The “L” in LETRS Is for Language! | Part Five: Standards, Guidelines, and Policies

Policy and legal documents adopted by states typically require that teachers implement the “five pillars” or “five essential components” of instruction, reflecting the domains of research that were analyzed by the National Reading Panel (NRP) in 2000:    

• Phoneme awareness

• Phonics

• Fluency

• Vocabulary

• Reading comprehension

Many states reference the Simple View of Reading (SVR) and Hollis Scarborough’s Reading Rope as they represent the components of research-based instruction. (We used these in Lexia® LETRS®, too.) 

Unfortunately, these models have encouraged an artificial separation of the components from one another, as well as an artificial separation of literacy from language development. They do not clearly convey the message that most aspects of literacy depend on a foundation of language competence. Phonological, orthographic, morphologic, syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic language systems, working together, render meaning. When students don’t comprehend, we should look for causation in any and/or all of these aspects of language.

The Policy Approach

What new policies could improve on the models often cited or the “five essential components” approach? First would be modification of states’ requirements for educator preparation; second would be challenging the regrettable separation of language and literacy in school systems; and third would be updating the way state laws and guidelines are written. 

Regarding educator preparation, recent reviews by the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) found that only about half of teacher preparation programs adequately address all five of the components identified by the NRP. The reviews did not evaluate which teacher preparation programs provide a strong understanding of language development and its role in reading acquisition. One way to elevate the importance of language knowledge is to include more items on the Foundations of Reading test and require it for licensing. Another is to devise incentives for faculty to co-teach cross-disciplinary courses. Another approach is to use higher education collaboratives to broaden the knowledge base of course instructors who may benefit from updated learning about language structure and language learning, reflecting advances in research.

Structuring Schools Around Language

In our schools, we need more flexibility in the roles that reading teachers and speech-language therapists are allowed to fulfill. Reading teachers need to understand Developmental Language Disorder (DLD), and speech-language specialists need to understand dyslexia. Both should be able to support classroom instruction. Coordinated approaches to helping students will depend on collaboration of both disciplines.

A Legislation Evolution

Finally, it would be helpful if states’ guidelines and laws that have been passed in the last few years were revised to be more closely aligned with current research. The International Dyslexia Association revised its definition of dyslexia to include a broader focus on language. Evidence is clearer than ever that screening of pre-K children for language development, and then intervening when indicated, has economic, academic, and social benefits. When students need support in reading and writing, approaches that address all aspects of language are the ones that work best.

As Snowling and Hulme have argued, the time has come for the recognition of language as the heart of literacy. Raising consciousness of language to the forefront of our actions around literacy can result in earlier intervention with students at risk, improvements in teacher preparation and support, refinement of instructional programs and materials, and productive changes in state and national guidelines and policies. Let’s give the “L” in LETRS the serious attention it deserves.

Annotated Bibliography With Articles and Briefs

1. Hruby, G. G. (2020). Language’s vanishing act in early literacy education. Phi Delta Kappan, 101(5), 19-24.
   
   The article argues that early literacy instruction is placing too much emphasis on decoding (phonics and word reading) while neglecting language comprehension, which is equally essential for reading success. Research shows that reading depends on both decoding and the ability to understand language (often expressed as reading = decoding × comprehension), meaning that weakness in either limits performance. Strong language development must be actively nurtured through rich linguistic environments and interaction—especially in early grades—because it supports thinking, knowledge, and long-term academic growth. When schools underprioritize it, particularly for students from less language-rich environments, achievement gaps widen, so a balanced approach that develops both decoding and language comprehension is critical.

2. Schwartz, S. (2019, December 3). The most popular reading programs aren’t backed by science. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/the-most-popular-reading-programs-arent-backed-by-science/2019/12
   
   The article explains that while research clearly supports systematic phonics and evidence-based reading instruction, many widely used elementary reading programs do not fully align with that science. A national survey found that popular curricula often include inconsistent or unsystematic phonics and rely on “cueing” strategies—encouraging students to guess words using context, pictures, or partial letter cues—which research suggests is ineffective for skilled reading. Because districts typically choose curricula and teachers may lack the training or authority to question them, these practices persist in classrooms. Overall, the article argues that no single program is perfect, and improving reading outcomes depends less on adopting a specific curriculum and more on ensuring teachers understand the science of reading and can apply it effectively.

3. National Center on Improving Literacy. (n.d.). Explicit vocabulary instruction to build fair access for all learners. National Center on Improving Literacy. https://improvingliteracy.org/resource/explicit-vocabulary-instruction-to-build-fair-access-for-all-learners/
   
   This brief emphasizes that explicit, systematic vocabulary instruction is essential for ensuring all students—especially struggling readers—can access and succeed in reading. As one of the “5 Big Ideas” of literacy, vocabulary plays a critical role in both learning to read and understanding text because students must know the meanings of most words to comprehend what they read. While students learn some words incidentally through conversation and reading, many important or complex words require direct instruction, which significantly improves comprehension. The brief outlines a practical approach to teaching vocabulary—selecting high-utility words, providing clear definitions, illustrating meaning with examples, and checking understanding—while emphasizing that instruction should occur before, during, and after reading. Overall, it argues that explicit vocabulary teaching is not just beneficial but necessary to provide equitable, meaningful access to literacy for all learners.

