The Science of Reading Monopoly: How Corporate Interests are Shaping Literacy Policy
In July 2023, Wisconsin passed Act 20, a sweeping “literacy law” that mandates the use of instructional practices and materials aligned with the so-called “science of reading” (SOR) approach. This legislation bears a striking resemblance to California's proposed AB 2222, which similarly seeks to impose a narrow, phonics-heavy pedagogy on all schools in the state. Whilst proponents argue that these laws are ‘evidence-based’ solutions to the ongoing ‘literacy crisis,’ a closer examination reveals a more troubling reality: the SOR band wagon’s successful capture of government policy, the creation of monopolies for its preferred products, and a failure to serve a significant portion of the student population.
The SOR approach, which emphasises systematic phonics instruction and a limited set of measurable skills, has gained significant traction in recent years, thanks in large part to the efforts of well-funded corporate interests. These entities have a vested interest in promoting SOR-aligned curricula, assessments, and training programs, as they stand to profit handsomely from the widespread adoption of their products. By lobbying for laws like Wisconsin’s Act 20 and California’s AB 2222, they have effectively secured a government-mandated monopoly, forcing schools to use their materials and funneling public funds into their coffers.
However, the SOR movement’s dominance comes at a steep cost for the estimated 40% of students who are gestalt processors - individuals who learn best through holistic, context-driven methods rather than the atomistic, skills-based approach favored by SOR. As a gestalt processor myself, I know firsthand the frustration and alienation of being subjected to instructional methods that are fundamentally incompatible with my learning style. By enshrining SOR as the only acceptable approach to literacy education, laws like Act 20 and AB 2222 marginalise and disadvantage a significant portion of the student body, denying them access to the strategies and supports they need to succeed.
Moreover, despite decades of efforts to promote SOR-style instruction, the approach has consistently failed to raise reading proficiency rates above the 70% threshold. This stubborn reality suggests that the SOR model, whilst perhaps effective for some students, is not the panacea its proponents claim it to be. By ignoring the needs of gestalt processors and other neurodivergent learners, the movement is not only perpetuating educational inequity but also limiting its own efficacy.
As policymakers continue to debate the best way forward for literacy education, it is crucial that we recognise the dangers of allowing corporate interests to dictate pedagogical practices and the importance of embracing a more inclusive, neurodiversity-affirming approach. Laws like Wisconsin’s Act 20 and California’s AB 2222 may be well-intentioned, but they ultimately serve to entrench a narrow, exclusionary vision of reading instruction that fails far too many students. It is time for a new paradigm, one that values the diverse ways in which individuals learn and empowers all students to reach their full potential as readers and thinkers.
Background
To understand the limitations of laws like Wisconsins Act 20 and California’s AB 2222, it is essential to first examine the SOR approach that they seek to mandate. The SOR movement is based on a particular interpretation of reading research that emphasises the importance of systematic, explicit instruction in phonics, phonemic awareness, and other foundational skills. Proponents argue that these skills must be taught in a specific sequence and mastered before students can move on to more advanced aspects of reading, such as comprehension and critical thinking.
However, this narrow focus on discrete skills fails to account for the existence of gestalt processing - a fundamentally different way of learning that is estimated to be present in approximately 40% of the population (aka, the forgotten 40). Gestalt processors, like myself, learn best through holistic, context-driven methods that prioritise meaning-making and the big picture over isolated skills. We excel at pattern recognition, analogical reasoning, and creative problem-solving, but may struggle with tasks that require breaking information down into smaller, decontextualized parts.
For gestalt processors, the SOR approach can be deeply frustrating and even counterproductive. The emphasis on memorising phonics rules and drilling isolated skills feels disconnected from the larger purpose of reading, which is to make sense of text and engage with ideas. We may struggle to master these skills in the absence of meaningful context, leading to feelings of failure and disengagement. Furthermore, the rigid, one-size-fits-all nature of SOR instruction leaves little room for the kind of flexibility and adaptability that gestalt processors need to thrive.
This tension between the SOR approach and the needs of gestalt processors is not merely theoretical - it has real-world consequences for student outcomes. Despite decades of efforts to promote SOR-style instruction, reading proficiency rates in the United States have remained stubbornly low, with only around 70% of students reaching proficiency by the end of third grade. This persistent achievement gap suggests that the SOR model, whilst perhaps effective for some students, is not the panacea its proponents claim it to be.
In fact, the SOR movement's singular focus on a narrow set of skills may be actively contributing to the marginalization and underperformance of gestalt processors and other neurodivergent learners. By failing to recognize and accommodate the diverse ways in which individuals process language, the approach is effectively shutting out a significant portion of the student population, denying them access to the educational opportunities they need to succeed.
If we are to truly address the literacy crisis in this country, we must move beyond the limitations of the SOR model and embrace a more inclusive, neurodiversity-affirming approach to reading instruction. This means acknowledging the existence and validity of gestalt processing, providing teachers with the training and resources to support a range of learning styles, and creating educational environments that value and nurture the unique strengths of all students. Only by recognising the complexity of human cognition and the diversity of learning needs can we hope to build a literacy education system that truly leaves no child behind.
