Rocket Science Revisited: Where Should Reading Research Take Us Next?

In this powerful episode, two of the most respected voices in literacy education—Dr. Louisa Moats and Dr. Tim Odegard—come together to discuss the urgent need for systemic change in how reading is taught, understood, and supported across the U.S. Drawing from decades of research, policy work, and classroom experience, they explore the persistent gaps between what science tells us about reading and what many educators are still expected to implement. Their conversation is candid, evidence-based, and deeply rooted in a shared commitment to literacy as a civil right.

Dr. Moats reflects on the evolution of her work, including the impact of her seminal paper “Teaching Reading Is Rocket Science,” and the barriers that continue to prevent widespread adoption of structured literacy. Dr. Odegard brings a complementary perspective from his leadership at the Tennessee Center for the Study and Treatment of Dyslexia, highlighting the importance of teacher preparation, data transparency, and the moral imperative to serve all learners—including those with dyslexia. Together, they challenge assumptions, clarify misconceptions, and call for courageous leadership at every level of education.

Listeners will walk away with a renewed understanding of what it means to teach reading well, and a renewed understanding of what is necessary to capitalize on the lessons of reading science.. This episode is essential for educators, administrators, policymakers, and advocates who want to move beyond buzzwords and toward meaningful, measurable change.

What Dr. Moats and Dr. Odegard will discuss: 

• Why “Teaching Reading Is Rocket Science” remains relevant today
• Priorities for improving implementation of evidence-aligned instruction
• Why higher education holds the key to sustaining literacy reform and preparing future teacher educators
• What the national landscape of dyslexia laws reveals about progress—and what’s still missing in impact research 
• Why current policies overemphasize foundational print skills while neglecting morphological and etymological depth in spelling and word study 
• How oral language and comprehension continue to be overlooked in screening, curriculum adoption, and teacher preparation 
• What Kansas and Ohio’s systemic literacy blueprints teach us about building coherent, statewide literacy systems 

Episode Transcript

SPEAKER_01 (00:00):
Welcome to EdView360.

SPEAKER_02 (00:05):
So we need more of those leadership development
opportunities that are run bypeople with real expertise.
And then I think when peopleunderstand what needs to be
done, if they have thetemperament to stick their neck

(00:26):
out and assert themselves, theywill succeed.
Of course, they have to have alot of personal characteristics
of encouraging people andbringing them along, getting
buy-in and all those things thathave always been the
characteristics of effectiveleaders.

SPEAKER_00 (00:41):
I know that right now what we need is fearless
leadership who's willing to leadthrough transjustice and
paradigms.
For too long, it's been aspecific reading disability.
It isn't.
It's one in written language.
That means reading and writing.
I've been using some basicexamples.
I don't know a child who canspell constitution, but can't
read it.
And I don't know a child who canwrite an essay about a grade

(01:04):
level understanding ofconstitution who can't read and
understand a grade level essayon it.
Those two things are parallel.
They're based on language.
And for too long, we've siloedthose and we haven't put those
together.

SPEAKER_01 (01:17):
You just heard from renowned literacy experts Dr.
Louisa Moates and Dr.
Tim Udegaard.
Dr.
Motz and Dr.
Udegaard are our podcast gueststoday on Edview360.

SPEAKER_04 (01:33):
Welcome to Voyager Silpress Learning's Edview360,
the podcast where we bringtogether leading voices in
literacy education to explorewhat works, what matters, and
what's next.
I'm your host, CassandraMontovani.
On our show today, we arehonored to have two of the most
respected figures in the field,Dr.
Luisa Moats and Dr.

(01:53):
Tim Odegaard.
This episode, Rocket ScienceRevisited, Where Should Reading
Research Take Us Next, takes acandid look at the urgent need
for systemic change in howreading is taught and supported
across the U.S.
We'll revisit Dr.
Moats' seminal work, TeachingReading is Rocket Science, and
hear Dr.
Odegaard's perspective ondyslexia, teacher preparation,

(02:15):
and the moral imperative toserve all learners.
Together, they'll challengeassumptions, clarify
misconceptions, and call forcourageous leadership at every
level of education.
Let's dive in.
So, first, to start things off,I'd love to hear from each of
you on a personal level.
Dr.
Odegaard, can you share thepersonal turning points that

(02:35):
made literacy and especiallyserving learners with dyslexia
such a deeply personal missionfor you?

SPEAKER_00 (02:41):
Yeah, thanks for having me.
The turning point really wasearly in life.
Learning to read and write, andthen reading and writing were
always extremely challenging forme.
Given how prolific I've beenwith writing now and how much I
have to read, most people wouldprobably find that a little
incredulous for me to say.
But I was identified very earlyas having real struggles with

(03:03):
the basic mechanic of readingthe English language or
language, which is reading, andthen the basic mechanic or one
of the basic mechanics ofwriting the English language,
which is spelling.
And we know that those aredefining characteristics across
all writing systems of what wecall dyslexia.
Now, for me, it really set aspark that I wanted to prove to

(03:24):
myself my worth, because part ofmy history is that I was
perceived to be very less thanwhen it comes to intellectual
capability of learning more,which again, I've become a brain
scientist.
So it's a little ironic that thechild who in early elementary
was thought as being the classDunts grew up to be a
well-published and well-fundedneuroscientist and helped to

(03:45):
develop actual brain imagingprotocols used on brain
scanners.
So it's a little ironic inhindsight, which makes my story
very compelling because you haveto realize that test given so
long ago was not acharacterizing, it wasn't an
accurate characterization of mytrue potential.
Now, I didn't start off inliteracy.
What I did was I started off asbeing a developmental cognitive

(04:08):
psychologist and I was trainedin that area.
And I looked at learning andmemory, potentially how you'd
apply that to forensic settingsas well as basic learning
mechanisms across the lifespan,early childhood and older
childhood.
And it was when I started todraft my postdoctoral fellowship
grant proposal for NICHD thatwas funded.
I shifted and I put researchinto and cross-training and

(04:29):
dyslexia and literacy.
So I shifted coming out of mydoctoral work into my
postdoctoral funded researchfrom NIH to look at that.
And that was the turning pointfor me.

SPEAKER_04 (04:38):
Wow.
Well, I just want to saycongratulations to you for not
allowing those early sort ofstigmas to shape your passion
for your work.
And to go a little off script,if you don't mind, I'd like to
just ask a follow-up question toyou on what you shared because
it is so personal.
If you were going back and youcould talk to your younger self,

(04:59):
just entering your dyslexiaresearch, what question would
you tell younger you to chasemore boldly or to stop avoiding?

