Those were dark years before principal Carol Leveilee arrived at the Seaford, Delaware school.

Kids were never greeted by staff when they entered the building. It was a familiar sight to see school aides in the back of classrooms on their cellphones and children fighting or running out of the building. There was no art on the hallway walls, decorated instead with mold and paint that looked like it was original to the school’s opening in 1922. 

The school felt like a “prison,” multiple teachers said — dark, dreary with overwhelming behavior problems amounting to over 300 suspensions in one year. The school was like the district’s “stepchild,” veteran staff said — a school no one wanted to send their kids to, ranked last in test scores; and on the edge of a state takeover 12 years ago. 

“I really thought about quitting teaching. I didn’t want to teach anymore because it was that bad here,” said fourth-grade teacher Mike Hurlock. “In my second year I was feeling like, ‘I’m gonna go be a corrections officer because I’m already [one] here.’ ”

Hurlock filled out an application for a nearby prison and decided to wait one more year before submitting it. 

His wait paid off. Leveilee arrived in September 2014, bringing with her a dramatic overhaul.

“It saved my career,” Hurlock said, now a 15-year veteran teacher at the school. “There was never a sense of pride — until Carol got here.”

Armed with more than 30 years of experience, 11 as an elementary teacher and the rest in administration in schools across Charles County, Maryland, Leveilee had been on the brink of retirement before she took the job at Frederick Douglass. 

She felt her work wasn’t finished.

“I didn’t feel like I’d done enough or helped enough kids yet,” she said. “I saw [Frederick Douglass] was high needs and I knew I wanted a challenge. I didn’t know quite how big of a challenge I was getting myself into … [but] I just felt like I was meant to be here.”

It may have felt like an overwhelming transition at first, but Leveilee has made all the difference at the school an hour south of Dover, the state capital.

The veteran educator not only saved Hurlock’s career, but also thousands of kids along the way, providing them a school where they would be educated and emotionally supported.

Now, at 8 a.m. every morning, hundreds of students flood out from a row of yellow school buses. Outside the school’s front door stand Leveilee and other staff who are swarmed with high-fives, hugs and laughing children racing to get inside.

As the children enter the building, they’re also greeted with banners recognizing the school as a 2020 National Blue Ribbon School and a 2024 Delaware Department of Education Recognition School alongside blue bulletin boards highlighting kids of character and upcoming birthdays — all a testament to the school’s transformation under Leveilee.

Throughout her time at Frederick Douglass, Leveilee has created spaces that are warm and celebrate students.

She got rid of staff that didn’t see her vision or fully commit to the idea that everything done at the school is what’s best for kids. And most importantly, she fought for her school, several staff members said, whether it was pushing back against layoffs, advocating for renovations or paying for supplies out of her pocket.

“You see Carol and you don’t see her as a fighter. She looks like she’s somebody’s grandmother, just sweet — but no, she’s a fighter,” Hurlock said. “She came in and fought for us, and the difference in the students [and staff dynamics], just in one year, was tremendous.”

Frederick Douglass Elementary School enrolls about 500 students in grades 3-5, a majority of whom are children of color and from low-income backgrounds. Expected to have a reading proficiency of 32.8%, according to a data project focused on Bright Spot schools launched by �鶹��Ʒ, it’s defying the odds at 60.5% and is among Delaware’s top five exceptional schools. 

For educators who have stuck out the journey, they say the school’s transformation feels “unreal” and “something that you dream of.” They credited Leveilee as the sole factor in the school’s success, but she argues it was the relationships that were built.

“Some people say you start with instruction, but in my opinion, in this building, I could have had the best curriculum possible, state-of-the-art smart boards and everything, and we would have been taken over by the state,” Leveilee said, “because it’s all about people.”

Soon to be 12 years, the principal’s commitment to the school continues to pay off in strong staff retention, low disciplinary referrals and growing student achievement.

Cleaning house

When most people hear B.C., they think of dinosaurs or other prehistoric periods, but Jen Covington thinks of it as “Before Carol.”  

