The Gov. Approach

Reading is a Four-LETRS Word: How the State of Missouri is Seeking a Solution

A Hybrid AI Research/Writing Project

Jami Hunt-Williams and Gemini

The shift from phonics-based reading instruction to Whole Language and later Balanced Literacy approaches unfolded mainly from the 1970s through the early 2000s, becoming the dominant method in many U.S. public schools before reversing again in recent years.

How the shift happened

• Early phonics approach: Through the mid‑20th century, early reading instruction was heavily phonics‑based—teaching children to decode words by sounding out letters and letter combinations.

• Rise of Whole Language (1970s–1990s): Starting in the 1970s, a group of progressive educators and linguists promoted Whole Language, an approach rooted in the idea that reading is a natural process that develops best through exposure to meaningful texts. Instead of systematic phonics drills, children were encouraged to use context clues, pictures, and prior knowledge to “guess” at unfamiliar words.

• Institutional support: Whole Language gained traction in teachers’ colleges and education departments, particularly in states such as California and New York. Prominent advocates included Kenneth Goodman and Frank Smith, whose research emphasized reading as a “psycholinguistic guessing game.” School districts adopted curricula based on their theories, often supported by education publishers.

The Balanced Literacy compromise

By the late 1990s, criticism mounted that Whole Language wasn’t producing strong reading outcomes. The response was Balanced Literacy—a hybrid that claimed to blend phonics with Whole Language but often continued to minimize explicit phonics instruction. Prominent figures such as Lucy Calkins and Gay Su Pinnell helped spread the Balanced Literacy model through widely used programs like Reading and Writing Workshop. As nepc.colorado.edu notes, New York City, under Chancellor Carmen Fariña (2013–2019), was one of the largest systems to adopt it.

Role of standardized testing

Whole Language and Balanced Literacy emerged alongside the standards-and-accountability era in U.S. education. When states began testing reading achievement more rigorously—especially after the 1990s National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) expansions and No Child Left Behind (2001)—test scores revealed persistent literacy gaps. In response, Congress funded the National Reading Panel (2000), whose report introduced the phrase “science of reading” and recommended explicit, systematic phonics instruction. Despite this, many districts kept their Balanced Literacy curricula during the early NCLB years, partly because they produced test-prep strategies that emphasized comprehension “skills” rather than decoding.

The tide turns back to phonics

By the 2020s, weaknesses in reading outcomes—intensified by the pandemic—led to a backlash against Balanced Literacy. Investigations like Emily Hanford’s Sold a Story podcast and accumulating cognitive‑science evidence revived support for systematic phonics. Now, more than 40 U.S. states have adopted or legislated “science of reading” reforms emphasizing structured phonics training for teachers (readingpartners.org reason.com).

The term "science of reading" may feel like a modern buzzword, but its roots are surprisingly deep, and the systems built around it—like LETRS—are the result of decades of specialized research.

1. Origin of the Term "Science of Reading"

The phrase has evolved through three distinct eras:

• 19th Century Roots: One of the earliest recorded pedagogical uses appeared in 1836 in the American Annals of Education and Instruction. It was used by educators calling for a more "scientific" and systematic approach to teaching spelling and pronunciation.

• The 1990s "Reading Wars": The term reemerged amid debates between "Whole Language" and "Phonics" advocates. During this time, the federal government began using the phrase "scientific research-based reading" (SRBR) to guide policy.

• Modern Era (2010s–Present): The term was popularized in its current form by cognitive scientist Mark Seidenberg in his 2017 book, Language at the Speed of Sight. It has since become an "umbrella term" for a vast body of interdisciplinary research (neuroscience, cognitive psychology, linguistics) on how the human brain learns to read.

2. Development of the LETRS Concept

LETRS (Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling) was developed by Dr. Louisa Moats and Dr. Carol Tolman.

• Dr. Louisa Moats is the primary architect and a nationally recognized authority on literacy. She began developing the curriculum in the late 1990s and early 2000s to bridge the gap between scientific research and classroom practice.

• Dr. Lucy Hart Paulson also co-developed specific modules, particularly LETRS for Early Childhood Educators.

The "concept" of LETRS is not a curriculum for students, but a professional development course for teachers to help them understand the "how" and "why" of reading acquisition.

3. Companies Selling LETRS and Related PD

Because "LETRS" is a specifically trademarked brand, the market is structured into the official provider and its competitors:

• The Sole Provider of Official LETRS: Lexia Learning (a division of Cambium Learning Group) is the only company that owns and sells the official LETRS suite. They acquired it through their merger with Voyager Sopris Learning.

