When choosing a science of reading professional development provider, evaluate five things: the credentials behind it, whether it includes ongoing coaching rather than just workshops, whether its evidence claims are honest and specific, whether it builds your school's capacity rather than creating permanent dependence, and whether it adapts to your context and supports implementation. A strong provider does well on all five.
Everyone claims the science of reading now
The phrase "science of reading" sells, so nearly every professional development provider now uses it, and the quality behind the phrase ranges from excellent to hollow. For a leader spending a professional-learning budget and a year of staff time, the marketing is not much help. What helps is a rubric, a small set of questions that separate providers who will change instruction from those who will fill a day and leave. Here is the one to use.
| Criterion | A strong provider | A weak provider |
|---|---|---|
| Credentials | IDA-accredited, aligned to the Knowledge and Practice Standards, qualified staff | Self-described as "science of reading" with no external verification |
| Coaching model | Sustained coaching connected to real classrooms | A one-time workshop with no follow-up |
| Evidence claims | Specific and honest about what is and isn't proven | Vague "research-based" language or guaranteed outcomes |
| Capacity building | Develops your teachers and leaders to sustain the work | Creates ongoing dependence on the provider |
| Fit and support | Adapts to your context and supports implementation | Delivers the same generic content to everyone |
1. Credentials: is the expertise verified?
Anyone can claim alignment with the science of reading; verification is what matters. Look for providers whose training is IDA-accredited and aligned to the International Dyslexia Association's Knowledge and Practice Standards, the independent benchmark for what reading teachers should know. Ask who delivers the training and what they are credentialed in. Accreditation and recognized certification are external checks on a claim you otherwise have to take on faith.
2. Coaching model: workshops, or change?
This is the criterion that most predicts whether instruction will actually change. A provider whose model is a workshop, however good the speaker, is selling awareness. A provider whose model includes sustained coaching, observation and feedback in real classrooms over time, is selling changed practice. The research is consistent that training without coaching produces little lasting change, so a provider with no coaching component is offering the part that reliably fails on its own.
3. Evidence claims: honest and specific?
How a provider talks about evidence tells you a great deal. A credible provider is specific about what its approach and any product are supported by, and honest about what remains uncertain. A weaker one leans on vague "research-based" language, conflates being informed by research with having evidence of results, or promises specific score gains, which no honest provider can guarantee. If a provider makes an ESSA evidence claim, ask which tier, for which product, backed by which study. The same discipline you would apply to a curriculum purchase applies here.
4. Capacity building: independence, or dependence?
Ask what the school should be able to do differently when the engagement ends. A strong provider does more than develop individual teachers; it strengthens the people and systems that will carry the work forward. Leaders should become better able to recognize strong literacy instruction, coaches should become better able to support it, and teachers should have the knowledge to make sound instructional decisions without relying on a script or outside expert. The goal is not simply independence from the provider. It is greater internal expertise and a stronger instructional system than the school had before.
5. Fit and implementation support
Finally, look at whether the provider adapts to your context, your students, your starting point, your constraints, or delivers identical content regardless. Real support extends past the training into implementation: helping teachers apply new learning within the realities of their classrooms. A provider uninterested in your specific context is offering a product, not a partnership.
Putting the rubric to work
No provider has to be perfect on all five, but the pattern of answers is revealing. Strong on credentials but no coaching means you will get informed teachers whose practice does not change. Strong on coaching but vague on evidence is worth questioning. A provider that scores well across credentials, coaching, honest evidence, capacity building, and fit is one whose professional development is likely to reach classrooms. As one point of reference, Eight Strands Literacy is IDA Plus accredited, a Tennessee-approved Educator Preparation Provider, and works with CERI-certified coaches, and it builds coaching and leadership capacity into its model, which is the kind of profile this rubric is designed to surface.
Frequently asked questions
What should I look for in a science of reading professional development provider?
Evaluate five things: verified credentials (IDA accreditation, alignment to the Knowledge and Practice Standards), a coaching model rather than one-off workshops, honest and specific evidence claims, a focus on building your capacity rather than dependence, and genuine fit with your context and implementation support.
How can I tell if a provider is really aligned to the science of reading?
Look for external verification rather than self-description. IDA accreditation and alignment to the Knowledge and Practice Standards are independent checks. Ask who delivers the training and what they are certified in. Any provider can claim the science of reading; accreditation confirms it.
Why does a coaching model matter in professional development?
Because research consistently finds that training alone produces little lasting change in classrooms, while training paired with coaching changes practice substantially. A provider offering only workshops is selling the component that reliably fails on its own; sustained coaching is what turns knowledge into changed instruction.
What evidence claims should make me cautious?
Vague "research-based" language with no specifics, conflating being informed by research with having evidence of results, and guarantees of specific score gains, which no honest provider can promise. Credible providers are specific about what is supported and candid about what is not, and can name an ESSA tier, product, and study when they claim evidence.
Should professional development create ongoing reliance on the provider?
No. Good professional development builds a school's own knowledge and leadership capacity so the work is sustained internally over time. Be cautious of providers whose model keeps all expertise with the vendor and positions the school as permanently dependent on a contract.
Keep reading
- What science of reading professional development should include
- How IDA accreditation defines quality in literacy teacher training
- How to evaluate whether a literacy program is truly evidence-based
- What does a literacy coach actually do?
- Literacy leadership development: why principals and APs need training too
The emphasis on coaching, accreditation, and honest evidence reflects the research on professional learning and the Every Student Succeeds Act's definition of "evidence-based." IDA accreditation and the Knowledge and Practice Standards are described per the International Dyslexia Association's published materials.
Krista L. Johnson, Ph.D.
Chief Executive Officer
Krista L. Johnson, Ph.D., is the Chief Executive Officer of Eight Strands Literacy. She holds a Ph.D. in Communication Sciences and Disorders from Northwestern University, with research in auditory neuroscience, and graduate training in specific learning disabilities. She leads the organization's work helping schools put the science of reading into practice.
