What deaf readers can teach us about science of reading: "all means all" isn't an equity framework for literacy.

The Science of Reading (SoR), recently popularized across media, academic, legislative, community, and educational platforms, continues to evolve in its meanings and applications. Perceptions of SoR range from being a multifaceted construct that incorporates various perspectives and some evidence, as articulated by Goodwin (in Heller, 2022. Taking stock of the science of reading: A conversation with Amanda Goodwin. Phi Delta Kappan, 103(8), 32-36), to a confined set of principles, as proposed in the IMSE Journal, and to a precise body of research, as highlighted by The Reading League in their "Defining Guide" report (The Reading League, 2024. Science of reading: Defining guide. https://www.thereadingleague.org/what-is-thescience-of-reading). In this paper, we engage in a discourse analysis of the text of recent state legislation related to the SoR and raise concerns about the resoluteness of the SoR movement in claiming a particular approach to beginning reading instruction is good for all children. In particular, we consider the assumption that an emphasis on sound-based phonology is a universal prerequisite for literacy development. The case of signing deaf readers is used to illustrate how the political use of research (Weiss, 1979) perpetuates assumptions about literacy development that can be disadvantageous for some. By examining these issues, we hope to illuminate the nuances in literacy development that are neglected in the SoR movement, ultimately allowing us to inform a more comprehensive, inclusive, and effective approach to literacy policy.