Corporate Influence and Government Capture
The rise of the SOR bandwagon cannot be fully understood without examining the powerful corporate interests that have driven its ascendance. Behind the veneer of “evidence-based practices” and concern for student outcomes lies a well-funded network of publishers, testing companies, and consultants who stand to profit handsomely from the widespread adoption of SOR-aligned products and services.
These corporate interests have a clear financial incentive to promote the SOR approach, as it creates a lucrative market for their proprietary curricula, assessments, and professional development programs. By framing their offerings as the only “scientifically proven” solutions to the literacy crisis, they can corner the market and lock schools into long-term contracts worth millions of dollars. This not only funnels public education funds into private coffers but also gives these companies an outsized influence over pedagogical practices and decision-making.
To further entrench their market dominance, these corporate interests have engaged in extensive lobbying efforts at the state level, pushing for policies that mandate the use of SOR-aligned products and services. Laws like Wisconsin’s Act 20 and California’s AB 2222 are the fruits of these efforts, as they effectively create a government-sponsored monopoly for the SOR industry. By codifying a narrow definition of “evidence-based” instruction that aligns with their products, these laws shut out competing approaches and alternative resources, forcing schools to buy from a limited pool of approved vendors.
The consequences of this corporate capture of literacy policy are far-reaching and deeply troubling. Not only does it limit the autonomy of educators and schools to make informed decisions based on the needs of their students, but it also perpetuates a one-size-fits-all approach to reading instruction that fails to account for the diversity of learning styles and needs. By privileging a narrow set of skills and outcomes that align with the SOR model, these policies marginalise and disadvantage students who learn differently, particularly gestalt processors and other neurodivergent learners.
Moreover, the SOR industry’s profit-driven agenda has led to a distortion of the research base on reading instruction, with a disproportionate emphasis on studies that support their preferred methods and products. This cherry-picking of evidence not only misrepresents the complexity of the research landscape but also stifles innovation and progress in the field. By shutting out alternative perspectives and approaches, the SOR monopoly is effectively holding literacy education hostage to its own narrow interests.
As policymakers and educators continue to grapple with the challenges of improving reading outcomes, it is essential that we recognise and resist the undue influence of corporate interests in shaping literacy policy. Laws like Act 20 and AB 2222 may be cloaked in the language of “science” and “evidence,” but they ultimately serve the bottom line of the SOR industry at the expense of student needs and educational equity. If we are to build a truly effective and inclusive literacy education system, we must break free from the stranglehold of corporate influence and embrace a more diverse, student-centered approach that values the expertise of educators and the lived experiences of all learners.
Critique of the “Evidence-Based” Label
Central to the SOR bandwagon’s claim to legitimacy is the notion that its preferred methods and products are “evidence-based” - that is, supported by rigorous scientific research. However, as a recent article illustrates, the reality behind this label is far more complex and problematic than its proponents would have us believe.
The analysis reveals that the definition of “evidence-based” in education policy is often so broad as to be essentially meaningless. Under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), a program can be considered “evidence-based” if it has just one study showing any statistically significant effect on student outcomes, regardless of the size or practical significance of that effect. This low bar for evidence means that virtually any program can claim to be “research-proven,” even if its actual impact on student learning is minimal or questionable.
Moreover, the SOR approach’s research base is limited by its narrow focus on specific skills and outcomes, particularly those that are easily measurable through standardised assessments. Whilst proponents tout the “science” behind their methods, much of this research relies on a reductionist view of reading that emphasises discrete skills like phonics and fluency over broader, more holistic measures of comprehension and engagement. This myopic focus not only fails to capture the complexity of the reading process but also privileges a narrow set of instructional practices that may not be effective for all learners.
In fact, the emphasis on “evidence-based” programs in literacy policy often serves to shut out alternative approaches that may better serve diverse learners, particularly those who do not fit the mold of the “typical” student. By codifying a limited set of SOR-aligned practices as the only acceptable form of reading instruction, laws like Act 20 and AB 2222 effectively marginalise and exclude students who learn differently, such as gestalt processors and other neurodivergent learners.
This is not to say that research evidence has no place in informing literacy instruction - far from it. However, we must be critical consumers of that evidence, recognising its limitations and biases and considering a wider range of perspectives and approaches. The SOR bandwagon’s claim to be the only “evidence-based” approach to reading instruction is a rhetorical sleight of hand that obscures the complexity of the research landscape and the diversity of learner needs.
If we are to truly support all students in becoming successful readers, we must move beyond the narrow, skills-based focus of the SOR approach and embrace a more comprehensive, student-centered vision of literacy education. This means valuing not only the “hard” evidence of standardised assessments but also the “soft” evidence of teacher expertise, student voice, and culturally responsive practices. It means recognising that what works for one student may not work for another and that there is no one-size-fits-all solution to the challenges of reading instruction.
Ultimately, the label of “evidence-based” should not be used as a cudgel to silence dissent or shut out alternative approaches, but rather as an invitation to engage in a more nuanced, inclusive dialogue about what truly supports student learning. By problematising the SOR movement’s claim to a monopoly on “science” and “evidence,” we can open up space for a more diverse, equitable vision of literacy education that values the unique strengths and needs of all learners.
