(Not so) universal literacy screening: a survey of educators reveals variability in implementation

Currently, most states in the United States have enacted legislation mandating universal screening for literacy risk in kindergarten through 3rd grade. However, the degree to which these policies translate into consistent, high-quality screening practices remains unclear. In this survey study, we collected responses from a diverse sample of K-3 educators (N = 251) across 39 states, representing varied school types, professional roles, and experience levels, to examine the real-world implementation of universal screening. Guided by the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment (EPIS) framework, we analyzed quantitative and qualitative data to identify real-world factors that could impede the fidelity and effectiveness of screening implementation. We found substantial variability across multiple dimensions of literacy screening implementation. Educators described considerable variation in screener selection, administration practices, testing environments, training quality, scoring accuracy, and the use of results to guide intervention. Notably, many indicated insufficient training and professional development, expressing uncertainty about administering and interpreting screeners, particularly for English language learners. Nearly half also reported the absence of systematic procedures for developing intervention plans, suggesting that many students identified as at risk do not receive appropriate follow-up support. These implementation challenges occurred despite widespread recognition among educators of screening's importance for early literacy intervention. Educators from lower-socioeconomic status schools reported significantly greater time burdens in conducting screenings and more technology-related challenges compared to their higher-SES counterparts. Without systematic improvements to implementation support and training, current screening initiatives may fail to achieve their intended goal of early identification and intervention for struggling readers.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Annals of Dyslexia
Published
2025-10-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-025-00342-1
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Early Childhood Education and Development
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
8.93
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

(Not so) universal literacy screening: a survey of educators reveals variability in implementation

Ola Ozernov‐Palchik, Yaacov Petscher, John D. E. Gabrieli, Satrajit Ghosh et al.
1 citations
Annals of Dyslexia
Early Childhood Education and Development
8.93
article

(Not so) universal literacy screening: a survey of educators reveals variability in implementation

Ola Ozernov‐Palchik, Yaacov Petscher, John D. E. Gabrieli, Satrajit Ghosh, Fabio Catania, Stefanie Shattuck‐Hufnagel, Zoe Elizee, Meral Hacikamiloglu
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Currently, most states in the United States have enacted legislation mandating universal screening for literacy risk in kindergarten through 3rd grade. However, the degree to which these policies translate into consistent, high-quality screening practices remains unclear. In this survey study, we collected responses from a diverse sample of K-3 educators (N = 251) across 39 states, representing varied school types, professional roles, and experience levels, to examine the real-world implementation of universal screening. Guided by the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment (EPIS) framework, we analyzed quantitative and qualitative data to identify real-world factors that could impede the fidelity and effectiveness of screening implementation. We found substantial variability across multiple dimensions of literacy screening implementation. Educators described considerable variation in screener selection, administration practices, testing environments, training quality, scoring accuracy, and the use of results to guide intervention. Notably, many indicated insufficient training and professional development, expressing uncertainty about administering and interpreting screeners, particularly for English language learners. Nearly half also reported the absence of systematic procedures for developing intervention plans, suggesting that many students identified as at risk do not receive appropriate follow-up support. These implementation challenges occurred despite widespread recognition among educators of screening's importance for early literacy intervention. Educators from lower-socioeconomic status schools reported significantly greater time burdens in conducting screenings and more technology-related challenges compared to their higher-SES counterparts. Without systematic improvements to implementation support and training, current screening initiatives may fail to achieve their intended goal of early identification and intervention for struggling readers.

Annals of DyslexiaVol. 75(3)
Florida State University (US), McGovern Institute for Brain Research (US), Harvard University Press (US), IIT@MIT (US), Wheelock College (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 2%
Early Childhood Education and Development
8.93
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.