[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-587378-105":59,"doc-detail-587378-en":130},{"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":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","from-the-teachers-desk-a-science-of-reading-progress-report","From the Teacher’s Desk - A Science of Reading Progress Report","","A Science of Reading progress report from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute examines how U.S. K–3 reading teachers understand and enact science of reading principles amid evolving state and local literacy policies. Drawing on a nationally representative survey and embedded quiz results, the report analyzes knowledge differences, implementation support, and instructional preferences. Four major findings address teacher ambivalence in high-poverty contexts and gaps linked to preservice versus in-service training, followed by recommendations and appendices.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@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/from-the-teachers-desk-a-science-of-reading-progress-report/587378/",{"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/from-the-teachers-desk-a-science-of-reading-progress-report/587378.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"วิน","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-22","2026-10-15",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":19},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What is the main purpose of the report?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"To assess U.S. K–3 reading teachers’ knowledge of reading science and connect those results to specific state implementation efforts.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"How was teacher knowledge measured in the study?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"Through a nationally representative survey that includes a short quiz embedded in the survey.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"What do the report’s findings say about phonics and cueing in high-poverty settings?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"At least a third of teachers in high-poverty settings are not fully committed to the science of reading, and 41% did not express a clear preference for phonics over cueing.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},587378,1792191070,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":19,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":144,"read_time":145},2336475104736,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/22000c4c5e0e5b17e70?x-image-process=image/resize,m_fixed,w_180,h_180&k=1786591360781797222","About Fordham  \nThe Thomas B. Fordham Institute promotes educational excellence for every child in America via quality research, analysis, and commentary, as well as advocacy and exemplary charter school authorizing in Ohio. It is affiliated with the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, and this publication is a joint project of the Foundation and the Institute. For further information, please visit our website at [fordhaminstitute.org](fordhaminstitute.org). The Institute is neither connected with nor sponsored by Fordham University.  \nSuggested Citation  \nDavid Griffith, Ph. D. and Brian Fitzpatrick Ph. D. From the Teacher’s Desk: A Science of Reading Progress Report. Washington D.C.: Thomas B. Fordham Institute (April 2026) .  \n[https://fordhaminstitute.org/national/research/teachers-desk-science-reading-progress-report](https://fordhaminstitute.org/national/research/teachers-desk-science-reading-progress-report)  \nAcknowledgments  \nThis report was made possible through funding from Oak Foundation and the Charles and Lynn Schusterman Family Philanthropies, as well as our sister organization, the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. The efforts of numerous individuals are reflected in it, foremost among them the authors, David Griffith and Brian Fitzpatrick. External advisers Kelly Butler and Kim Benton provided clear and thoughtful feedback on the draft report. Here at Fordham, we thank Chester E. Finn, Jr., Michael J. Petrilli, and Amber M. Northern for providing feedback on the draft, Stephanie Distler for managing report production and design, and Victoria McDougald for overseeing media dissemination. The views expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect those of the foundations that supported this work. The Thomas B. Fordham Institute retains sole discretion over the content of this report.  \nContents  \nForeword 3  \nIntroduction 8  \nBackground 9  \nData and Methods 11  \nFindings 13  \nFinding 1 13  \nFinding 2 24  \nFinding 3 31  \nFinding 4 33  \nRecommendations 35  \nConclusion 36  \nAppendices 37  \nAppendix A: Science of Reading Survey 37  \nAppendix B: Science of Reading “Quiz” 50  \nAppendix C: ExcelinEd State Literacy Policies 52  \nAppendix D: Analytic Approach 57  \nEndnotes 58  \nForeword  \nBy Amber M. Northern and Michael J. Petrilli  \nFormal reading instruction in the United States predates our nation’s founding. Published in the 1680s, The New England Primer—the nation’s first major schoolbook—included spelling and soundingout exercises that modern science of reading advocates would readily identify as early phonics instruction.  \nBut it was the late nineteenth-century psychologist Edmund Huey who established the roots of the“science of reading”(SoR) . Using rudimentary mechanical devices to measure eye movements, he showed that the act of reading was not a smooth process but rather a series of “rapid eye jumps and pauses,” reflecting the complex mental processes involved in decoding and comprehension.  \nIn the decades that followed, a procession of influential scholars—including Edward Thorndike, Rudolf Flesch, Jeanne Chall, Keith Stanovich, and Marilyn Jager Adams—built an empirical foundation on how children learn to read. And in 2000, the National Reading Panel synthesized the best evidence and the takeaways for classroom implementation.  \nYet this long research tradition has not produced uniform understanding or practice in today’s literacy classrooms. Instead, we’ve experienced significant bumps, detours, and even reading “wars,” as advocates of effective reading instruction have struggled to make their voices heard.  \nIn 2022, Emily Hanford’s podcast series, Sold a Story, initiated a fresh wave of concern and advocacy, and state and local policies meant to improve reading instruction have proliferated in response. (At least 40 states and counting have enacted science of reading laws.) Whether these efforts ultimately succeed depends in large part on how clearly and consistently they are understood, s","cbCaioegkEzCJQtR","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaioegkEzCJQtR","pdf",23549207,59,"English","# Foreword\n# Introduction\n# Background\n# Data and Methods\n# Findings\n## Finding 1\n## Finding 2\n## Finding 3\n## Finding 4\n# Recommendations\n# Conclusion\n# Appendices\n## Appendix A: Science of Reading Survey\n## Appendix B: Science of Reading “Quiz”\n## Appendix C: ExcelinEd State Literacy Policies\n## Appendix D: Analytic Approach\n# Endnotes","[{\"question\":\"What is the main purpose of the report?\",\"answer\":\"To assess U.S. K–3 reading teachers’ knowledge of reading science and connect those results to specific state implementation efforts.\"},{\"question\":\"How was teacher knowledge measured in the study?\",\"answer\":\"Through a nationally representative survey that includes a short quiz embedded in the survey.\"},{\"question\":\"What do the report’s findings say about phonics and cueing in high-poverty settings?\",\"answer\":\"At least a third of teachers in high-poverty settings are not fully committed to the science of reading, and 41% did not express a clear preference for phonics over cueing.\"}]","From the Teacher’s Desk - A Science of Reading Progress Report | PDF",1792061714,149]