We know that science is a good thing, and using science in reading instruction is a good thing.  But what exactly is meant by the “science of reading”?  What exactly is the Science of Reading?  Is it a noun?  Is it a verb?   Or has it become an adjective or perhaps a metaphor used to indicate something else?  
	 
SoR and SoR Research Standards

Buzzword Cluster 

	Let’s dig in.  The good Dr. Moats (2019) defines the science of reading as:

“It (SoR) is the emerging consensus from many related disciplines, based on literally thousands of studies, supported by hundreds of millions of research dollars, conducted across the world in many languages.” 

	Let’s break this down: 

	“An emerging consensus ….”  There’s a consensus.  Many people agree about something.  It is emerging.  To emerge means to come forth or to come into being.  In the U.S. we’ve been studying reading for over 110 years, and just now this consensus is emerging?  Hmmm.   The NCTE was established in 1911.  The ILA was established in 1956 and just now, in the early 2020s, a consensus is just now emerging.  Either we’re slow emergers, or there’s been some new discovery that has caused the old theoretical paradigms to disintegrate and a new paradigm to emerge like Godzilla emerging from the sea, or a butterfly emerging from its cocoon, or Dracula emerging from the shadows.  It’s emerging …  I wonder why it waited until now to start emerging?

	“Many related disciplines …”  ‘Many’ means a large number.  Dr. Moats says that there is a large number of related disciplines from which this consensus is emerging.  I’d settle for just a few.  I know in cognitive psychology, neuroscience, and linguistics there have been some interesting research to help us understand reading and the reading process, but most of these studies were basic research, not applied research conducted in a classroom.  What are these related disciplines from which this consensus is emerging?  Music?  Agriculture?  Physics?  Philosophy?

	“Literally thousands of studies …” What Dr. Moats really means here is “figuratively thousands of studies”.  Or “metaphorically thousands of studies” because there are not literally thousands of studies.  I’d settle for her to identify “literally just one or two” studies so that we could analyze them.  And of course, a study is technically different from research.  Peer-reviewed research is a study that has gone through the blind peer-review process.  This is the currency used in an academic economy is not studies.

	Hundreds of millions of research dollars …”  This is a proposition with which I can agree … although it’s nothing really to be proud of.  It points to the financial aspect that drives the SoR, Dr. Moats, and LETRS.

	The definition of science of reading put forth by the good Dr. Moats is what’s called buzzword cluster.  She appears to have a propensity for this sort of thing, (buzzword clustering).  She uses pretty-sounding terms that seem to mean something, that sound like they mean something, and that create the illusion that they mean something important, when in fact, they are literally a series of word-based facades that have very little meaning once you analyze and unpack them.

Defining the Science of Reading
	Dr. Timothy Shanahan (2021) gets us a little closer to a specific definition of SoR by stating that it is applied research (conducted in classroom settings) vs. basic research (conducted apart from the context in which it is used or applied).  He went on to say that,

“The science of reading should refer to all empirical studies of any aspect of learning to read, write, and spell in any language” (Shanahan, 2024).

	Empirical research is research that is based on observation and measurement of phenomena, as directly experienced by the researcher.  Technically that could include qualitative research and the work of Marie Clay and Brian Cambourne; however, the US Department of Education would have none of that.  They have determined that qualitative research is definitely out.  In education, only a single type of research methodology can be used to ask and answer questions and to develop knowledge.  In 2002, the U.S. Department of Education defined scientifically-based educational research is that which uses: 

“ … experimental or quasi-experimental designs in which individuals, entities, programs, or activities are assigned to different conditions and with appropriate controls to evaluate the effects of the condition of interest, with a preference for random-assignment experiments, or other designs to the extent that those designs contain within-condition or across-condition controls”,

	This is similar to the standard employed by Dr. Shanahan and the National Reading Panel.

“To make a determination that any instructional practice could be or should be adopted widely to improve reading achievement requires that the belief, assumption, or claim supporting the practice be causally linked to a particular outcome. The highest standard of evidence for such a claim is the experimental study, in which it is shown that treatment can make such changes and effect such outcomes. Sometimes when it is not feasible to do a randomized experiment, a quasi-experimental study is conducted. This type of study provides a standard of evidence that, while not as high, is acceptable, depending on the study design” (NRP Report, 2000, p. 7).