SPEAKER_00 (05:08):
Oh, the younger me.
That's an interesting questionbecause the younger me was very
much in the basic mechanics andthe neurobiological mechanisms
and also the basic underpendingsof how we group letter chunks.
And I was using very basicperceptual processing tasks
developed by Ann Treesman, aworld-renowned researcher on

(05:30):
attention.
She was positioned towards theend of her life at Princeton.
She was the wife and partner ofDanny Kahneman.
So Danny won the Nobel Prize.
Anne won my heart with herresearch and methodology.
I was really interested in theorthographic patterning and what
Anne's question was what is afeature?
And my hypothesis, which I thinkhas been borne out more and

(05:50):
more, all those years ago, backwhen I was writing up my
dissertation and looking at thisin a memory perspective, I was
thinking this it's going to bescalable.
So that early in development, Ibet the orthographic chunks and
features might be the smallestunits of writing, such as
graphemes or even letters.
But then as we start to developand get more advanced, I bet we

(06:11):
start to get to larger chunks.
So that if I had divided thisline of research that was going
to use really quick perceptualprocessing in both proficient
adults as well as children withand without learning differences
to see the scalable differencesto where now we're at final
stable syllables such as T-I-O-Nor S-I-O-N.
We're at these different chunksto do it.

(06:32):
And I would be able to use 100millisecond precision to look
into those.
I think that was well ahead ofthe curve.
But then I would tell myselfthat only matters if it makes it
into classrooms, which I thinkis where my passion really led
me.
So it would be to also be braveand realize that a crooked path
might lead to something veryimportant.

(06:53):
And so don't be afraid to leaveacademia, come back to academia.
Don't be afraid to do moretranslational research.
And don't be discouraged ifpeople tell you that the
questions you're asking aren'tnecessarily meritorious from a
scientific standpoint.
Because sometimes the mostobvious questions to you are the
ones that seem like they're theleast important for anybody
else.

(07:13):
And so that's been really adefining feature of what I've
tried to have the courage to do.

SPEAKER_04 (07:18):
Absolutely.
Well, thank you so much forsharing.
And I know it's very personal.
And so I appreciate you sharingso candidly with us.
And Dr.
Moats, I want to turn thequestion a little bit to you.
You have been such a pillar ofthis industry.
And so you have seen the ups anddowns and twists and turns and
the crooked road, as Dr.
Odegaard mentioned.
So, what really keeps you sodeeply involved in this work?

SPEAKER_02 (07:42):
Okay, well, first of all, it's a privilege to be
having a dialogue with Tim andwith you.
Thank you for encouraging us todo this.
So I am not dyslexic.
I learned to read easily.
And in my first job, I was hiredas the secretary in the
neuropsychology laboratory atthe New England Medical Center

(08:04):
out of Wellesley College.
I was a little bitunderemployed, but my boss
thought I had more potential.
So he said, Well, you can be atechnician in neuropsychology if
you also type all the reports.
So I agreed to do that.
And my boss put a white coat onme and I started giving an
extensive battery ofneuropsychological tests to all

(08:26):
these people who came to theclinic.
And this was before neuroimagingexisted.
So when we had patients withneurological disease or injury
or suspected pathology of anykind, we would use these tests
to try to make inferences aboutwhere that problem lay in the

(08:48):
brain and which brain systemsmight be involved.
So that if there was an actualtreatment possible for the
person, that the neurosurgeon orthe neurologist would get some
guidance.
It was a very primitive scienceat the time.
But what interested me the mostwas the kids who were sent to
the clinic because they couldn'tread or write.

(09:11):
And the school districts in goodfaith would send them to us
hoping we would provide themwith some insight into what was
the matter.
And I remember my boss, who wasthe licensed neuropsychologist
of note, would put a reportabout three lines long saying we

(09:33):
couldn't find anything thematter with this child's brain.
So it was not our problem, kindof.

(10:20):
So fast forward when I had anaborted career in music
songwriting, went back to theneuropsychology clinic and
became the educationalspecialist.
I was told I needed a doctorate.
So I enrolled at Harvard in thegraduate program in reading and

(10:42):
language.
And that's when my big aha'soccurred because I began to
study language.
And all of a sudden, I gainedall these insights that I've
been writing about ever sinceabout the fact that reading is
dependent on language.
Reading is language.

(11:04):
So then fast forward a long timethrough I had a number of
different jobs and research andclinical work and policy, this
and that and the other thing.
And I became really passionateabout the fact that there were a

(11:24):
gazillion teachers, like theteacher I was, who had not had
the requisite training andbackground that would allow them
to do meaningful, effective workwith their students.
And that was when in 2000 Ipublished my speech to print
book.
I began writing a lot more.

(11:45):
Well, actually, I'd been writingfor a decade about all this, but
I didn't have a wide audience.
But when I really suck my neckout and said, look, we've got to
develop courses for teachers,that's when letters became a
reality.
And that's been my primary focusis still trying to campaign for

(12:06):
teacher education, educatoreducation, because we can write
policies and pass laws andmandate this and that and have
standards and whatever.
If the teacher doesn'tunderstand what they're doing,
who they should do it for, howthey should do it, and whether

(12:27):
or not it's being effectiveaccording to their intentions,
uh, we're not going to make thegains with the promise of the
science that we have.

SPEAKER_04 (12:38):
Absolutely.
And we're going to actually talka little bit about some of the
laws, but before we do that, Iwanted to go back to to talk
about speech to print because ithas shaped how thousands of
educators understand language.
But when you first published it,was there an idea you worried
might be too disruptive, butthen turned out to be an
essential component of laterwork?

SPEAKER_02 (12:59):
Oh, I was worried that no one would pay any
attention to it.
And that I would never have anyinfluence beyond a very small
group of educators that Iencountered through the
International DyslexiaAssociation, mainly where I was
a board member and an officerfor a long time.

(13:19):
And I would meet absolutelystellar individuals who knew a
whole lot and who were veryeffective.
But I was aware that they werelike 1% of the teacher
population.
So I thought I was writing for avery small audience.
In letters, what letters became,I had absolutely no clue that we

(13:44):
would find the audience that wehave found with that.

