Over the years, persistently low achievement levels have led scholars to question whether reading skill development is different for deaf readers. Research findings suggest that in order for deaf students to become proficient readers, they must master the same fundamental abilities that are well established for hearing learners, regardless of the degree of hearing loss or communication modality used (e.g., spoken or signed). The simple view of reading (SVR), which hypothesizes the critical role both language abilities and phonological skills play in development of reading comprehension, provides a model for understanding the reading process for a wide range of students and has the potential to shed light on the challenges deaf students have historically experienced in achieving age-appropriate outcomes. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to review the components of the SVR and use this conceptual model as the basis for exploring and discussing both historical and current research evidence in reading and deafness, with a particular focus on phonological skills. Recommendations for future research and practice based on the existing body of literature will also be provided.

Although reading and writing play equally important roles in the literacy development of deaf individuals, far more attention has been paid to reading than to writing in both research and practice. This is concerning as outcomes in writing have remained poor despite changes in communication philosophies (e.g., spoken and/or signed) and pedagogical approaches. Although there are indications of a positive shift as the context for deaf education has been transformed with advances in hearing technologies, challenges are ongoing. In order to better understand why deaf learners struggle to achieve age-appropriate outcomes in written language, the goal of this paper will be to take stock of the available research evidence in writing and deafness, and interpret it in light of both the Simple View of Writing (SVW), in which ideation or text generation is linked to oral language, and current models of the composing process. Based on this overview and analysis, implications and directions for future research and practice will be discussed.

In the history of deaf education, questions attending communication, language, and modality have generated much discussion, and even heated debate. This should not be surprising as these questions touch on a fundamental issue that is central to policy and practice in the field—how to provide early, ready, and meaningful linguistic access. While one point of agreement is that such access is vital for age-appropriate language and literacy development, there is less consensus on how this access should be realized. This focus has heightened consequences and significance in the current context in which auditory access to spoken language is possible for the majority of deaf children. With a goal of reframing the conversation, the focus of this article will be on making the critical distinctions between language and modality that can inform understandings as to how access can be best achieved for an increasingly diverse population of deaf children and their families.

Teachers’ knowledge of foundational reading skills (e.g., phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension) and the impact of this knowledge on the ability to provide effective reading instruction has been a topic of interest in teacher preparation for decades. Given the number of students with disabilities with significant instructional needs in reading, understanding the knowledge and skills of special educators and effective approaches for improving teachers’ knowledge is especially critical. Therefore, a systematic narrative review of the literature was conducted to identify studies that employed survey methods to examine special educators’ knowledge of foundational reading skills. The results of 18 studies published between 2001 and 2020 revealed that most investigations focused on assessing knowledge of the phonological aspects of reading. Furthermore, inconsistent performance and knowledge gaps were identified both within and across studies. Detailed summaries of studies are provided and recommendations for future research and practice explored.

Mayer and Trezek offer a rejoinder to an article by Scott, Dostal, and Lane-Outlaw in which Scott et al. challenge the findings and conclusions of a literature review by Mayer and Trezek published in the Winter 2020 American Annals of the Deaf. Both the rejoinder and the article by Scott et al. appear in the Annals' Spring 2021 issue. Mayer and Trezek reiterate the rationale and aims of their review, as well as the process for conducting it, emphasizing the need for empirical evidence to inform policy and practice in deaf education. They also address observations made in terms of (a) factors to be considered when generating or consuming research and (b) the nature of the search procedures that are used. Mayer and Trezek conclude by restating the findings of their review and the implications of these findings for the field moving forward.