6/23/2025
The Science of Reading vs. Balanced Literacy: Why Evidence-Based Instruction Wins Out
This post is Part Three of a three-post series that highlights the differences between the science of reading and balanced literacy. This series explores what the science of reading is, how it differs from balanced literacy, and why these differences impact student outcomes.
Check out Parts One and Two to learn more about the impact of “the reading wars” and how our brains learn to read.
Reading is an equity issue. Thirty-one percent of fourth grade students performed at or above the Proficient level on the 2024 NAEP reading assessment, which was 2 percentage points lower compared to 2022 and 4 percentage points lower than 2019. These opportunity gaps widen for particular subgroups, including Hispanic students. Only one state, Louisiana, surpassed its 2019 (pre-pandemic) fourth grade reading score.
Fortunately, more educators are familiar with science of teaching research. Following this research, we can close literacy gaps and help every child learn to read proficiently. The solution lies in evidence-based instruction, because while learning to speak is an innate process, neuroscience research tells us that learning to read is not.
Through decades of studies in neuroscience, education, psychology, and more, experts have determined the best practices behind the science of teaching reading, and we are seeing this evidence-based instruction make a difference in children’s lives.
Science of Reading Becomes Part of State Policy
As of November 2024, lawmakers in 40 states and the District of Columbia have passed laws or implemented policies around evidence-based reading instruction to ensure every child is given their best chance to become successful, confident readers. For example, in May 2024, Vermont legislators passed Act No. 139 (S.204), which mandated evidence-based literacy instruction.
Educators in Mississippi have already seen score improvements on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) as a result of shifting to the science of reading. In 2019, the state made the greatest gains in the nation on the fourth grade NAEP reading test. A recent analysis by Mississippi First, an education policy nonprofit, found that 97% of the state’s districts improved their third grade reading scores since the passage of a 2013 state law that required additional teacher training on the principles of the science of reading and evidence-based instruction. Researchers at the Urban Institute found that when adjusting for student demographics, Mississippi fourth grade students scored the highest in the nation on the NAEP in fourth grade reading.
<HTML CHART GOES HERE>
So, what is this evidence-based instruction? Simply put, it is instruction based on the science of reading.
Science of Reading: Beyond Phonics Instruction
Thanks to the reading wars, detailed in the podcast, “Sold a Story,” it is often assumed the science of reading is just another term for phonics instruction. Instead, it refers to a body of research that definitively answers the question: “How does the human brain learn to read?”
The science of reading spans more than 100 papers and the research has been growing for more than five decades. Backed by studies from education, linguistics, psychology, and neurology experts, the science of reading includes proven research about how our brains process written words.
The Science of Teaching Reading
The skills students must develop to read proficiently can be broken down in many different ways.
Philip Gough and William Tunmer (1986) described reading comprehension as the product of decoding and language comprehension. This was known as The Simple View of Reading.
| Decoding | x | Language Comprehension | = | Reading Comprehension |
This equation can be further broken down into the underpinning components of each group:
| Decoding | x | Linguistic Comprehension | = | Reading Comprehension |
|
| |||
In 2000, the National Reading Panel summed up effective reading instruction as requiring these concepts: Phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension.
Dr. Hollis Scarborough (2001) devised Scarborough’s Reading Rope as a more in-depth visual depicting the skills required for fluent reading.
Scarborough’s “Rope” Model from Handbook of Early Literacy Research, © 2001 by Guilford Press.
The terms used by a model or instructional method may be different based on how each skill or concept is defined. For example, phonological awareness (Reading Rope) and phonemic awareness (National Reading Panel) are both part of phonology, the study of sounds in a language, which in turn is a component of decoding (Simple View of Reading).
When we incorporate the alphabet, we can introduce phonics to teach sound-letter or sound-spelling correspondences; thus, phonics is tied to orthography as it begins incorporating written symbols. Similarly, semantics and vocabulary go hand in hand as components of linguistic or language comprehension, and are just as necessary as the components of decoding or word recognition.
Through the science of reading, we can better understand how we learn to read, what skills are involved in reading, and how those skills work together. This research also helps educators best target their instruction to ensure all students can learn to read.
The science of reading is not a literacy method in itself. Today, several approaches are based in the science of reading, including Orton-Gillingham and the Wilson Reading System. These approaches, and others that teach foundational reading skills through explicit instruction are often referred to by the umbrella term: Structured Literacy.