SPEAKER_04 (13:48):
And boy, have you.
I mean, it's been adopted at ascale that few professional
learning models have everreached.
So I'm so glad that she didn'tlet the concern of a small
audience stop you from pursuingthat work because you have made
such a difference.
So I want to circle back to someof the reading laws that have
come across the country.
So we've seen a wave of dyslexiaand science of reading laws come

(14:10):
out across the country, buttheir impact varies widely.
So I'm going to ask the both ofyou to share your thoughts on
what these laws reveal about theprogress we're making nationally
and what you both feel that thegaps are that remain in research
and implementation.
So Dr.
Odegaard, I'm going to startwith you, if you don't mind
answering that one for me,please.

SPEAKER_00 (14:29):
Oh, it's an interesting way of phrasing the
question.
So what do these laws say aboutthe progress that we've made?
Well, I think it kind of echoesback to Luisa's point, which is
there is a small, devoted groupof people who know quite a bit
and are very passionate and wantto.
And I think what we're seeing isthat there's still a very small

(14:49):
group that has grown across thestates, across the context of
North of the United States, andalso up to Canada and North, so
all of North America, who arevery devoted to finding levers
that they think they can pull tomake that change happen in the
classroom.
So what we're, I think whatwe're seeing is that there's a
very select group of people whoare highly motivated, are coming

(15:12):
to these conferences like theInternational Associate
Association, the Reading League,and other more grassroots types
of groups like decodingdyslexia, who are energized and
out there and they're pullingwhat they think is a lever that
makes sense.
And they'll go as far as to saythat there could be no change
without a legislative context inplace.
What the research is showing issaying that the impact these are

(15:33):
having has been very negligible,unfortunately, when you actually
do research like I've done toactually ask and use objective
data to say what has been theimpact.
A review done by ElizabethZagata and Michael Coyne says
that sadly, when it comes tothis type of research, impact
studies like I've done are veryscarce.
And so what we've learned andwhat we need more from research

(15:56):
is exactly what Michael andElizabeth called for.
More research that canconcretely tell us and provide
guidance on what we're learningand what we're seeing.
And what we're seeing is limitedapplication and translation into
classrooms.
So that means that we'll havelimited ability to make the
actual objective change that wewant, which is the lives of

(16:18):
children and literacy forchildren in the nation.

SPEAKER_02 (16:20):
Dr.
Mose, same questions to you.
Well, yeah, if I could say thatit is Tim Odegaard's research
that has reinforced for me somerealities that I've observed
informally, but that have greatimportance for the way we
proceed.
First of all, kids who are lesswell off economically are far

(16:46):
less likely to be identified ashaving reading problems that
need to be treated with extrasupport or intervention, let
alone a diagnosis of dyslexia.
And the more a school isafflicted with school-wide low

(17:09):
performance, the less likely itis that the problems of
individuals are going to beaddressed with the what we call
research-based instruction.
And furthermore, as we know frommultiple studies, that the kids
in those populations of lesseconomic advantage tend to be

(17:33):
kids of color.
And so we have these laws on thebooks now, which seem like a
step forward, and they are astep forward in building
awareness.
But in many states, those lawscame about because of the
advocacy of I hate to say it,but it's true, white privileged

(17:58):
parents who expected more oftheir schools and who had the
means, the time, they and thestrategic approach to affect
statewide legislation with theiradvocacy.
But what has happened is westill see just huge disparities

(18:19):
in the extent to which schoolsare embracing the real science
and not just giving lip serviceto it.
So there are those realitiesthere.
And then if I could talk alittle more about just in terms
of instruction, what I think themessages of research are, just

(18:39):
to be brief about this.
We could go on for a long time,but just to be brief about this,
there are two major aspects ofreading instruction.
I'm not even talking aboutspelling and writing yet.
But those are you have to teachthe kids how to read the words,
that's word recognition, andthey have to comprehend the

(19:00):
language in the text, academiclanguage.
That means their vocabulary,their ability to process the
syntax, their backgroundknowledge, their knowledge of
what to expect when they read acertain kind of a text, and all
those things.
That's in the comprehensionbucket.
Our science is telling us aboutgood practices that are very far

(19:23):
from being widely embraced.
And instead, what we have is, Ithink, on the word recognition
side, an earnest but naiveattempt to teach kids word
reading using a kind ofpiecemeal approach, like, okay,
I'm going to do some phonics,and I'm going to do some
morphology, and I'm going to dosome phoneme awareness with a

(19:46):
separate manual.
And those things don't add up.
The research tells us that thislesson needs to be integrated
with those components in ameaningful sequence, feeding off
of one another.
Furthermore, that wordrecognition work needs to be
integrated with the actualreading that kids do.

(20:07):
So there's transfer.
And very often what we're seeingis real compartmentalization of
these components that are nowenshrined in our laws.
Again, an earnest attempt in theright direction because it's
better than what was going onbefore.
But in order to translateeffectively, we have to get
across the idea of integrated,language-focused instruction.

(20:32):
And then on the comprehensionside, let's see, a short way of
saying this is we're not in ourclassrooms doing nearly enough
with in-depth, reflectivereading of challenging material
that requires the student tobecome comfortable with book

(20:54):
language and academic language,which is not the same as
conversational language.
And we're doing a lot ofsuperficial instruction in the
name of comprehension, which isnot going to boost our national
profile at this point.

SPEAKER_04 (21:10):
Well, it's interesting that you bring that
up because it was something Iwanted us to dive into as a
group, which is that thedevelopment of oral language and
comprehension are frequentlyoverlooked in screening and in
curriculum adoption.
So you've already touched alittle bit about what some of
the consequences of this neglectare, but how can some of these
systems correct that?
I'd like for you both to shareyour thoughts on this, if you

(21:32):
would.

SPEAKER_02 (21:32):
I'm going to pass that one to Tim because you, in
that in the issue of Annals ofDyslexia, has some profiles of
states that seem to be ahead ofthe game.
So what are they doing to bringpractice into line with
research?

SPEAKER_00 (21:51):
Yeah, the two profiles were done by two
different groups, one working inKansas, the other one working in
the context of Ohio.
Actually, the lead authors werenot necessarily in Ohio, but
were working with the state ofOhio.
What they're really goodexamples of is putting systemic
level things at place that wouldprovide structural resources
that would be able to help makealignment.