4. WIDA. (n.d.). Developing oral language comprehension. WIDA. https://wida.wisc.edu/resources/resource-snapshot/developing-oral-language-comprehension
   
   This article highlights that multilingual learners’ reading development depends heavily on strong oral language skills, especially listening comprehension, which forms the foundation for understanding written text. Students must first understand and use spoken language—connecting words, meanings, and sounds—before they can successfully read them in print. While explicit instruction is important, much language learning happens implicitly through meaningful interactions, conversations, and exposure to rich language experiences. The brief emphasizes the need for classrooms to prioritize speaking, listening, and discussion activities in any language students use, to create inclusive opportunities for interaction, and to engage students in extended conversations about texts. Ultimately, it argues that balancing explicit instruction with rich oral language experiences and leveraging students’ linguistic strengths leads to stronger comprehension and more equitable literacy development.

5. edWeb. (2025, October 2). Oral language: A key part of student literacy success. edWeb. https://home.edweb.net/oral-language-and-student-literacy-success/  
   
   The article argues that oral language—students’ listening, speaking, and understanding skills—has long been overlooked in education but is actually fundamental to reading and academic success. Research shows that early oral language development strongly predicts literacy outcomes, yet schools often fail to assess or systematically teach it. The piece emphasizes integrating oral language throughout the school day using strategies like discussion, storytelling, and modeling language, along with structured approaches, such as the “Reading is Language” framework. It also highlights the importance of early intervention, family involvement, and targeted support—especially for English learners—while stressing that prioritizing oral language in curricula can significantly improve reading comprehension and overall student achievement.

6. Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast at Florida State University. (2021). What does 20 years of research say about teaching language and literacy in preschool? U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. https://www.readingrockets.org/topics/early-literacy-development/articles/what-does-20-years-research-say-about-teaching-language
   
   This research summary explains that preschool children enter kindergarten with widely varying language and literacy skills, making evidence-based instruction critical. A large review of 20 years of research (109 studies and 132 interventions) found that effective early literacy instruction should intentionally develop multiple interrelated skills—language, phonological awareness, print knowledge, decoding, and early writing. Language is foundational and is best supported through interactive practices like question-rich book reading and small-group instruction, while phonological awareness must be explicitly taught because it does not develop naturally and is essential for later reading success. Print knowledge and writing improve most when taught alongside phonological awareness, and together these skills can also strengthen decoding and writing even if those are not directly taught. Overall, the research shows that no single skill is enough; strong early literacy outcomes come from integrated, intentional instruction across all domains embedded in everyday classroom activities.

7. Goldfeld, S., Snow, P., Eadie, P., Munro, J., Gold, L., Le, H. N. D., Orsini, F., Shingles, B., Connell, J., Watts, A., & Barnett, T. (2022). Classroom promotion of oral language: Outcomes from a randomized controlled trial of a whole-of-classroom intervention to improve children’s reading achievement. AERA Open, 8. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/23328584221131530 
   
   Classroom Promotion of Oral Language: Outcomes From a Randomized Controlled Trial of a Whole-of-Classroom Intervention to Improve Children’s Reading Achievement argues that oral language—children’s ability to engage in reciprocal spoken communication across vocabulary, syntax, semantics, and pragmatics—is a central driver of learning and the foundation on which literacy skills (decoding, comprehension, writing, spelling, and learning from text) are built, with knock-on effects for broader achievement (including mathematics) and social-emotional well-being. It explains that language and literacy strengthen each other over time, and that reading comprehension depends on both decoding and language comprehension (with newer views suggesting language underpins both), so early language weaknesses can contribute to long-term academic and life difficulties. The article then turns to instruction, noting that teachers need strong linguistic knowledge to teach these skills but often lack sufficient preparation, making professional learning (PL) a key lever—though evidence about PL improving student outcomes is mixed. To test whether strengthening teachers’ oral-language instruction can improve outcomes at scale, the CPOL cluster randomized controlled trial provided teachers PL plus support. It improved teacher knowledge in targeted language areas but did not change teachers’ classroom language use, and ultimately produced no detectable differences in students’ reading (grade 3) or related oral language, reading, and mental health outcomes compared with usual practice. These results highlight how challenging it is to translate improved teacher knowledge into sustained instructional change and student gains at scale.

References

1. Snowling, M. J., & Hulme, C. (2025). The reading is language model: A theoretical framework for language and reading development and intervention. Annual Review of Developmental Psychology, 7(3), 195–218. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-devpsych-111323-084821