[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-451772-105":59,"doc-detail-451772-en":131},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":124,"head_meta":126,"extra_data":128,"updated_unix":130},105,"en","a-view-from-within-a-critique-of-north-carolina-science-of-reading-policy-for-teacher-professional-development","A View from Within - A Critique of North Carolina Science of Reading Policy for Teacher Professional Development","","North Carolina presents a compelling case of Science of Reading (SOR) legislation and policy. This conceptual, peer-reviewed article offers a rich description and critique of Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling (LETRS) training, the centerpiece of SOR implementation for teacher professional development. Required for all K-5 teachers and implemented through a two-year, at least $114 million program, LETRS faces limited evidence of improved reading outcomes and raises concerns about training design quality and content validity. The authors argue it promotes narrow, inaccurate, and deficit-oriented views of literacy and learners.",{"@graph":69,"@context":123},[70,84,106],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/a-view-from-within-a-critique-of-north-carolina-science-of-reading-policy-for-teacher-professional-development/451772/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/a-view-from-within-a-critique-of-north-carolina-science-of-reading-policy-for-teacher-professional-development/451772.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Damian","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-26","2026-09-30",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":105},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",12,{"@type":107,"mainEntity":108},"FAQPage",[109,115,119],{"name":110,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":112},"What is the main policy focus discussed in the article?","Question",{"text":113,"@type":114},"The article centers on North Carolina’s Science of Reading (SOR) policy implementation through LETRS training for teacher professional development.","Answer",{"name":116,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":117},"Why do the authors critique the LETRS training program?",{"text":118,"@type":114},"The authors raise concerns about training design quality and the validity of the program’s content, arguing it promotes narrow, inaccurate, and deficit-oriented views of literacy and learners.",{"name":120,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":121},"What evidence concern is highlighted regarding LETRS and student reading outcomes?",{"text":122,"@type":114},"The article notes limited evidence that LETRS improves student reading outcomes, despite the large two-year investment required for implementation.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":125,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":127,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":129,"site_id":62},451772,1790747783,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":132},{"doc_id":129,"user_id":133,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":134,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":135,"file_id":136,"file_url":137,"file_type":138,"file_size":139,"view_count":105,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":140,"language":141,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":142,"faqs":143,"seo_title":144,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":145,"read_time":26},137451208677,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_155a257f0dc6eb9ab79c44ca47cae57d","Science of Reading Policies: International Impacts and Impressions  \neducation policy analysis archives  \nA peer-reviewed, independent, open access, multilingual journal  \nArizona State University  \n\n| Volume 33 Number 82 | November 18 , 2025 | ISSN 1068-2341 |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n\nA View from Within: A Critique of North Carolina Science of Reading Policy for Teacher Professional Development  \nMarjorie W. Rowe  \n&  \nLaurie “Darian” Thrailkill  \nEast Carolina University  \nUnited States  \nCitation: Rowe, M. W., & Thrailkill, L. D. (2025) . A view from within: A critique of North Carolina science of reading policy for teacher professional development. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 33(82). [https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.33.8621](https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.33.8621) This article is part of the special issue Science of Reading Policies: International Impacts and Impressions, guest edited by Danielle Dennis and Rachael Gabriel.  \nAbstract: North Carolina presents a compelling case of Science of Reading (SOR) legislation and policy. Few large states have embraced SOR as comprehensively and as rapidly (e.g., Schwartz, 2022) . This conceptual article provides a rich description and critique of the centerpiece of SOR policy implementation in North Carolina: Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling (LETRS) training (Moats & Tolman, 2019a, 2019b) . LETRS was required for all K-5 teachers and offered to University of North Carolina System faculty as a result of SOR legislation (Excellent Public Schools Act of 2021) . This two-year training cost at least $114 million to implement (Hui, 2023) despite limited evidence regarding improved student reading outcomes (Garet et al., 2008; Kuchle et al., 2018). Through reflection on our experiences in LETRS, including the teacher manuals, online modules, and synchronous trainings (Moats & Tolman,  \n2019a, 2019b), we identified concerns for the quality of training design and the validity of content. We raise important questions about a program that presents itself as comprehensive, scientifically grounded, and pedagogically neutral, but in reality, it advances narrow, inaccurate, and deficitoriented views of literacy and learners.  \nKeywords: Science of Reading; reading policy; professional development; LETRS; teacher educators  \nUna mirada desde dentro: Una crítica a la política de ciencia de la lectura en Carolina del Norte para el desarrollo profesional docente  \nResumen: Carolina del Norte presenta un caso convincente de legislación y política sobre la Ciencia de la Lectura (Science of Reading) . Pocos estados grandes han adoptado la CdL de manera tan integral y rápida (e.g., Schwartz, 2022) . Este artículo conceptual ofrece una descripción detallada y una crítica al eje central de la implementación de la política de CdL en Carolina del Norte: la capacitación Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling (LETRS) (Moats & Tolman, 2019a , 2019b) . La formación LETRS fue obligatoria para todos los docentes de K-5 y ofrecida al profesorado del Sistema de la Universidad de Carolina del Norte como resultado de la legislación sobre CdL (Excellent Public Schools Act de 2021) . Esta capacitación de dos años ha costado al menos 114 millones de dólares (Hui, 2023), a pesar dela limitada evidencia sobre la mejora en los resultados de lectura de los estudiantes (Garet et al., 2008; Kuchle et al., 2018) . A partir de la reflexión sobre nuestras experiencias en LETRS—incluidos los manuales docentes, los módulos en línea y las formaciones sincrónicas (Moats & Tolman, 2019a, 2019b)—identificamos preocupaciones sobre la calidad del diseño de la formación y la validez del contenido. Planteamos preguntas importantes sobre un programa que se presenta como integral, científicamente fundamentado y pedagógicamente neutral, peroque en realidad promueve visiones restringidas, inexactas y deficitarias de la alfabetización y delos estudiantes.  \nPalabras-clave: Ciencia de la Lectura; polític","cbCaijgBs6RHAs1p","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaijgBs6RHAs1p","pdf",466442,24,"English","# Science of Reading Policies: International Impacts and Impressions\n## A View from Within: Critique of North Carolina SOR Policy\n## LETRS Training for Teacher Professional Development","[{\"question\":\"What is the main policy focus discussed in the article?\",\"answer\":\"The article centers on North Carolina’s Science of Reading (SOR) policy implementation through LETRS training for teacher professional development.\"},{\"question\":\"Why do the authors critique the LETRS training program?\",\"answer\":\"The authors raise concerns about training design quality and the validity of the program’s content, arguing it promotes narrow, inaccurate, and deficit-oriented views of literacy and learners.\"},{\"question\":\"What evidence concern is highlighted regarding LETRS and student reading outcomes?\",\"answer\":\"The article notes limited evidence that LETRS improves student reading outcomes, despite the large two-year investment required for implementation.\"}]","A View from Within - A Critique of North Carolina Science of Reading Policy for Teacher Professional Development | PDF",1790735896]