Covington, a former third and fifth grade teacher who recently became the school’s special education coordinator, taught at Frederick Douglass Elementary School for 15 years before Leveilee’s arrival. Off the top of her head, she could rattle off at least six principals and 12 assistant principals that were part of a leadership revolving door.

“It was pretty much a free-for-all,” Covington said. “There weren’t set guidelines. There weren’t expectations. … Nobody was on the same page.”

Shannon Rolph, another veteran staff member who joined the school in 2004, said Frederick Douglass had hit rock bottom and remained there for several years before Leveilee.

“There was no consistency. There was no leader,” Rolph said, a former third and fourth grade teacher turned reading coach. “It just was not a great place to work. The behaviors were crazy, … but I lived here in Seaford. My kids went here. I was invested.”

So, when Leveilee came to the lower Delaware city in 2015, it took time to gain trust, both teachers said. 

“For those of us that had been here, it was like, ‘OK, here comes another one. How long are they gonna stay? How invested are they gonna be?’ ” Covington said.

Just like the teachers at the school, Leveilee had no idea what was in store when she signed her first three-year contract. 

She remembers walking into the school on her first day and no one acknowledged her or offered her the keys to her office. When she toured the campus, she couldn’t figure out why the hallway was so dark, until a teacher told her they had the custodian take out all the center lights because they didn’t want people looking at walls full of ripped paper, chipping yellow paint and destroyed cork boards.

Just 32% of third graders were proficient in reading and the school was under “a constant magnifying glass” she said with recurring visitors from the state asking questions, doing walkthroughs and scrutinizing student data. 

Like the hallways at the school, it was a dark time for Leveilee.

“I’ll never forget my first year was all defeats,” she said. “I got here and I regretted my decision daily. I cried myself to sleep many nights. I worked 16-hour days, seven days a week. … People didn’t like kids. Kids didn’t want to be here. Parents didn’t like the school.” 

But, Leveilee knew her students were her saving grace.

“Every single one of those kids needed me,” Leveilee said. “They needed me to hire the best teachers and staff possible. They needed me to wake the para up that was always asleep in the chair. … Needed me to tell the kindergarten teacher in my first year, ‘You know teaching isn’t good for you, you don’t like our kids’ and those hard conversations. Those 383 kids were counting on me and my team.”

Within two months, it was clear to Leveilee it was time to clean house, both among staff and the actual physical space of the school.

She first tasked teachers with cleaning out their rooms, many filled with decades of outdated material.

“We were like ‘Why does she care about what’s in our closet? … Why does she keep telling us to clean out our filing cabinet? … She’s lost her mind,’ ” Covington said, gritting her teeth with an eye roll before laughing at the memory. “But, what [we later realized is], when your space is organized and clean, you become more effective.”

Leveilee was in and out of classrooms, taking notes on a notepad she still wears around her neck and that staff now jokingly call “her brain.” Within three months, seven teachers were put on improvement plans. 

By Christmas, two of those educators had left. In her first three years, about half of the staff followed, Leveilee said.

‘We needed a leader’

When Reesie Jones and Monika Kittell arrived at Frederick Douglass Elementary School a year before Leveilee, they were long-time veteran aides.

But in that year, they learned that students ran the school. The kids’ behaviors were out of control, disrespectful and students didn’t care about the consequences, they said. Suspension was a normal occurrence, and anytime one of them was called to be a substitute, they’d ask the other to come for extra support.

“We needed a leader,” Jones said. “We were in desperate need of a leader.”

In Leveilee’s first year, she bought everyone a copy of The Energy Bus for Schools by Jon Gordon. Weekly, she assigned a chapter to read and led discussions. The book stressed the importance of collaboration and how everyone needed to be heading in the same direction, said Kittell, now a third grade teacher.

“If you are a Negative Nelly, you need to get off the bus. [Leveilee] would truly say ‘If you are not part of this bus, you need to get off because you’ll bring all us down,’ ” Kittell said. “That’s how it all started shifting.”

After 11 years, the veteran educators — including Jones, Kittell and Rolph — have kept yellow toy school buses that were gifted after completing the book.

“Some did not give it a chance. … It took a few years to get some people out that just weren’t here for the right reasons. Carol wasn’t going anywhere, so either you needed to change or…” Rolph said, trailing at the end of her sentence with a laugh.

