Specialized Literacy Professionals and Science of Reading: A Study of Leadership, Challenges, and Opportunities in New Hampshire Elementary Schools

This study examined the preparedness of Specialized Literacy Professionals (SLPs) in New Hampshire elementary schools to lead literacy instruction and implement Science of Reading-based instruction. Despite decades of research identifying effective literacy practices, research by the International Literacy Association into the role of SLPs, and persistent national stagnation in reading achievement, little is known about how SLPs are currently experiencing their roles as they continue to change with increasing focus on leadership within schools or how well their preparation equips them to translate Science of Reading research into practice. The purpose of this research study was to explore and interpret the lived experience of SLPs in New Hampshire elementary schools as they navigated the expectations of literacy leadership, instructional coaching, and implementation of Science of Reading-based practices within their local contexts. The study sought to understand how SLPs make meaning of their preparation, how they enact leadership for literacy instruction, and how contextual factors within schools influence their ability to support teachers and students. Guided by a constructivist-interpretivist ontology, this study employed a hermeneutic phenomenological methodology to deeply examine participants’ lived experiences. The nested theoretical framework integrated the realist ontology of Science of Reading within Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory, allowing for the examination of both the content of effective literacy instruction based on cognitive science and the contextual, relational nature of how that instruction is supported in New Hampshire elementary schools. Data were collected in two steps: (1) an open-ended questionnaire completed by 50 New Hampshire SLPs, and follow-up semi-structured interviews with 10 SLPs across multiple elementary schools in New Hampshire. The iterative process of the hermeneutic circle guided the analysis. Through careful coding, thematic interpretation, and sustained reflexivity, rich descriptions of participants’ experiences were developed and interpreted to reveal essential themes related to preparedness, role ambiguity, leadership enactment, and systemic supports and barriers. Findings revealed that SLPs consistently viewed themselves as central to the implementation of Science of Reading-based instruction and as de facto literacy leaders within their schools, yet many reported feeling underprepared for the leadership aspects of their roles. While participants generally felt well prepared in the content knowledge of literacy instruction, this often came through additional training outside of their teacher preparation programs. They described limited preparation in adult learning, systems change, and leadership practices necessary to influence instructional practice at a schoolwide level. Role ambiguity emerged as significant, with SLPs often navigating unclear expectations between interventionist, coach, and leader. Participants described tension between providing direct services to students and leading instructional improvement for teachers, as strengthening tier 1 was a universal goal from all participants. Additionally, findings highlighted the importance of relational trust, administrative support, and ongoing professional learning, particularly professional development aligned with the Science of Reading, such as LETRS, in enabling SLPs to enact effective literacy leadership. The study also illuminated how contextual factors, including school culture, scheduling structures, and administrative understanding of the SLP role, significantly shaped participants’ ability to implement Science of Reading-based instruction with equity. SLPs in supportive environments with clear leadership expectations were more able to engage in coaching, modeling, and facilitating professional learning for teachers. In contrast, those in less supportive contexts experienced frustration and role strain that limited their perceived impact. Across cases, participants described the need for clearer role definitions, stronger preparation programs, and systemic alignment between district and school expectations and the work of SLPs. The implications of these findings are significant for SLP preparation programs, school and district leaders, and those who oversee site-based learning plans (SBLP) in New Hampshire. Results suggest that preparation for SLPs must extend beyond knowledge of Science of Reading-based instruction to include explicit development of leadership capacity, coaching skills, and systems thinking. Schools and districts must clarify the role of SLPs as literacy leaders and provide structural supports that allow them to prioritize instructional leadership, not only direct service responsibilities. Additionally, administrators must develop their own understanding of Science of Reading research and the SLP role to create conditions that support effective literacy leadership. By addressing these areas, schools may better leverage the expertise of SLPs to improve literacy outcomes for all students and more effectively bridge the gap between research and classroom practice. A conceptual framework called The Bridge Framework for Literacy Leadership was developed as a result of the findings and has the potential to be used to guide future work regarding the development of well-prepared SLPs in New Hampshire elementary schools.