(22:14):
So one of the things that reallypopped out at me as I was
reading my colleagues' work asthey were reporting on these was
I do think that a coordinatedeffort to make sure that the
intent and the good faith intentby these advocates is followed
through.
Because what Luisa wasdescribing of this poorly
constructed, naive approach tothis, creates the ability for

(22:38):
research scientists to say thatthe applicants don't know the
science because that's not whatthe science would support.
And so that creates one groupthat should be in support of
this type of initiative becauseit should be them seeing the
translation of their science,but we're not seeing it.
And then the second group wouldbe the people who were naysayers
all along saying, and when wedon't get the results, we told
you it would be this all overagain.

(23:00):
And so the consequences of usnot having systemic and
structural pieces that canintegrate and coordinate with
higher education, to look atsyllabus, go in and look at
content, create alignment to theintentions, to have a pipeline
of pre-service educators comingout with better knowledge of the

(23:20):
linguistic components and thelanguage components that they're
wanting kids to be able tounderstand orally and be able to
understand in the written formand be able to express
themselves in both oral andwritten form.
You want them to be able to dothose things and some practical
awareness about what goodpractice looks like.
So they're actuallyinstantiating that in the
practical components, working tomake sure that there's now

(23:42):
in-service support so that theteachers who are in the field
who may have been let down inthe context of their higher
higher education, and or asshifts in policy are resulting
in large-scale adoption of newapproaches in their context to
let them have a fighting chanceto have the resources they need
to understand that.

(24:02):
And then also thinking about theinterface of how the leadership
will go in, the challenges thatI will say is that those are
examples of kind of intermediatelevel support.
The legislation pushing down tothe Department of Education at
the state level, creatingintermediaries at the local
context.
It all happens at the localcontext.
So if your schedule doesn'tallow for the time for something

(24:24):
to happen, it can't happen.
If your screening isn't alignedin a way, one of the other
groups of researchers, actually,two different groups of
researchers, screened educators,understanding and use of the
screeners that have beenlaunched in response to the
dyslexia and the literacylegislation.
They're ill-informed, they don'tfeel prepared, they don't know
how to use the data, they findthat the technology is often

(24:44):
missing and in place for the waythat these are being
administered, and they find thatthere's not the time they need
to administer it.
And so then they devalue it orthey don't even know how to
value the data that they'rebeing handed in this mandate.
And so I think that Kansas andOhio highlight how the
intermediates can come in.
But again, the one level downthat I know from working with

(25:05):
folks in those stateshistorically into today is that
the follow-through and theaccountability word isn't the
right one.
The support and the realizationof that into the local context
will be the driver of change.

unknown (25:19):
Dr.

SPEAKER_04 (25:19):
Motz, did you have some thoughts as well that you
want to understand?

SPEAKER_02 (25:22):
Yeah, as I think about what I would want to see
10 years down the road, I'vebeen around a long time and have
seen a lot of things come andgo.
And now everybody's spending alot of energy talking about AI
and this and that, the latestthing.
What I want us to do is remembersome very fundamental things and

(25:47):
not have these very fundamentalthings get lost in the maelstrom
of fads, fights, whatever goeson in education.
Number one, there is nosubstitute for the teacher when
it comes to language learning inthe classroom.
Kids do not learn language fromscreens.

(26:12):
They don't learn language fromeach other.
They don't learn it from TV,they learn from interaction with
better models and who can alsoencourage their language
development.
There's no substitute forreading aloud to kids.

(26:32):
That's not gonna go away.
And if any parent is listeningto this, an iPad is not a
substitute for a lap and a book.
Really important, and let's notsacrifice that.
And then in the classroom, wefind now some growing advocacy
for this.

(26:53):
Kids need to be reading realbooks, the whole book, not a
little excerpt.
And they need a teacher who hasbeen shown how and supported in
deep reading of the book.
So the book has to be worth deepreading.
Yes, it can't be superficial.
It has to have layers of meaningto uncover and talk about.

(27:17):
And we need to get back tohaving a classroom be a place
where people talk aboutmeaningful things and the book
that and the shared experienceof reading the book is the
focus.
And the teacher is capable ofmanaging that or guiding that
experience.

(27:38):
That's the heart of readinginstruction.
So as we look ahead, I just Iwant to take some of the fluffy
stuff out.
I would I and then people say,well, where do we get the time
to do this?
Well, you you make the time forthe most important things and
don't waste time with theancillary stuff.

(28:01):
Like, oh gee, if you're teachingkids how to spell, they don't
need to write every letter in adifferent color.
That is not efficient.
It's popular.
I could go on.
I'm not.

SPEAKER_04 (28:15):
No, I'm so glad you touched on the topic of AI
because we see it everywhere weturn these days.
And I know it does providebandwidth in certain capacities
and can become a really greattool.
But as we talk about the topicof dyslexia and we talk about
students who are in need ofintervention, firmly believing

(28:36):
that there is a place for printand an actual textbook in hand
and how the research showsthat's so much more impactful,
especially for that studentpopulation.
So, Dr.
Odegaard, would you mindweighing a little bit on your
take on sort of the AI's placewithin the classroom and how to
balance that AI and print withinthe challenges that the
classroom faces today?

SPEAKER_00 (28:57):
Well, I appreciate that.
I've been working with mycolleague Megan Gierka and a set
of advisors.
We've actually written a brieffor the International Social
Association thinking throughthis, and the premise being what
Louisa started with technologycan't be a replacement for human
interaction because it islanguage.
And so that interaction is goingto be key to it.
Really, what it forced us to dois to start from the premise of,

(29:19):
well, how does good learninghappen?
And what would good instructionlook like?
And where would the interface beto where, in a time-strapped
position, where would it be?
And most importantly, what Istarted to get a better
appraisal with as I was lookingat it is we have so little time
for kids to do the thing thatyou want them to do and the
ultimate end of everything.
So if it comes with work withfirst and second graders, really

(29:43):
working with reading words andreading them in context and
putting it into practice andhaving those.
So it really kind of boiled downto thinking through would this
be best to use in the way thatCarol Connor and her research
looked at with using machinelearning and algorithms to use
formative data that might becaptured to let the teachers
know where children's strengthand weaknesses are.