Changing from reactive to proactive

A handful of other changes occurred simultaneously in Leveilee’s early years, including a new piloted reading curriculum, aligned with the science of reading, which has stuck around.

The district also reconfigured the school from a K-3 campus to 3-5, which shifted demographics and created more diversity within the city’s four elementary schools.

Curriculum alignment and reconfiguration in the district were catalysts to some growth, but continuing work on school climate was the biggest challenge — and game changer. 

Beyond staffing changes, the actual campus needed an overhaul.

“The decor was probably the same from the time the building was constructed,” Rolph said. “We saw other schools and they looked so nice, and it was just like, why didn’t anyone care to fix our grounds up?”

More than just cleaning closets, Leveilee had the school repainted, cork boards installed to decorate the halls with students’ proudest work, new furniture installed, murals painted and fences and landscaping fixed outside.

While it began with small cosmetic changes, Leveilee was also acutely aware of the needs of students.

“When I first came here, there were 312 suspensions,” Leveilee said. “Not only are [our kids] in high poverty, but they come with huge backpacks filled with trauma. … We had to do something because sending these kids home was not the answer.”

In Leveilee’s first few years, she kept a dozen students with her and out of the classroom because of behavioral issues. She would take children into the cafeteria to try and regulate them, which eventually led to the creation of the Reflection Suite and Positive Path.

The Positive Path extends through two hallways, decorated with Legos, velcro tic-tac-toe and coloring paper walls, where kids can get 10-minute passes to go into the hallway and “reset.” 

The Reflection Suite is a series of rooms, some empty to prevent a child from hurting themselves, and others filled with bean bags and motivation quotes on the wall for when students are overwhelmed or need sleep. In the Reflection Suite, students can also meet with counselors.

“Prior to Carol coming in and reworking the whole system, it was very much punishment based,” Covington said. 

But now, the relationship has changed. This year, there have been only three suspensions.

“You can tell when their feet hit the pavement … what kind of morning they had had, what kind of night they had — if they needed to just go in the Reflection Suite and sleep the first hour because they were up taking care of a one-year-old little brother or sister,” Covington said. “We have to take care of all their basic things first before we can ever expect them to learn.”

In addition to having designated spaces to regulate student behavior, there’s an incentive model, including positive office referrals, character slips that praise a child’s positive decision-making and other rewards which have changed how kids view school. 

Over time, the changes began to come together.

“Once the kids started realizing staff checks on them — whether it’s the reading specialist, whether it’s the nurse, whether it’s the cafeteria — … we turned the behaviors from reactive to proactive,” Rolph said. “They just needed to feel that this is a safe place.”

The behavioral improvements led to a 37 percentage point increase in reading scores between 2014-15 and 2018-19.

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, 70% of third graders at Frederick Douglass Elementary School were reading on grade level. 

The school saw a dip after the pandemic, which persists, but reading scores remain higher than the state average, which was . Math scores at Frederick Douglass are also nearly double the state average.

Twelve years later

When Leveilee walks around Frederick Douglass, kids stop her in the hallway for a hug and start telling her about their weekend. When she stands by a classroom door, kids wave. When one student passed on his way to the bathroom, Leveilee knew to ask about the passing of his grandfather and to ask if he was doing OK.

For most students, if you ask about their favorite thing at Frederick Douglass Elementary, they admittedly say recess, but a close second is the staff.

“I really like the playground and the teachers and the stuff that they do in the school,” said David Impert, a fourth grader. “I really love all this.”

Fifth graders said they feel ready and prepared for their next academic journey, but confess it’s a little scary to be leaving a place that’s made them feel heard and accepted for who they are.

“I’ve just had a lot of people who understand me. A lot of people, when I tell them I want to be a bug scientist, basically, they’re like ‘Ew, what? That’s weird.’ But I come here and they’re like ‘Wow that’s cool. How can we help you learn more about this?’ ” said fifth grader Willow Pinkerton.

Those responses are not something that would’ve been heard 10 years ago, Leveilee said.

Teachers see the difference too, especially with some of the highest-need children.