The Reading League defines the science of reading as 

“a vast, interdisciplinary body of scientifically-based research about reading and issues related to reading and writing.  This research has been conducted over the last five decades across the world, and it is derived from thousands of studies conducted in multiple languages. The science of reading has culminated in a preponderance of evidence to inform how proficient reading and writing develop; why some have difficulty; and how we can most effectively assess and teach and, therefore, improve student outcomes through prevention of and intervention for reading difficulties” (The Reading League).
	
Just listen to the important words here: 
• vast interdisciplinary body
• scientifically-based research 
• thousands of studies
• preponderance of evidence 
• improve student outcomes 
• prevention of and intervention for reading difficulties

Such pretty words and phrases.  How could you not help but be impressed by them?  Who would not want to be such things? 

SoR Criteria
	Putting it all together,  the SoR seems to refer to: 
	1. Strategies and practices that a consensus of researchers has determined to lead to improved reading outcomes.  
	2. Strategies and practices that have been determined to be effective using experimental or quasi-experimental research.  
	3. Strategies and practices in which a causal variable has been linked by research to an outcome related to reading achievement
	4. Strategies and practices based on research conducted in actual classroom learning environments.  
	5. Strategies and practices that have been fairly compared to something similar.
	To be a science of reading means that you use strategies and practices that meet these five criteria (see Figure 2).  

             
Basic SoR definition = Using strategies and practices that have been shown to be effective using controlled experimental or quasi experimental research and conducted in classroom settings.

SoR Research Standards
	The five SoR criteria above are used to define the SOR research standard.  To be SoR-approved, this research standard must be used to determine the efficacy of a strategy, practice, or program and the soundness of a policy (see Figure 3).

SoR research standard = Controlled experimental or quasi experimental research, conducted in classroom settings, that establishes a causal link between a variable and a positive outcome related to reading achievement.  To advocate for one strategy, practice, or method over another, it must be fairly compared to a similar other.

	Even though I think the SoR research standard represents a very narrow view of what reading research is, and even though I think this narrow view presents a very distorted view of the very reality it seeks to present and re-present, I could live with it if … (dramatic pause) … SoR advocates making policy decisions would hold themselves to the same research standard that they appear to be holding teachers to.  That is, if mandated programs, curriculum, policies and such were all based on controlled experimental research, conducted in classroom settings, that established a causal link between some practice (variable) and reading achievement and fairly compared to something similar. 

	Alas, alack, this is not the case.

When a Standard is Not a Standard
	Let’s take a look at LETRS professional development program for teachers.  Dr. Louisa Moats developed this program.  In Minnesota as elsewhere, this is one of the state-approved professional development programs that teachers can take.  Taking a course from Dr. Johnson is decidedly not on the list.  After all, what could I possibly know about reading instruction?  I’m not generating millions of dollars of profit every year.  I don’t have a slick website with colorful slides and charts.  I don’t have conservative think tanks extolling my virtues.  I don’t rely on very important anecdotal evidence.  I don’t have simple answers for complex questions.  I obviously have no qualifications to say anything about reading instruction.

	Obviously.

	In looking at LETRS, one should be assured that one would be able to find at least one of the “literally thousands of studies, supported by hundreds of millions of research dollars, conducted across the world in many languages” that Dr. Moats is referencing.  We should be assured that these would demonstrate a causal link between LETRS professional development and (a) teachers’ ability to teach reading effectively or (b) readers’ ability to read effectively.   One should further be assured that one could find at least one of the “literally thousands” of controlled experimental research studies comparing LETRS to other forms of professional development.  This, after all, is the SoR research standard.

	However, … (another dramatic pause) … there are relatively few.  As we’ll see, the research studies that have been referenced don’t seem to meet basic SOR research standards (see Figure 4).  It seems as if Dr. Moats and her LETRS family are given a free pass.  The question is, why?  Why are they not held to the same scientific standards as reading teachers?  Can a standard be said to be a standard if it is not standardized?  If a tree falls in the middle of a forest, and a trained LETRS practitioner is not there to hear it, can it be said to make a sound?

         Figure 4. SoR research standards
1. Conducted in an actual learning environment			
2. Experimental or quasi-experimental design			
3. Treatment linked to teaching effectiveness			
4. Treatment linked to reading achievement			
5. Treatment compared to something else			
6. Supports the proposition/s for which it was cited			
7. Conclusions are based solely on the data			
8. The specific questions or purpose is clear			

So, if we want to be responsible consumers of educational research, and if we truly want to call ourselves a “science” of reading practitioners, at the very least we would expect the research standards in Figure 4 would be used to evaluate strategies, practices, and programs such as LETRS,