(30:04):
And what Carol's research reallyshowed was when she put teachers
up against her algorithm, heralgorithm was better at doing
what computers do good.
Look at good big data sets andfind patterns.
They're really good at it whenthey're trained well.
And so Carol was showing early,I mean, a long time ago, with
her A to I platform, some of thepromise of using technology to

(30:25):
augment and give data and tothink about what the time a
child might benefit the most ina program might be.
Also, would there be a way ofusing AI to generate ways for
teachers to think about theirinstructional approaches and to
create probes, prompts, andtypes of items that would fit in
to make it really good, thenreview those with deep knowledge

(30:49):
to look to see if those weregenerated in a way that would be
beneficial?
So creating the content thatwould be beneficial to
differentiate and intensifyinstruction for kids.
So then to be a teacher'sassistant in that way to build
out time.
There is also going to be theneed for our diverse learners
who take so much more time andpractice to answer a really

(31:11):
simple question.
Are we at the time now, since somany schools do put so much
money into computers that areinto computer programs that
we're going to think about whatthose are doing?
Very rarely are they actuallyhaving them read words.
Very rarely are they having themspell words.
They're normally proxies forthose things with mouse clicks

(31:31):
on a screen.
That learning from some industrydata that I've been proxy to
behind the scenes isn't as goodas a spelling task.
So again, that comes back to mybasic principle.
If you want kids to get betterat doing the thing, have them do
the thing.

SPEAKER_03 (31:48):
Voyager Sopras Learning is the reading,
writing, and math interventionspecialist.
With four decades of results, weprovide evidence-based
interventions and assessmentsthat help educators ensure
academic success for allstudents.
Learn more at VoyagerSopris.com.

SPEAKER_00 (32:40):
I mean, I know that Mark Seidenberg's name is thrown
around a lot, and he's known fora few things as far as the
research side of it.
And he creates thesecomputational models.
From a computational standpoint,they're actually pretty
simplistic because they're basedon these layers of
representations.
So they're not the mostcomplicated of neural models
that we have in this space froma science standpoint.
But the thing that he neveridentifies for you is those

(33:04):
models learn from feedback, justas children learn from feedback.
So when a child is able to be ina situation where they're able
to stumble along for themselvesand self-teach them as
autodidacts because they'reproficient enough to be able to
do that, they'll actually pickup a book and with a little bit
of instruction, they can kind oftake off.

(33:25):
I know that Mark likes to saythings like this.
But for the a lot of us and anon-trivial amount of us, it's
going to take a lot more becausespell check doesn't work for me
for a reason.
I spell words that arecompletely different words that
I can't recognize and read.
So to the extent to where Ican't self-correct myself, as
David Sherr would talk about inthis self-teaching hypothesis,

(33:46):
it means that certain learnerswon't benefit as much and they
can't give themselves thatcorrective feedback and fix up
that they need in the momentwhen it comes to word
recognition practice.
So to the extent that we mightbe able to leverage in those
settings, that would be reallygood.
The AI is also probably going tofind real traction in the
screening and theidentification, as researchers
like Laura Stacey and DonCompton continue something that

(34:09):
I know that Luisa and I havethought a lot about, which is
which items and orthographicpatterns and what types of
situations would give you themost diagnostic and how much you
customize screeners to pullthose apart.
So as we move into a newgeneration of adaptive testing
and computer adaptive testingthat's going to be fed
linguistic data and will uselarge data sets, being the

(34:31):
global we, because researchersare being funded right now to do
a developmental lexicon projectbased off of Babe Belova's work
at WashiU.
And I think that's reallypromising as we think about AI
and its benefits.
It can see the patterns.
And when we know how tostructure it, there's a lot of
risks.
So I we're also really hesitantto say it.
And a computer is not a teacher.

(34:52):
But where it can fit into goodpractice with good models of
instruction, that I think that'skey is we need to think about
how we take really goodinstruction and we create the
opportunity for AI to facilitateeducators to do that and then
give students the facility to dobetter practice to create that
information that they need intheir heads language.

unknown (35:11):
Yeah.

SPEAKER_04 (35:12):
Love that.
Dr.
Motz, any other thoughts youwant to share regarding your
take on AI?

SPEAKER_02 (35:17):
I am such a non-techie person.
Um I've never used it foranything that I know about
consciously.
I mean, I know it is using me inmultiple ways all the time.
And I know I will be draggedinto the modern age where AI is

(35:38):
perhaps a useful tool.
But I really it's interestingthat all that's going on, the
fervor and the discussion of AI.
And Tim, I I can't argue withTim about the potential for AI
to be used to help teachers bemore skilled and perhaps give

(36:00):
them more immediate feedbackabout the the dialogue that's
going on between them and thestudents.
For example, if we want thatdialogue to be getting at more
substance and lesssuperficiality, perhaps there
can be a little bug in theteacher's ear driven by a

(36:22):
computer that's listening tothis interaction, and say, why
don't you ask how come thestudents know that the character
is this way or that way?
And because trying to teachteachers how to do that without
a whole lot of training andfeedback is has proven to be

(36:45):
difficult.
So if there's a way to do itkind of in the moment, that
might be promising.
And then the focus could stillbe on the worthwhile text where
shared reading is a pleasure andsets kids up to be lifelong

(37:07):
readers.
So that's the other thing we'reseeing as a society is that
while we grapple with how toteach kids to read, to learn to
read, more and more we are allconcerned about the fact that
people don't read as they getolder.
And even in college, we've hadstudies from institutes of

(37:28):
higher education saying thatcollege students come in not
ever having read a book or notbeing able to handle a reading
list.
That was a white paper from thewhatever it is on higher
education just a couple of yearsago, that professors have
noticed a huge difference intheir students from even 10
years ago because of the amountof screen time, number one, and

(37:52):
also the way reading is taughtin our schools.

SPEAKER_04 (37:55):
Absolutely.
Wow.
Wow.
Well, I'm going to shift gears alittle bit and transition to
talk a little bit about data.
So data transparency is oftentalked about, but rarely
implemented well.
So, how do you feel thattransparent data at both the
classroom and state levels canbe leveraged to hold systems

(38:16):
accountable for the literacyoutcomes that we hope for?

SPEAKER_02 (38:20):
Well, I'll say something fairly general.
And I know Tim, this is reallyTim is much more of a researcher
and statistician than I am atthis point.
But while he's thinking, onelarge goal that I think we need
in education is to align what weteach with what we test.

(38:43):
Because right now we're testingkids a lot on stuff that they
haven't necessarily been taught.
And there's this misalignment.
And I don't think this happensin European countries, for
example.
I think in European countriesthere's a curriculum that
outlines content that teachersshould be teaching instead of

(39:08):
these general goals that we havein our standards about kids
finding the main idea.
Well, finding the main idea isvery different if you're reading
about the American Revolution orif you're reading about
migrating habits of birds.
And what we do is we put thesetests together that have short
passages about any topic underthe sun, and the kids may or may

(39:32):
not know.
And then we know that theirbackground knowledge affects
their performance on the test.
But when you're done, you get ageneric picture of a kid's
ability to perform on that testrelative to other kids who took
the test.
But we don't have a goodalignment between let's call it

(39:52):
a triangle, what teachers aretaught to do the content that
they're supposed to be teaching.
And the tests that we give tokids to evaluate whether or not
they've learned these importantthings in social studies,
science, literature, and thenmath, the arts, you name it.

