What the Science of Reading Really Includes
In this video, Dr. Justin Baeder discusses why the science of reading is real and why both phonics and knowledge building matter.
Key Takeaways
- Science of Reading Exists - Justin argues that the science of reading is real, established, and not a political invention.
- Phonics Is Essential - Students need explicit phonics instruction because decoding is a necessary foundation for reading.
- Knowledge Builds Comprehension - Students also need systematic background knowledge to understand what they read.
- Both Parts Matter - Phonics and knowledge building do different jobs, and neither one is enough on its own.
- Schools Know What Works - Justin argues that the problem is not mystery but inconsistent use of strong curriculum, tutoring, and proven practices.
Transcript
There is no science of reading, according to the esteemed education historian Diane Ravitch. And whenever I see a statement like this, I have to wonder what kind of echo chamber that person is living in. I have to wonder how you can read articles in 2026, how you can read books in 2024, and come to the conclusion that there is no science of reading. Yes, there is. There's a science of reading. It gets complicated.
There's a lot of nuance to it, but it boils down to two things. And often when people downplay the science of reading, they ignore one of those two things. They say, well, yes, phonics, but phonics isn't enough. Phonics doesn't deal with comprehension. Well, the second piece of the science of reading, in addition to phonics, is knowledge building. You have to systematically build students' knowledge of the world because you can't comprehend text that is about something that you don't understand, right?
You have to build students' knowledge systematically. And this is what E.D. Hirsch has been saying for decades. This is what the Core Knowledge Foundation has been providing curriculum on for decades. This is what Natalie Wexler has been writing about for half a decade, that we need to build students' knowledge.
And yes, we need to teach phonics, but knowledge and phonics do two different things that are both essential for reading. And you can define the science of reading however you want, but it exists, right? There are things that are necessary. There are things that are working and that are undeniably necessary if we want all students to learn how to read. And I believe that we can teach all students to learn to read. We know how to do it.
We know what it takes. We're not consistently doing it, right? There are lots of gaps. I think we need more tutoring. I think we need, you know, better curriculum to be in place in more places. We have the curriculum we need.
Often bad curriculum is used. But we can teach all kids to read, right? There is no mystery about this. The science of reading is not a conservative plot. That's kind of a strange thing to find in Diane's blog post. I don't think there's any kind of, you know, conservative plot there.
motivated by anything other than a desire to get people to read. And I don't think it is a conservative plot to say that phonics works. I think it's just a fact about the world. And if you want to politicize that, go ahead. But I think that's a bad idea. I think we need to come together around what works.
And we know phonics and knowledge building work. And that's not even controversial. So why are we having this conversation in 2026? Let me know what you think.