For years, much of American education had tremendous confidence in a child-centered, pedagogically progressive vision of literacy. (In this context, “progressive” refers to an educational philosophy, not political affiliation or policy stance.) Students would become readers through authentic encounters with books. Choice would foster engagement. Reading comprehension was treated as a transferable skill. Teachers would facilitate rather than prescribe. Students would construct meaning rather than receive it. The work of journalists like Horowitch and Hanford, along with declining NAEP scores, has made the failure of these ideas difficult, if not impossible, to ignore. The science of reading offers insights that sit in tension with these long-dominant practices. The first phase of the science of reading movement focused, appropriately, on decoding or “phonics.” But now the conversation is shifting toward harder questions. Once students can decode, what enables them to understand what they read? The answer turns out to sound remarkably traditional—and prescriptive. Fluency. Vocabulary. Background knowledge. Familiarity with canonical texts. The very things that education spent years deemphasizing have returned to the center of the discussion. Indeed, there’s rising interest in classical education, with its emphasis on the Great Books and old-school pedagogy.