“I’ve had kids that have been through [the Division of Family Services], and have been [emotionally] withdrawn, but as soon as they’re back [to school], they’re so excited to be here because it’s their safe place,” Hurlock said.

For teachers, they say one of their favorite parts of the job is Leveilee. Several educators said she spoils them, and they can’t imagine what the school will look like without her one day.

“I could probably cry,” Covington said. “There are many times that she fights for teachers and teachers don’t even know that she’s fighting for them. I truly think that there is never going to be another like her.”

As for Leveilee, finding a new place to call a second home has been one of her favorite parts of the journey. She doesn’t cry every night anymore, she said, and the challenges were worth it to see the school thrive.

“I’m so glad that I did come, and for the sake of these kids that they’re able to learn and laugh in a much better setting than what they were in,” Leveilee said, “and to me that’s worth all the tears, all the gray hair, all the stress.”

“Small district. Big impact.” It’s more than a motto for the curriculum team at , it’s a daily commitment in action.

In a district where professional connections and a unified vision drive collaboration, that mindset is translating into meaningful gains in early literacy. By prioritizing alignment, consistency, and strong collaboration across schools, Whiteville is proving that size doesn’t limit success, it can actually accelerate it.

At the center of this work is a committed district literacy team that meets consistently to strengthen communication and alignment across the district.

“I think a lot of it starts with this team,” said Kazie Martin, an Early Literacy Specialist (ELS). “We meet monthly as a district literacy team to make sure that communication is consistent.” In her role, Martin helps bridge state literacy priorities with district implementation, ensuring coherence across all levels of the work.

Scaling what works and aligning systems to support students

For nearly a decade, has implemented in its K-2 classrooms. After seeing strong results, the district expanded the program into third grade this year, following a successful pilot at . The expansion reflects a broader district commitment to building coherence, not only in curriculum, but also in instructional language and expectations.

“It was important to streamline the language and expectations so teachers and students could experience the same consistency across planning, instruction, and intervention,” said Ashlee White, director of curriculum and instruction.

Looking ahead, district leaders are working to extend that same alignment into intervention supports, including fourth grade students identified under North Carolina’s Read to Achieve initiative.

“We’re using the resources we have that we know work to close gaps with students,” Martin said.

Next year, the district is exploring the adoption of an aligned comprehension program to further strengthen literacy instruction. Plans are underway to incorporate these additional steps into the district Literacy Intervention Plan, ensuring students encounter consistent language and strategies across all levels of support.

The district is also intentionally supporting beginning teachers by connecting their training to classroom practice.

“It allows for a much clearer understanding of the correlation between the science of reading and instruction we are already doing,” Martin said.

Strengthening MTSS and data use

A major focus this year has been clarifying the district’s framework.

“We have helped teachers understand that MTSS is a framework that all students go through to receive additional support,” Martin explained. “Everything begins with a strong, solid core for all students, followed by research-based interventions.”

Interventions primarily take place within the classroom, supported by teachers, instructional assistants, and interventionists. In some cases, teachers collaborate across classrooms based on student data, creating more intentional connections throughout the school day.

To strengthen this work, the district has refined its data systems.

“We have adjusted our district framework to include entering the data in to seamlessly monitor each student and drive instruction based on the level of intensity they need,” White said.

A district MTSS team meets every other month to support teachers, while school-based teams meet monthly to review student data and guide instructional decisions.

Creating feedback loops through walkthroughs

Another key strategy has been increasing the frequency of district walkthroughs. Leaders now conduct approximately 15 walkthroughs per month, rotating across schools. These visits serve multiple purposes: monitoring implementation, building relationships, and gathering data to inform professional development.

“It helps ensure we are implementing with fidelity while also building supportive relationships,” White said. “Students enjoy when others come in, show interest, and ask about what they are doing or what they’ve learned.”

The walkthrough process includes immediate feedback through an automated form, allowing teachers to receive timely, actionable insights.

“I’ve even put a note on a kid’s desk,” White added.

District leaders analyze walkthrough data to identify trends and inform professional development, professional learning community discussions, and coaching support.

