emphasizes phonemic awareness and word-level instruction.IES & WWC practice guides.
Federal guidance consistently discouraging use of cueing for decoding. -
Torgesen et al. (2001).
Demonstrates that intensive, explicit intervention can dramatically improve outcomes for students with severe reading difficulties.Simmons et al. (2000).
Research on early intervention showing rapid gains when instruction is aligned with reading science.NCII (National Center on Intensive Intervention).
DBI (Data-Based Individualization) framework — gold standard for Tier 3 intervention.Vaughn & Wanzek (2014).
Defines characteristics of effective intensive interventions. -
Moats, L. (1999; 2020). Teaching Reading Is Rocket Science.
Explains why teacher knowledge matters more than any program and outlines essential knowledge for all reading educators.Lyon, G. (2000).
NICHD testimony highlighting the preventability of reading failure and the need for research-aligned instruction.Piasta et al. (2009).
Shows strong connections between teacher knowledge of reading concepts and student reading achievement. -
Fletcher & Vaughn (2012).
Shows MTSS/RTI approaches are most beneficial for students who have historically struggled.Snow (2018).
Argues that reading outcomes improve when instruction aligns to research and when systemic inequities are addressed.