Impact on Gestalt Processors and Neurodivergent Students
As a gestalt processor myself, I have experienced firsthand the frustration and alienation of being subjected to literacy instruction that is fundamentally incompatible with my learning style. Growing up, I struggled to make sense of the decontextualised phonics drills and isolated skill-building exercises that dominated my reading education. Despite my best efforts to follow along and apply the rules I was taught, reading remained an elusive and anxiety-provoking task. It wasn’t until much later in life, when I discovered holistic, meaning-based approaches to language learning, that I finally began to experience the joy and power of literacy.
My story is not unique. Research suggests that up to 40% of humanity are gestalt processors, meaning they learn best through big-picture thinking, pattern recognition, and contextual understanding. For these learners, the atomistic, skills-based approach of the SOR movement can be deeply problematic. By breaking reading down into discrete, isolated components and emphasising rote memorisation over meaning-making, SOR-style instruction fails to engage the natural strengths and learning preferences of gestalt processors.
The consequences of this mismatch are profound. Gestalt processors subjected to SOR-style instruction often experience feelings of frustration, anxiety, and disengagement. They may struggle to keep up with the pace of instruction, feel like they are constantly playing catch-up, or develop negative self-perceptions about their abilities as readers. Over time, these experiences can lead to a profound sense of alienation from school and a reluctance to engage with literacy altogether.
Moreover, the dominance of the SOR approach in literacy policy and practice means that gestalt processors are often denied access to the very instructional strategies and supports that could help them thrive as readers. By privileging a narrow set of skills and methods over all others, laws like Act 20 and AB 2222 effectively marginalise and disadvantage the 40% of students who learn differently. This not only perpetuates educational inequity but also squanders the untapped potential of countless learners whose talents and contributions are being overlooked (e.g., the Mathew Effect).
The long-term consequences of this marginalisation are dire. Students who struggle with reading in the early grades are at a significantly higher risk of academic failure, dropping out of school, and a host of negative life outcomes. By failing to provide gestalt processors and other neurodivergent learners with access to appropriate, responsive literacy instruction, we are condemning them to a future of limited opportunities and unrealized potential.
This is not simply a matter of academic outcomes - it is a question of basic human rights. Every student deserves access to an education that recognises and values their unique strengths, learning styles, and ways of being in the world. By forcing all students into a one-size-fits-all model of literacy instruction, the SOR movement is effectively denying neurodivergent learners their right to an equitable, inclusive education.
As educators, policymakers, and advocates, we have a moral obligation to resist this narrow, exclusionary vision of literacy education and fight for the rights of all learners. This means challenging the assumptions and biases that underlie the SOR approach, advocating for more diverse and inclusive instructional practices, and centering the voices and experiences of neurodivergent students in our decision-making. Only by embracing a more holistic, student-centered vision of literacy education can we hope to create a system that truly supports the success and well-being of all learners, regardless of their cognitive style or learning differences.
Final thoughts …
In light of the significant limitations and inequities perpetuated by the SOR approach, it is imperative that we advocate for a more inclusive, neurodiversity-affirming vision of literacy education. This means pushing for policies and practices that recognise and support the diverse learning needs of all students, rather than privileging a narrow set of skills and methods.
At the policy level, we must work to dismantle the monopoly that the SOR movement has established over literacy education. This means challenging laws like Act 20 and AB 2222 that codify a one-size-fits-all approach to reading instruction and advocating for more flexible, student-centered policies that allow for a range of instructional strategies and resources. It also means pushing back against the corporate influence that has driven the SOR agenda and demanding greater transparency and accountability in the development and adoption of literacy programs.
At the same time, we must invest in research and development to expand our understanding of alternative instructional methods that can better serve diverse learners. This includes approaches like my book, Holistic Language Instruction, which emphasises meaning-making, context-building, and the integration of language skills in authentic, purposeful contexts. By studying the effectiveness of these methods and identifying best practices for implementation, we can build a stronger evidence base for inclusive literacy education and provide educators with the tools and resources they need to support all students.
Thus, achieving true educational equity in literacy education will require a fundamental paradigm shift away from the one-size-fits-all model exemplified by the SOR approach. We must recognise that learning to read is not a linear, step-by-step process that can be reduced to a set of discrete skills, but rather a complex, multifaceted journey that is shaped by each individual's unique cognitive, linguistic, and cultural background. This means embracing a more holistic, student-centered vision of literacy education that values the diverse ways in which students learn and make meaning from text.
The stakes could not be higher. By continuing to allow the SOR movement to dominate literacy policy and practice, we are not only failing our most vulnerable learners but also undermining the very foundations of our democracy. A society that values only a narrow set of skills and ways of being, that marginalizes and excludes those who think and learn differently, is a society that is fundamentally broken.
We must do better. We must champion the cause of neurodiversity in literacy education and fight for a system that recognises and nurtures the untapped potential of every student. Only then can we hope to build a more just, equitable, and inclusive future for all.