Building ownership and capacity

Whiteville’s size, often seen as a challenge, has also become a strength. The district benefits from having its ELS work across both schools, creating continuity in implementation. They also have strong pre-K programs in the schools, serving nearly half of incoming kindergarten students, supporting early literacy foundations.

Additionally, many teachers are deeply rooted in the community. “Most of the teachers grew up here,” Martin said. Whiteville is building its own educator pipeline.

The district has also made significant progress in data practices. A structured progress monitoring calendar, paired with consistent reminders and ongoing conversations, has led to a fidelity rate above 80%. It has become second nature for teachers as they are making connections and understanding the intentionality and purpose.

Despite the progress, district leaders remain focused on sustaining momentum and deepening understanding. One ongoing priority is building teacher buy-in around instructional shifts.

“We want all teachers to understand that everyone is a reading teacher,” Martin said.

The district is also working to protect time for collaborative planning during the school day, led by instructional coaches, and continue to refine master schedules to maximize instructional impact. Through intentional alignment, strong communication, and a shared commitment to literacy, the district is demonstrating how focused systems can lead to meaningful gains for students.

This first appeared on and is republished here under a .

High school students are still reading full books in English classes — but not very many on average. And teachers working in more affluent school systems seem to assign more books than their counterparts in high-poverty communities.

That’s according to . RAND’s report found that about 90% of these teachers assign at least one book and nearly 60% assign three or more books throughout the school year. On average, teachers assigned four full books in secondary grades.

But the study also reveals stark inequities about who is reading whole books and how often. Teachers in schools that serve higher populations of students from low-income families and students of color are less likely to assign more than two books for the year than those working in wealthier, whiter schools. Teachers leading classrooms with more students with disabilities or multilingual students were also less likely to assign fewer full books.

The data offers a sharper picture of the reality in English classrooms across the country during . RAND’s report indicates that reading entire novels might be one of many activities inside schools influenced by socioeconomic circumstances.

In short, what was once a trademark of high school English class — the novel — is maybe only playing a supporting role now, said Ashley Woo, a RAND researcher and the report’s author.

“It does look like most teachers, most secondary ELA teachers, do assign full books in class,” she said. “It seems like a lot of them assign a relatively small number of books.”

Some of the debate around what students read in class has revolved around , in an era when short-form videos and one-sentence captions take up so much attention. There’s criticism that too many modern reading curricula emphasize reading short passages from novels or short stories. Yet or a prescribed number of books a student should read a year.

The survey, which RAND conducted in 2025, found a possible connection between reading entire books and curriculums. Teachers who reported that they leaned more on publisher-developed curriculums said they taught fewer whole books than teachers who reported they relied more on lessons they developed or that their schools developed.

Woo said this might be because publisher-developed material often includes excerpts instead of full books. But she added that there needs to be more research about the role full books play in curriculums developed by publishing companies.

Other out-of-school factors like poverty might also play a role in how many books teachers assign. Teachers at schools with higher populations of students from low-income families were twice as likely to assign no books than schools with low poverty levels — 12% compared with 6%, according to the RAND report.

While the report’s analysis mostly focused on middle and high school data, the survey also included responses from more than 1,900 elementary educators. They reported a vast range in the number of books they assigned.

Nearly 20% of teachers in grades K-2 reported assigning no books, while 50% reported assigning 20 or more books, presumably shorter ones intended for early readers. Among teachers of grades 3-5, 14% reported assigning no books, 22% reported assigning three to four, and 20% reported assigning five to nine. Elementary teachers indicated that reading full books didn’t “crowd out” time spent on early literacy skills, the researchers also wrote.

The data suggests “there are a lot of teachers who are not prioritizing full book reading in elementary classrooms at all,” Woo said.

Woo said that more research is needed to fully understand how reading full books shapes students in the classroom.

Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools. This story was originally published by Chalkbeat. Sign up for their newsletters at .

This story originally appeared in , a nonprofit news publication investigating power in New York. .

When Governor Kathy Hochul unveiled her signature literacy legislation in 2024, she stressed that New York was late to the game — calling it “embarrassing” that Connecticut, New Jersey, and other states had already embraced phonics-based instruction. New York schools had fallen behind the national curve, she said, and had been teaching students how to read the wrong way.