(40:13):
So that's my thinking.
That I I don't, it's like thisbig readjustment needs to happen
in the whole system to have thatalignment occur.
Absolutely.
Dr.
Odegaarden, your thoughts?

SPEAKER_00 (40:26):
Well, I think that's a good setup.
And I didn't quite know what Iwas going to go.
Because the spirit of thequestion really is that there's
a lot of movement in legislativehouses for accountability for
education.
Different states are passingthese and implementing these
dashboards.
I know that I'm here inTennessee, and our group score
was just holding a webinar onusing the new Tennessee

(40:46):
dashboard so that parents andothers can see into the
classrooms and into the schoolsto see kind of performance data.
I know that Florida has been inaligned and got a screener that
was going to hold accountabilityeven earlier in the process,
starting in kindergarten andfirst with their state adopted
screener.
So I understand the spirit ofit, but I think what Louisa is
highlighting is really criticalto think about what we measure

(41:09):
and then what the ultimateoutcome is.
And it highlights what we knowabout research and also where
some of our blind spots are.
And also when we when we thinkget too concrete where we miss
the opportunity.
And I know that oral languagecame up earlier.
And so one of the challenges hasbeen that when I work with
high-level folks in largedistricts, some in Florida, some

(41:29):
in other places, or states, somein the south, some in the east,
some in the west, they'reidentifying that the diagnostics
of their screeners aren'tcapturing the kids who are going
to go on and not do as well asthey need to on those
high-stakes tests that Luis istalking about.
And so one of the workinghypotheses are is based off of
our LARC study that the USfederal government funded at the
very high dollar amount, whichwas longitudinally following

(41:52):
language and comprehensiondevelopment.
And one of the interestingthings is that in the early
grades, your word abilities aregoing to be the best predictor
of your reading comprehension.
And so they account foreverything.
Of course, we're going tostatistically or we're going to
follow where the data tell us togo.
So the best diagnostics from ascreening standpoint and from a
measurement standpoint is to bemeasuring can they read the

(42:12):
words.
Now, why is that?
Well, it's because in the earlygrades, late kindergarten, first
grade, they're really simpletext.
The word structure, the textstructure is so simple.
The background knowledge doesn'treally need it.
You're going to be able to readit, understand it, and you
probably have a little bit ofbackground knowledge because
it's going to be kind of apassage about Tim and his dog
walking to the woods, going onan adventure, things that kids

(42:36):
are likely going to know about.
There might be some culturaldifferences that we need to take
into account, but often thoseare kind of washed out of that
as far as like making sure thatthey're okay.
What we're missing is that, andwhat they say is that, well,
they're doing just fine on thosescreeners, a lot of kids, and
they get to that third-gradetest.
Now we have retention laws andthey don't do well a lot.
What happened?
Well, what we find from, let'ssay, Tiffany Hogan's research,

(42:58):
Susan Adloff's research withTiffany and others is that all
of a sudden, measures that werein kindergarten weren't
predictive of readingcomprehension early, are now
more predictive than the wordreading ability later on, let's
say in late second, third grade.
And why is this now?
Well, the text structure hasgotten so much more dense.
The words in it are much biggerand more complex.

(43:20):
And simply reading the words andmaybe knowing what a story is
about isn't going to besufficient anymore.
Those earlier abilities in orallanguage and those comprehension
strands of oral language nowmean a lot.
And so the predictive value isdevelopmentally shifted.
And so it raises thisinteresting question.

(43:40):
We shouldn't necessarily bereading measuring oral language
to find your classic dyslexicbetter in those grades, but we
probably should do a better jobto make sure that we are
teaching to the full spectrum oflanguage development and giving
them the skills to set them upfor success later on.
Now, Louisa made a good point.
It might be that we're notteaching the text structure in a

(44:02):
disciplinary way early enough toreally make them understand how
they should attack differenttexts and the approach they
should use with different ones.
That's what she's highlighting.
Now, that might matter and thatmight account for some stuff.
But I will say that my hunttells me as I talk to certain
states, why they're motivated tomaybe bring in a language screen
earlier is because they'rehopeful that by identifying kids

(44:23):
whose language needs to beelevated so that their
comprehension skills are beingelevated and not relying on
written language as a gatekeeperto tell you that they will be
able to better find kids whowill not do all that high-stakes
test, might be able to developsimple decoding abilities, but
later on start to struggle.
Historically, Hollis,Scarborough, and Don Compton and

(44:45):
even Hugh Katz have called thisat a late emerging type.
Me and Tiffany Hogan jokebecause it's like, well, if you
would have looked for them alittle earlier, you might have
found them.
So I'm hopeful that I know thatI'm motivating and trying to get
into some different types ofresearch questions to say, I'm
not arguing that the researchwasn't right.
I'm arguing, were we notmeasuring the right things early

(45:06):
to see the benefit ofinstructing certain things and
bringing it online so it'llcontinue to develop and we can
elevate it in certain classes ofkids.
It's a good hypothesis, whichneeds to be tested.

SPEAKER_02 (45:16):
That's really important.
I just want to second what Timsaid that the measurement of
language in preschool kids orbefore kindergarten is a
powerful predictor of who'sgoing to be able to comprehend
what they read after thirdgrade.
That's that, and that is afinding that's been replicated a

(45:37):
number of times.
But because it's even more clearthat's the case with better
measurements, it also points usin the direction, once again,
and this is not new news.
It's just that we've got to getpeople to pay attention to the
importance of finding kids earlyand giving them instruction, I

(46:02):
could use that word, in an earlychildhood to develop, design to
develop their languageabilities.
And that we see from studies wewere hearing about from the
language conference at Big Skythis summer, those interventions
make a significant difference,especially with kids who come

(46:27):
from more impoverishedbackgrounds, with who are not
exposed to the language modelsor not read to as much and all
that.
The way we level the playingfield is not to wait until third
grade to retain them becausethey haven't met the standard.

(46:47):
The way to level a playing fieldis to get those kids as early as
we can in their development.

