Science of reading and structured literacy

What do Odegard, Gierka, and Lyon have to say about the meaning ofd these terms?

Over on Reid Lyon’s ‘stack, Timothy N. Odegard, Megan V. Gierka, and Reid himself published “Clarifying Structured Literacy: Moving the Conversation Forward” 31 July 2026. The article provided the authors’ reflections on the meaning of widely used terms “science of reading” and “structured literacy” one encounters in contemporary discussions about literacy, reading, and related matters.

Here is how the article begins:

Over the past several years, terms such as the Science of Reading and Structured Literacy have moved rapidly from research and professional guidance into public discourse, policy language, and classroom implementation. This increased visibility reflects a growing commitment to grounding literacy instruction in evidence. At the same time, a familiar challenge in education has surfaced: shared terminology is often adopted more quickly than shared understanding.

In a recent commentary, one of us identified a central problem underlying many current debates about reading instruction—the persistent use of imprecise language and false dichotomies that obscure the complexity of learning to read and write. That commentary was intentionally diagnostic. Its purpose was to explain how unclear definitions and binary framings limit productive dialogue and contribute to confusion in both policy and practice. The present commentary represents a natural next step in that conversation. Rather than revisiting debates or advancing a corrective argument, our goal is to clarify what is meant by “Structured Literacy,” to articulate its scope, and to address points of misunderstanding that have emerged as the term has gained widespread use.

We approach this task in a spirit of shared learning. Definitional confusion is not unusual when research-informed concepts are translated into educational policy, legislation, and large-scale implementation. Clarifying meaning, therefore, is not about adjudicating positions but about supporting a more stable professional understanding that can guide instruction, policy, education preparation, and practice.

The article provided a valuable perspective on the meaning of “structured literacy” and “science of reading” from folks who have well-grounded views of the matters. I encourage readers of Special Education Today and other people interested in these topics to read “Clarifying Structured Literacy: Moving the Conversation Forward.” (While you’re there, you might also want to subscribe to Reid lyon’s ‘stack.}