A large reason for that, she emphasized, is that under state law, districts choose their own curricula. The Back to Basics law was supposed to fix that problem, by requiring school districts to align instruction with research on how children best learn to read by September 2025.

Specifically, districts had to start teaching using the “science of reading,” a phonics-based approach grounded in the idea that reading isn’t innate and must be explicitly taught through skills like sounding out words. At the time, it was gaining traction as the policy du jour in literacy instruction as an alternative to “balanced literacy,” an approach long embraced by New York districts that teaches children to instead rely on context clues for reading comprehension.

By passing the Back to Basics plan, New York joined  and the District of Columbia in a nationwide movement fueled in part by results in Mississippi, where rigorous literacy laws  in academic performance over the past 13 years.

But a New York Focus analysis of mandatory school surveys submitted to the state has found that more than 130 school districts are still using “balanced literacy” curricula.

Teachers in those districts, primarily in rural and suburban areas, are often required to use reading programs that advocates say contradict the settled body of research around teaching reading. The misaligned curricula could have an especially profound impact on students of color and those from low-income families, who are already more likely to experience reading difficulties, these advocates say.

New York’s law differs from those of some other states, which require districts to pick from a list of state-approved reading curricula and offer extra funding for districts to purchase them. Others have allocated hundreds of millions of dollars to advance multiyear literacy plans with clear benchmarks.

While New York’s Back to Basics law required the State Education Department to provide best practices to districts, it entrusts school districts with making the switch and measuring their own compliance — leaving in place a discretionary system that advocates argue contributed to New York’s low literacy rates to begin with.

So far, that piecemeal approach has left hundreds of thousands of students learning how to read with widely discredited curricula and instructional materials.

“Our concern is a lack of urgency,” said Jeff Smink, deputy director at the advocacy group EdTrust-New York, which recently published  of the survey data submitted to the state in September. “If 400,000 kids aren’t getting evidence-based instruction, that, to us, is a crisis.”

Smink said the law lacks enforcement mechanisms in part because of New York’s deeply embedded culture as a strong local-control state, where most decisions about public schools are determined by districts, school boards, and even individual campuses. He also said the state teachers union wields significant influence and “opposes anything they think threatens teacher autonomy.

The literacy law, which invested $10 million in teacher training and tasked the union with training 20,000 teachers, came under fire after a March  revealed that the training program heavily featured the instructional methods that Hochul set out to replace.

The survey data offers an unprecedented statewide look at how schools are teaching elementary school students how to read and write — and insight into the state’s progress as it gears up to replicate the same approach with .

New York’s reading scores are average at best. Thirty-one percent of New York fourth graders were proficient in reading last year, according to the National Assessment of Education Progress — just slightly above the US average and much lower than similar states like Massachusetts and New Jersey. Mississippi, the nation’s poorest state, also outperformed New York, which spends more money per pupil than any other state.

According to education advocates, the Back to Basics is doing little to make up for lost ground. “We are shockingly behind,” said Assemblymember Robert Carroll, a leading literacy advocate. “If we don’t do something, we are on the path to be the last in the nation on this.”

In response to a request for comment, a Hochul spokesperson wrote, “We anticipate continued progress and are working with SED to ensure that all schools are implementing evidence-based literacy instruction.”

The structure of New York’s education system means that students in neighboring districts may be learning with vastly different curricula. Until recently, Celine Schneider’s children attended school in Riverhead Central School District, where last year less than a third of third graders were proficient in reading.

On the literacy curricula survey, Riverhead was one of 16 districts that reported not aligning with the state’s best practices in every category of reading instruction, as well as in writing. The district said it uses a mix of curricula, including some aligned with the science of reading alongside balanced literacy programs critics say fail to teach children how to decode words properly.

Riverhead declined an interview request, but provided a statement through a communications firm verifying that its reading curriculum and instruction “are aligned with the state’s core curriculum standards and teaching practices.”

Schneider said that in Riverhead, students were promoted from one grade to another without gaining basic literacy skills. After watching her daughter fall behind, lose confidence, and endure bullying for not knowing how to read, Schneider said she decided to transfer her children to a nearby district with stronger reading intervention, despite the hefty tuitions required to switch districts. (The district, Quogue Union Free School District, said in its survey response that it uses science of reading curricula and aligns with the state’s best practices, though it did also report using a popular balanced literacy program.)