SPEAKER_04 (46:56):
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
That's such an important pointthat I hope our listeners really
grab a hold of.
And now you both have been justsuch courageous leaders in your
own rights.
But I want you to both to weighin on what does courageous
leadership look like in literacyreform today?
And how can leaders be supportedto make difficult evidence-based

(47:18):
decisions?
Loaded question.

SPEAKER_02 (47:21):
Well, for one thing, we need some leadership
academies where leadership, wecan't just kind of wait for it
to happen.
We can't hope that those rareindividuals who transform school
districts because theirleadership will become more
numerous.
I think we have to be moredeliberate about it.

(47:42):
We have to have institutes forsuperintendents and principals
and the people, thedecision-making level in the
school system hierarchy.
And universities can be moreinvolved in this as well by
housing institutes like that.
But first of all, they need agrounding in what we mean by the

(48:05):
science of reading, so thattheir confusion about the term.
Reed Lion has a little papergoing around right now about
having to clarify in his work,clarify the difference between
the science of reading andstructured literacy.
Yeah, structured language andliteracy.
Whereas one is a vast body ofwork that resides in journals

(48:32):
and textbooks, and the other isa set of principles for
instruction.
And they are not the same thing.
But unless people have anopportunity, the potential
leaders have an opportunity tolearn exactly what's what and
what does it look like.
And what do we want to havehappen?
And what does the science reallysay?

(48:54):
And get them away from thesuperficial discussions that
happen in social media.
That's deadly.
So we need more of thoseleadership development
opportunities that are run bypeople with real expertise.
And then I think when peopleunderstand what needs to be

(49:19):
done, if they have thetemperament to stick their neck
out and assert themselves, theywill succeed.
Of course, they have to have alot of personal characteristics
of encouraging people andbringing them along, getting
buy-in and all those things thathave always been the
characteristics of effectiveleaders.

SPEAKER_00 (49:38):
I think leadership looks different depending upon
who's doing the leading, as faras are you an organization out
front leading driven by aleadership team, if you're a
person.
And I want to go back tosomething.
So Reed and I've done a secondcommentary that we just released
and really clarifying whatstructured literacy is.
And of course, what I did was Ipulled together documents that I

(49:59):
helped to craft from theInternational Sex Association,
as well as a fact sheet onstructured literacy.
And Louisa wrote that back in2020.
And what did Louisa say withinthe first paragraph?
Structured literacy is not thesame as science, is not the
science of reading.
So I think that good leadershipmakes sure that what you're
doing is putting forth accurateinformation.

(50:19):
If you want to be out therefront leading and communicating,
you need to do your own homeworkfor yourself.
And so as Louisa always holdsanybody and me in particular
accountable for, is it soundslike the first step, Tim, is for
you to go and read the researchor go and do your homework
first.
Thankfully, I know quite a bitabout structured literacy.
So I was good there.

(50:41):
But I it wasn't without goingback and reading Louisa's fact
sheet.
It wasn't without going back andreading what was on the
International Sex Association'swebsite.
And it wasn't without going backand reading Louise Spears
Swirling's white paper that Ihelped to contribute to, along
with Stephanie Alitabe andothers.
I went and I first groundedmyself in what came first.
And so that I knew that I couldspeak from a point of clarity on

(51:05):
my own behalf.
And I don't know how often wehave that.
So organizational leadership,let's say from the International
Sex Association, if you want tobe a science-led group, means
that as science updates yourknowledge, you need to make sure
that you are consistent.
And when people come to yoursite, you find consistent
information.

(51:25):
And when I went to the site forstructured literacy, for
example, I found consistentinformation.
Now you need to make sure thatyou're modifying and updating.
This isn't a static field.
Structured literacy will adaptand change.
I know that there's effortsright now to actually bring more
oral language and make it evenclearer and more transparent.
I think that it's a time to talkabout the International Sexy

(51:45):
Association standards.
I want to make sure that thoseare up to date.
We should be leadingorganizationally with these
pieces like a definition, likestandards, to make sure that we
are honestly translating to bestpractice.
Other way of leading well is todo what you will always hear
Louisa do, which you'll hearsomeone like Reed do, like

(52:08):
myself do.
I've already modeled it, whichis am I stating a truth that we
know or a hypothesis that Ithink is worth us testing in
laboratories of schools undertight conditions and doing it?
I'm not sure how much addedvalue is going to come if we
start doing more languagescreening in pre-K and K, for
example.
I think it's worth testing.
And I think it's worth uslooking at what will happen.

(52:30):
I think it's worth us going tothe literature and making good
estimates.
But I know that right now whatwe need is fearless leadership
who's willing to lead throughtransgestions and paradigms.
For too long, it's been aspecific reading disability.
It isn't.
It's one in written language.
That means reading and writing.
I've been using some basicexamples.

(52:51):
I don't know a child who canspell constitution but can't
read it.
And I don't know a child who canwrite an essay about a grade
level understanding ofconstitution who can't read and
understand a grade level essayon it.
Those two things are parallel.
They're based on language.
And for too long, we've siloedthose and we haven't put those
together.
So Young Suck Kim has abeautiful treatise on this.

(53:12):
It'll come out from Guilford,where she's talking about and
translating that research.
I know there's other scholarswho are making more
teacher-focused and accessibleones.
Young's is accessible but higherlevel, and others are writing
it.
That connection will be key.
So that's one paradigm shiftthat we're in right now.
And the fact that I had to argueabout keeping spelling and the
definition of dyslexia is justsilly to me at this point

(53:34):
because I don't know a child whocan spell a word but can't read
it.
I'm going to have a study that'sgoing to come off of this where
I actually look at data from7,000 kids, showing that those
are not profiles that we seevery often.
And I also think that the otherparadigm shift is to have an
honest conversation about orallanguage and the fact that we
should be screening, as Louisasaid a lot earlier and tracking

(53:55):
those and the experiment ofreal-world settings and doing
more observational naturalisticstudies on that as we move to
certain types of assess ways ofthinking about it.
So I think those are two bigparadigm shifts.
The fact that we're going toground this in language, and one
shift that has to happen is totalk about written language, and
that's what literacy is.
And then the second paradigmshift is to honor the roots of

(54:17):
written language as beingprimarily in language.