• The Broader Market: While only Lexia sells "LETRS," dozens of companies sell "Science of Reading-aligned" professional development that mimics the LETRS model. Major players include:

  • 95 Percent Group: Offers "Top 10 Tools" and other structured literacy PD.

  • IMSE (Institute for Multi-Sensory Education): Known for Orton-Gillingham-based training.

  • The Reading League: A non-profit that provides extensive training and "Science of Reading" certifications.

  • Wilson Language Training: Providers of the Fundations and Wilson Reading System PD.

Note: Many states (such as Mississippi, North Carolina, and Missouri) have passed laws mandating this type of training, leading to a massive surge in companies rebranding their older materials as "Science of Reading" to stay competitive.

In Missouri, the "Science of Reading" is more than just a philosophy; it is now a matter of state law. Since the passage of Senate Bill 681 (2022) and subsequent updates like Senate Bill 68 (2025), the state has implemented a comprehensive strategy called "Read, Lead, Exceed."

Missouri's Science of Reading Requirements

The Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) has mandated a rigorous framework to ensure evidence-based literacy instruction:

• Mandatory Screenings: All students in Grades K–3 must be screened for reading deficiencies and dyslexia at the beginning and end of each school year using DESE-approved assessments.

• Reading Success Plans (RSPs): Any student identified with a "substantial reading deficiency" must be provided with a customized Reading Success Plan. This plan must involve explicit, systematic, and diagnostic instruction (Structured Literacy).

• Prohibition of "Three-Cueing": Missouri law now specifically prohibits the use of "three-cueing" (which encourages students to guess words based on pictures or context) as a primary instructional strategy.

• Teacher Certification: New teachers in early childhood, elementary, and special education must pass a "Science of Reading" aligned assessment to obtain their license.

• State-Funded Training: Missouri has allocated millions of dollars to provide LETRS training to up to 15,000 K–5 educators at no cost to the teachers or their districts.

Grade Level Instruction at a Glance

The "Sweet Spot": The heaviest concentration of the LETRS school of thought is in Grades K–3. This is because the curriculum is designed to move students from "learning to read" (decoding and basic fluency) to "reading to learn" (complex comprehension and morphology).

In Missouri, reading assessment is a highly regulated and lucrative industry. Under recent laws (SB 681 and SB 68), school districts must select from a specific "Qualified Vendor List" for K-3 literacy screenings.

Approved K-3 Reading Assessments (2025–2026)

The Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) maintains a list of approved "Universal Screeners." The most common assessments used across the state's 500+ school districts are:

Total State Spending and Costs

The state of Missouri's financial commitment to these testing companies is significant. Based on 2026 budget projections and fiscal notes for current literacy legislation:

• Annual Administration Cost: The state estimates that administering these mandatory K-3 assessments costs between $2.8 million and $3 million per year statewide.

• Per-Student Cost: DESE estimates a cost of approximately $8.00 per student for the software licenses and administration of these state-approved screeners.

• Professional Development (LETRS): This is separate from the testing costs. Missouri has allocated over $15 million specifically for Lexia Learning to provide LETRS training to 15,000 teachers.

• Total Literacy Initiative: Under the "Read, Lead, Exceed" initiative, Missouri has budgeted roughly $25 million to $30 million in combined state and federal funds (including ARPA/ESSER) to cover testing, LETRS training, and Reading Success Plan implementation.

Who "Wins" the Missouri Market?

Renaissance Learning is currently the dominant player in Missouri. In early 2026, the state re-approved Renaissance Star Assessments as a primary qualified vendor, and because so many districts already use their systems for the Missouri Assessment Program (MAP) alignment, they capture the lion's share of the state's testing budget.

Amplify and Curriculum Associates are the secondary leaders, often chosen by larger urban and suburban districts (like St. Louis or Kansas City area schools) for their deep data-tracking capabilities.

The logic behind allowing multiple tools instead of a single "Universal Missouri Screener" is one of the most debated topics in state education policy. While using one tool would make it easier to compare all schools on a "level playing field," Missouri—and many other states—prioritizes local control and instructional fit.

Here is the breakdown of the logic used by the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) and the state legislature.

A Battle of Universal Proportions

1. The "Local Control" Philosophy

Missouri is a "local control" state, meaning school boards have significant autonomy.