“It was either let them continue to fail, or struggle financially to make sure my kids are okay in the long run,” she said. 

Schneider asked Quogue to assess her children’s reading abilities, and expected mixed results: Her oldest struggled with dyslexia, and she had just learned her other daughter was going to enter second grade as a nonreader. But the other three seemed to be succeeding in school.

Instead, the results were shockingly similar — all five were at least a grade level behind.

“Not being able to read destroys a child’s future,” she said. “We are setting our kids up to fail.”

Educators and policymakers have long debated how to best teach students how to read. “Balanced literacy” dominated US classrooms for much of the past 20 years, but many schools have moved away from it due to mounting evidence that can lead to poor reading outcomes.

The science of reading, on the other hand, represents a vast body of research emphasizing the importance of phonics — the relationship between letters and sounds — in teaching children how to read. While the approach has some detractors who say it pushes a “one-size-fits-all” approach that may not work for every child, studies show that instruction based on the science of reading improves reading proficiency, especially for children with dyslexia.

But whether it can underpin an effective education policy depends on how it is implemented, and some worry New York’s patchwork approach could limit its potential benefits.

In 2024, 46 percent of New York third graders were below basic proficiency in reading. Those outcomes could have profound implications: Research shows children who fail to read proficiently by third grade are four times more likely to drop out of high school.

Mississippi’s success with the science of reading is hard to ignore. The state was ranked second worst nationwide for fourth-grade reading in 2013 and rose to the top 10 within a decade. Nearby states that followed suit, including Alabama and Louisiana, saw similar gains, a trend referred to as the “Southern surge.” Outcomes in other states have been more mixed, fueling debate between critics who see stalled scores as a cause for concern and proponents who argue the reforms need time to take hold.

Under New York’s Back to Basics plan, all school districts were supposed to confirm in the September survey that they transitioned to the science of reading in their curricula, instruction, and teacher training, and that they’re following best practices in seven literacy and writing categories. As part of the survey, districts submitted the curricula they use.

Most school districts reported meeting best practices, but the results still show areas of concern, especially in writing, fluency, and vocabulary practices; in each of those areas, over 100 school districts and BOCES — regional organizations that provide educational resources to districts — said they were out of alignment. Many also shared plans to improve instruction, including by reviewing curricula, revamping teacher training, and establishing literacy committees to inform programming.

Plattsburgh, Friendship, and Watkins Glen school districts all reported misalignment even though they submitted curricula that align with the science of reading. Superintendents at those school districts said they opted for candor, and that the survey revealed where instruction still needs improvement.

“There was a relatively large learning curve to get a full staff of teachers up to the expectation of Back to Basics,” said Watkins Glen Superintendent Kai D’Alleva. “But there has been tremendous buy-in, and we’re excited to see the fruits of this labor develop over the next few years.”

Overall, more than 130 of the state’s 713 school districts submitted balanced literacy curricula, with the most popular being Fountas and Pinnell and Lucy Calkins’ Units of Study, two of the most controversial programs. Scores of districts also created their own curriculum or reported using other programs that have not been reviewed by EdReports, a nonprofit that states and districts use to review the quality of K-12 instructional materials.

Kat Fratticci, co-founder of the Long Island Literacy Coalition, a community-based advocacy group founded in 2024 to promote the science of reading, said some districts are hesitant to revamp reading instruction because they’ve already invested heavily in their current curriculum, instructional materials, and teacher training.

At the same time, the state law does not have any clear enforcement mechanism built in to account for these variations. And the survey results don’t capture the full picture. Districts have to fill out the attestation survey annually, but they’re not required to submit proof that their curricula are aligned, and the state doesn’t provide guidance on what programs districts should steer clear of. Dozens of districts reported using balanced literacy programs despite confirming their alignment with all best practices.

The state shouldn’t tell school districts exactly what to purchase and teach, said Tarja Parssinen, founder of the Western NY Education Alliance, but “there has to be some guidance, some support, and some recommendations about what to stay away from.”

