What stood out to you most from this research summary?

What stood out is that there is still so much work to be done to bridge literacy gaps.

Teachers in high-poverty schools are, on average, less informed about and committed to reading science than their colleagues in more affluent settings. Only 2 percent of teachers said their preservice program was where they learned the most about effective reading practices.

Ensuring our teachers, new and veteran have the appropriate research and information to support K-3 learners.

When teachers were asked to choose between two statements about reading comprehension, 58 percent chose the wrong one. They believed that reading comprehension is "a set of generalizable skills (like finding the main idea and making inferences) that can be applied to most texts." Only 42 percent correctly identified that reading comprehension depends primarily on "what students already know about the topic and the specific vocabulary used in a text.

A deep understanding of the science of teaching reading is what is required to really move the needle for developing great thinkers.

Colleges and universities aren't preparing teachers for reading instruction.

Students in high poverty schools who rely on teachers and need the most get the least when reading instruction is weak.

Teachers at high poverty schools experience apathy towards phonics even when students struggle. This is critical and leadership moves must be made to shift the mindset and ensure students most in need are becoming grade level readers.

Science is evolving how we think about how the brain learns to make sense of reading. As educators, it's our job to keep up with the science so we can do great things for kids.

Vocabulary and background knowledge play a huge role in reading comprehension.

One thing that stood out to me was the amount of teachers who are leaving college unprepared to teach. That's very shocking. In addition that amount of teachers who do not understand the science of teaching reading and how to truly teach comprehension.

The thing that stood out the most was the misconceptions teachers have about reading comprehension. Also, how poorly teachers are prepared when leaving their programs.

One thing that stands out most is that only 2% of teachers said their preservice teacher-preparation program was where they learned the most about effective reading instruction. By comparison, 33% said they learned the most on the job, and 21% through in-service professional development. That stood out because it suggests many teachers may enter the classroom without feeling fully prepared to teach reading using evidence-based practices. It also shows why ongoing coaching and professional development can be so important after teachers begin working.

58% of teachers surveyed chose the wrong answer about the meaning of reading comprehension.

The two areas that really made me pause was the gaps among students and the gaps in teacher understanding. Having worked in high-poverty schools my entire career, I've seen how students may be most at risk because they often have fewer resources outside of school to support literacy. However, what concerned me most was that teachers are also more likely to show gaps in understanding evidence-based reading instruction, particularly phonics. Together, these findings are very concerning.

Teachers who understand the science of reading produce better outcomes for students.

Science and Social Studies are critical to vocabulary acquisition and building background knowledge and should not be minimized or reduced for other things.

What stood out most was the equity concern. Students in high-poverty schools may be the most dependent on strong reading instruction, yet their teachers were more likely to be uncertain about phonics versus cueing. This reinforces the need for consistent, evidence-based reading instruction for all students.

What stood out most to me is that teachers are not prepared for teaching reading following their teacher prep programs. We see this year after year as new teachers join our campus and profession. This is compounded by folks that are still in prep programs and are coming to us as instructors instead of certified teachers. This places such importance on the need for job-embedded professional development and leadership on the campus that can support the learning daily.

I think the thing that stood out to me the most was teachers understanding of what reading comprehension is and how it differs so heavily from what Science of Reading says is reading comprehension. Teachers mistook strategies for comprehending as the definition of comprehension.

ThePedagogical Pushback stood out the most as I hear that often through the hallways but to see it in research is eye-opening. Veteran teachers who know "balanced literacy," know the data and results from that strucure so they are still hesistant when it comes to structured literacy. It is going to take several years of consistent implementation and results for teachers to "buy in."

The part that stood out to me most was the emphasis on knowledge. Especially in our setting, we have students who may not have the same background experiences or opportunities to build knowledge outside of school. It really made me think about how important it is for our teachers to intentionally build that background knowledge through what we teach, rather than assuming students already have it. We can't just teach the strategy, we have to give them the knowledge to make the strategy work.

Teachers who understand the science of reading produce better outcomes for students.

The information about reading comprehension and the percentage of teacher who did not correctly identify it

What stood out to me most was the finding that 58% of teachers still view reading comprehension primarily as a set of generalizable skills rather than something built through background knowledge and vocabulary. As an instructional leader, this makes me think about the difference between having strong instructional materials and actually understanding the research behind them. We can provide teachers with HQIM, but if teachers still approach comprehension primarily through isolated skills like main idea, inference, and summarizing, we may not get the intended impact. It reinforces the importance of professional learning that helps teachers understand not just what to teach, but why the curriculum is designed the way it is.

What stood out for me from the research summary is that evidence supports background knowledge and vocabulary as more important to reading comprehension than the skills we teach (such as making inferences, finding main idea and details, etc).

On a Title I campus, this reinforces the importance of making sure all of our students have access to rich content, vocabulary, and experiences at school. We cannot assume that every student comes to a text with the same background knowledge, so we have to be intentional about building that knowledge through strong Tier I instruction.

What stood out to me is the comment on Science of Reading momentum. I think there is a good chance that momentum could dissipate before teachers become really effective with it and students get the full benefits from Science of Reading instruction. There is a lot of learning left to do. If I am being completely transparent, as a district we did the Reading Academy modules but really did not do much with the learning. I wish we would continue the learning from the modules more intentionally.

Reading instruction should include both explicit, systematic phonics and comprehension. Over the years, I have seen the pendulum swing between narrowly focused approaches and whole language instruction. Students need strong foundational skills to read the words, along with vocabulary, language development, and comprehension instruction to understand what they read. I also believe teacher preparation needs more attention. Too many teachers enter the classroom without enough practical training in how to teach reading. College and certification programs should provide a stronger foundation, meaningful classroom practice, and opportunities to connect research to instruction. Our teachers deserve the preparation and ongoing support needed to help every student become a successful reader.

It is alarming how our teacher preparation programs are failing those who will be in America's classrooms trying to teach our children to read.

What stood out to me the most is how teachers in high poverty stricken schools do not favor phonics instruction, they favor cueing.

Most teachers said that they learned more from on the job training than their teaching programs or even college experience. I also thought the fact that there is a misunderstanding behind what comprehension actually is and how to teach it. I found truth in the fact that many teachers go back to the age old balanced literacy because that is what they were used to.

Several things stood out to me. The teacher prep programs can benefit a new teacher if they provide support and strong reading instruction, however we have had several teachers who have gone through some of the alternate online ones that receive little to no support. I have been a CIS for many years and have had to do more foundational training for reading than in years past. This goes along with teachers not understanding how to teach reading comprehension or even understanding important components. I went through some of the LETRS training and it was so insightful! We seem to make reading more complex with some of the reading programs that focus more on skills separately. We used to push background knowledge and I agree with the article, a lot of teachers don't understand the importance of it. The high poverty finding is not surprising because many times these are the students who lack experiences with content.

We still have considerable work to do in both changing mindsets AND building teacher skill for teaching students how to read.

Children who come from under-resourced homes depend on their teachers more than children who have compensating resources at home such as books, educated parents, and other enriching experiences that build background knowledge. When the reading instruction in high-poverty schools is weaker, the children who need the most get the least.