SPEAKER_04 (54:20):
Wonderful.
And I want to kind of close theloop on a conversation starter
that we had at the beginning ofthe talk today, where you both
shared your personal sort ofdriver in the mission of this
work.
And Dr.
Motes, you as an early educator,Dr.
Odegaard is your experience as astudent with dyslexia.
So both of you sitting kind ofback in those seats, if today's

(54:42):
early career educators couldtruly understand just one thing
about dyslexia and readingdevelopment, what should it be
and why that thing?
So Dr.
Motz, I'll ask you to answerfirst, and then Dr.
Odegaard, if you wouldn't mind.

SPEAKER_02 (54:58):
If they could understand one thing, the start
point, just to understand thatthe word dyslexia means
difficulty with language.
Still, I as much as has beenwritten about this, it is not
uncommon still to see kids withdyslexia diagnosed or not

(55:22):
diagnosed, be referred tooptometrists for eye movement
training, or seeing learningspecialists afflict hundreds of
flashcards on kids as if visualimaging and memorization of
words is what it's all about.

(55:44):
I mean, I still see this.
And the idea that vocabulary hasto be taught as a representation
of language and all that thatmeans sound, spelling, and
meaning and context allinfluencing how that written
language works.
If I could get that across as astarter, I find that actually

(56:08):
arriving at that point uhinvolves a lot of hours of
professional development.
And then if somebody really getsit, then they're set off and
running to be a reallywell-qualified, effective
practitioner because they'llcontinue to educate themselves.
Thank you.
Dr.
Odegaard?

SPEAKER_00 (56:29):
Well, I would say it's persist.
That's a key change interminology, this in the 2025
revision of the idea definitionof dyslexia, and it replaces so
much baggage.
But of course, if you want to bea good educator, you persist.
You persist for those kids whostruggle.
And it's through that persistentnature of their struggles and
the crucible of good instructionthat we find the kids who are

(56:53):
the ones who really should getthe label of dyslexia if we want
to have this label bemaintained.
Because there's so much goodthat can happen.
We early identify and weremediate the ones who are so
much easier to remediate.
We're left with the ones who aresmaller in number and really
have these persistentchallenges.

(57:13):
And it is language, and dyslexiais primarily characterized at
the word level, the lexicallevel of language.
And we know that theco-occurrence of broader
language problems is real.
And when we borrow the DorothyBishop and Maggie Snowing
approach to developmentallanguage disability and dyslexia
is being these separable,independent constructs that can

(57:34):
overlap, it lets us know thatlanguage is key to both of them.
And with dyslexia, it's theprinted form at the lexical
level with reading and spelling,and that it's the persistent
nature of those that's key.
And it isn't necessarily that acognitive test is going to be
the crucible that will elucidatewho is the real dyslexic versus

(57:54):
not.
And I say that with a person, ifyou ask me my early life as a
researcher, the first study Idid on dyslexia was a brain
imaging study.
And I wanted to know if therewas a neurobiological
underpinning to the ones whowere the most resistant and
persistent in how they respondedto even the best of
intervention.
And there were subtledifferences and they are

(58:15):
distinguishing.
So when you look at my dyslexiaresearch, you will find a common
theme.
When I'm actually working withkids, I'm asking a fundamental
question.
What instructional approachesare going to help us identify
the ones who are mostpersistent?
And how might we now makechanges to remediate even their
needs?
And how do we address themdifferently?

(58:36):
It's one that Stephanie Altava'sasked for most of her career,
along with Doug Fuchs andothers.
I know Don Compton has been keyin this, but the challenge we
have, and for those teachers, isyou're part of the solution.
Because if we don't have goodinstruction for all the kids,
and we teach the ones who trulycan learn with moderate to ease
how to do that, where will weever find, as Louisa said, my

(59:00):
research highlights, the logicalin game that 65% of the kids in
the school context havedyslexia?
They don't.
And they don't have to be 65% ofthe kids struggling.
And so when we can find the kidswho truly are persistently poor
responders to instruction and inmoderate levels of intervention,
you start to use the instructionto discriminate and to pull out

(59:24):
and to identify those who arereally struggling.
And that's key.
It takes good systems.
Until everyone can read, we cannever address the needs of the
one to five percent who will bethe most persistently difficult
to teach to read in spell words.

SPEAKER_04 (59:38):
Thank you for that.
Well, we are nearing our time,but you both have such amazing
insights to share.
Is there anything that wehaven't had a chance to talk
about that you really want toleave our listeners with today?
Dr.

SPEAKER_02 (59:53):
Moats, start with you.
Well, when there are people likeTim Odegaard working on these
problems.
As you can see, extremelyknowledgeable, persistent,
mission-driven and brilliant.
Gives me hope.
Absolutely.

(01:00:13):
Talk to it again.

SPEAKER_00 (01:00:14):
When we have people like Louisa who have written
seminal texts that are based offof really good information,
which most of has not shifted inresponse to the research that
we've done, I think that westand on a solid foundation of
knowledge to build off.
It just so happens we call thatthe science of reading.
And one translation of thathappens to be called structured
literacy.

(01:00:35):
And the science of reading isprobably a term that needs to
paradigm shift too, becausehonestly, that body of reading
is a research is about readingand writing.
We just haven't really talked asmuch about the writing strand of
the parts of it.
But I think that's what I'd liketo say is just my gratitude for
Louisa for showing us the wayand to highlighting the rock

(01:00:55):
that we have to stand on.

SPEAKER_04 (01:00:56):
Thank you both so much.
This has been a fantastic,insightful discussion.
And we are so lucky to have bothof you fighting the good fight
for our students and oureducators.
So thank you both.
Today's conversation with Dr.
Louisa Motz and Tim Odegaardreminds us that teaching reading
is not just about methods, it'sabout justice, equity, and

(01:01:17):
preparing every child forsuccess.
The science of reading has givenus the tools, but it's up to the
leaders, institutions, andcommunities to act with courage
and consistency.
If you're an educator,policymaker, or advocate, we
hope this episode inspires youto push for evidence-aligned
instruction, transparentoutcomes, and systemic reform.

(01:01:39):
Literacy is a civil right, andthe time to act is now.
Thank you for joining us onEdview 360.
Please be sure to subscribe,share this episode, and continue
the conversation about what ittruly means to teach reading
well.
Until next time, keep learning,keep leading, and keep moving
literacy forward.

SPEAKER_01 (01:02:00):
This has been an Edview 360 podcast.
For additional thought-provokingdiscussions, sign up for our
blog, webinar, and podcastseries at
VoyagerSopris.com/slashEdview360.
If you enjoyed the show, we'dlove a five star review wherever
you listen to podcasts and tohelp other people like you find

(01:02:22):
our show.
Thank you.