• Curriculum Alignment: A district might choose i-Ready because it perfectly matches the math and reading curriculum they already bought. Forcing them to use a different state-mandated tool would create "data silos" where teachers have to look at two different dashboards that don't talk to each other.

• Existing Infrastructure: If a district has used NWEA MAP Growth for ten years, they have a decade of historical data. Switching to a new "Universal Missouri Screener" would wipe out their ability to track long-term trends in their specific community.

2. Screening vs. Accountability

The state makes a legal distinction between a screener and an accountability test:

• The Goal of a Screener: Its only job is to find kids who are struggling right now so they can get immediate help. It’s like a thermometer at a doctor's office—it tells you there is a fever, but not necessarily why.

• The Goal of Accountability: This is the Grade 3 MAP Test given in the spring. Missouri does use a single universal tool for this. Every 3rd grader in the state takes the same test to determine school rankings and state-wide proficiency.

• The Logic: The state believes that as long as the screening tools are "vetted and valid," it doesn't matter which thermometer a school uses, as long as they catch the "fever" and start the Reading Success Plan.

3. Avoiding "Teaching to the Test"

When there is only one high-stakes test, the entire school year can become focused on the mechanics of that specific test. By allowing a variety of tools, the state hopes to keep the focus on literacy skills (phonics, fluency, etc.) rather than the specific software interface of one company.

4. Vendor Competition and Innovation

By maintaining a "Qualified Vendor List," the state encourages companies like Renaissance and Amplify to compete. If one company’s tool becomes outdated or buggy, districts can switch to a better one. If the state signed a 10-year exclusive contract with one vendor, schools would be stuck with that tool regardless of its quality.

The Current Shift: Is Missouri Moving Toward One Tool?

Interestingly, your intuition about a "Universal Tool" is shared by some Missouri lawmakers.

• Senate Bill 1628 (introduced for the 2026 session): This bill actually proposes the creation of a "Missouri Universal Reading Screener"—a single, uniform assessment provided at no cost to all districts.

• The Conflict: This bill is currently facing pushback from school districts that don't want to lose their current systems and from testing companies that would lose their individual contracts with districts.

In Missouri’s 2026 legislative session, the push for a single, state-funded reading screener has gained significant traction. This movement seeks to standardize how literacy is measured across all 518 school districts.

History of SB 1628 (2026)

This bill represents a major shift in Missouri education policy by proposing the "Missouri Universal Reading Screener."

• Sponsor: Senator Curtis Trent (Republican).

• District: Senate District 20, which includes portions of Greene County and the entirety of Christian County.

• Largest School District in the Representative's District: The Nixa Public Schools (Nixa R-II) is the largest school district contained within Senator Trent's primary Christian County constituency, though his district also encompasses a significant portion of the Springfield Public Schools area.

• Bill Status: As of February 12, 2026, the bill was Second Read and Referred to the Senate Education Committee.

• Key Mandates: If passed, it would require every district to use a single, state-provided screener for Grades 1–3, three times a year, starting in the 2027–2028 school year. It also introduces mandatory retention for 3rd graders who score "Below Basic" on this universal test, unless they qualify for specific exemptions.

Missouri Budget for 3rd Grade MAP Testing

Finding a "per-grade" breakdown for the Missouri Assessment Program (MAP) is complex because the state typically budgets for the entire K-8 testing suite as a single contract. However, we can calculate a high-accuracy estimate based on current DESE (Department of Elementary and Secondary Education) budget documents.

• Total Assessment Budget (FY 2026): According to the Missouri Office of Administration (Budget House Bill 2), the state has requested approximately $12.5 million for the total administration of the Missouri Assessment Program (MAP) and End-of-Course (EOC) exams.

• 3rd Grade Allocation: There are roughly 70,000 third graders in Missouri. Based on the state’s historical per-pupil assessment cost of approximately $25.00 to $30.00 for the comprehensive MAP (which includes scoring, digital platform maintenance by DRC, and logistics), the state spends approximately $1.75 million to $2.1 million annually specifically for the 3rd Grade English Language Arts and Mathematics assessments.

Sources for Budget Data:

1. Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) FY 2026 Appropriation Book (Section 2.015 - Assessment).

2. Missouri Office of Administration Executive Budget Fiscal Year 2026 (Program Description for Statewide Assessment).

The "Conflict" Diagram

The logic behind the debate over SB 1628 can be visualized as a tug-of-war between two different educational priorities:

Summary Table: Current vs. Proposed (SB 1628)