What is Structured Literacy?
Structured Literacy is the application of knowledge from the science of reading that teaches children to read in an evidence-based and systematic way.
Any Structured Literacy approach weaves together an array of skills from the science of reading, including at a minimum:
Phonology
Sound-Symbol Association
Syllables
Morphology
Syntax
Semantics
But more importantly, Structured Literacy approaches are explicit, systematic, cumulative, diagnostic, and responsive.
Explicit means skills and concepts are directly taught and practiced.
Systematic means the skills are taught in a stairstep fashion: Each skill builds on the last, and they are taught in a logical order that starts with simple information and becomes progressively more complex.
Cumulative means all of the information builds upon earlier knowledge.
Diagnostic and responsive mean students’ unique strengths and weaknesses are identified through differentiated instruction.
With sufficient direct instruction about the foundational skills of reading, 95% of students can learn to read. This is why a Structured Literacy approach is crucial. Without it, only 30% of students will learn to read. Fifty percent require explicit and direct instruction in foundational skills to learn to read, and a further 15% require additional attention and support.
Any instructional method that does not teach the components of the science of reading in an explicit, cumulative, and responsive way risks leaving children behind, often without an understanding of why the student is struggling. Unfortunately, many educators still use a balanced literacy approach and don’t have the evidence-based knowledge they need to help every student.
What is Balanced Literacy?
Balanced literacy was a popular method of teaching reading and writing for years. In 2019, a national survey found that about 72% of American educators reported using balanced literacy to teach reading. More recently, advocates for balanced literacy have broadened their curricula to include phonics and other Structured Literacy components.
Because many experts in the field interpret it differently, balanced literacy is difficult to define, and implementation can vary greatly from classroom to classroom. For most balanced literacy educators, the term refers to teaching reading in a way that meets students’ needs while also promoting a love of reading.
Balanced literacy can be described as a “little bit of everything” approach that incorporates some good ideas and practices as it strives for a laudable goal. It can help many students discover a love of reading. However, because it may or may not include phonics and other evidence-based concepts and lacks the structured, explicit instruction and content needed for students with learning disabilities like dyslexia, it will never work for every student.
Irene Fountas and Gay Su Pinnell (1996), early proponents of balanced literacy, defined the method as a “philosophical orientation that assumes that reading and writing achievement are developed through instruction and support in multiple environments using various approaches that differ by level of teacher support and child control.” Their method today still includes a combination of whole-group instruction, small-group instruction, and independent learning with a focus on authentic texts. More recently, Fountas and Pinnell have emphasized phonics, spelling, and word study as components of their program.
Lucy Calkins, another champion of balanced literacy, advocates using a workshop model to teach students how to read. Students then demonstrate their skills with minimal direct instruction. Her approach has been criticized for asking students to rely heavily on contextual cues to identify words and their meanings, known as the three-cueing system. According to APM Reports, she has since “distanced herself from it and removed practices associated with cueing from her reading curriculum.” In 2023, she stepped down from her organization, the Teachers College Reading and Writing Project at Columbia University, amid criticism that her method downplayed phonics. The organization has since been disbanded and Calkins heads The Reading & Writing Project at Mossflower, a private company.
Both Fountas and Pinnell and Calkins are currently embroiled in a class-action lawsuit. In December 2024, a group of Massachusetts parents filed a novel consumer protection lawsuit against the publishers that represent them, arguing the materials were not backed by science and “undermined the future of students across the Commonwealth.”
Despite balanced literacy being the most popular literacy method used during the last few decades, national reading scores continue to dip, and educators are leaning into research that supports Structured Literacy. Most students need explicit and direct instruction in foundational reading skills (and not just phonics). Balanced literacy will only help 30% of students become successful readers without additional intervention.
Is the Science of Reading Better Than Balanced Literacy?
For balanced literacy to be effective, it must include explicit instruction in ALL of the skills necessary for reading. For students to develop a love of reading, they first must learn to read.
Literacy is one of the cornerstones of educational equity and is crucial for lifelong success. We must ensure no student is left behind, and at the same time, we must provide educators with tools and resources based on the science of teaching reading. Transitioning to a Structured Literacy approach will not only improve student outcomes—it will help level the playing field for all students.
Dive deeper into the reading wars and the science of reading. Check out Parts One and Two of this series.
A Cambium Learning® Group Brand