Balanced literacy curricula can mask dyslexia and other learning delays, research shows, because they often encourage students to guess words based on pictures or context clues rather than decode letters and sounds. In Schneider’s case, she said she thought her children were reading at the appropriate level because they would read aloud at home — until she noticed they were just reciting passages they had memorized in class.

Other Riverhead parents told New York Focus how their children who struggled to read were pushed along without proper intervention. One mother, who asked to remain anonymous due to potential litigation, said her son was reading at a kindergarten level in fourth grade before he started receiving one-on-one reading intervention.

“There’s a mantra in New York state: Just wait and see, wait and see if they grow out of it,” said Yolanda Thompson, special education advocate and three-time Riverhead school board candidate. “There needs to be a huge cultural mindset shift. We can’t fix something we don’t understand.”

The students most harmed when districts don’t use best practices are often students of color, those from low-income families, and multilingual learners, said Fratticci. “They don’t necessarily have that safety net of private tutoring or reading specialists outside of school, so when the classroom fails them, there’s no backup.”

That’s true in Riverhead, said Thompson. A majority of students there are from low-income families and around 40 percent are English language learners.

In the survey, Riverhead wrote that many of its teachers are new to the profession and work with high-needs students, and that financial constraints limit access to instructional resources. The district added that it hired three literacy coaches to lead professional development and support implementation of the science of reading, and is evaluating the need to purchase new instructional materials to teach phonics.

Education Department spokesperson Karen Male said in a statement that the agency plans to reach out to noncompliant districts to provide free instructional resources, explore professional development with colleges and universities, and work with districts to identify other needs. The agency did specify when districts must achieve full compliance.

Without holding districts accountable, Assemblymember Carroll said, New York will continue to lose the race to literacy.

In 2023, Carroll introduced a bill called the Right to Read Act, which would require all elementary school teachers to be trained in the science of reading, provide grants to districts to hire literacy coaches, and mandate school districts to choose from a list of approved, evidence-based curricula. The legislation is currently awaiting action in the education committee, but Carroll said he’s optimistic it will advance this year, citing recent conversations with colleagues and the governor about the need to improve New York schools to keep residents from leaving the state.

“Right now, in New York, you have to be lucky to learn how to read — and that is unjustified and unconscionable,” Carroll said. “We know how to fix this, and I know the governor wants to fix this. But we all need to work together because this is going to take the effort of the legislature and the governor working together to get this done.”

Carroll’s bill has the support of EdTrust, which is also calling for school districts to submit literacy plans with evidence of implementation and notify parents if they are using non-evidence-based curricula. In addition, the organization wants to see the state invest $15 million so that districts can purchase science of reading curricula, and mandatory universal screening in grades K-3.

“We have to catch up with the rest of the nation,” Smink said. “For the amount of money we spend and for how important learning to read is, we deserve policies like every other state.”

LINCOLN — As the Nebraska Legislature considers whether to mandate increased support for struggling young readers, a Lincoln mother urges officials to act as she continues a years-long push for literacy and dyslexia awareness.

Heather Schmidt of Lincoln said she is “cautiously optimistic” about the to . If passed, the State Board of Education would craft a model policy around reading interventions, dyslexia screening and standards on when to recommend holding students back for persistent reading deficiencies by the end of third grade.

The model would need to include and flexibility so local schools, by July 1, 2028, could adopt or update their policies and implement the changes “within existing resources.”

“We’re making progress, I think. Slowly. Not quick enough to make a difference in generations of children at this point,” said Schmidt, whose oldest daughter, Norah, 19, has dyslexia.

Schmidt was among a few individuals to speak during a public hearing in support LB 1050, a priority of Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen. She offered her own framework around dyslexia screening and help designed to support students with dyslexia and not make the expectations “squishy anymore.”

“I suppose in 2018, we kind of thought, ‘Yay, now we’re going to do dyslexia, and these kids aren’t going to be invisible anymore,’” Schmidt said. “We haven’t seen that materialize.”

Norah Schmidt, now a college freshman, told the Examiner this month that she doesn’t think kids should be held back but should be given the help they need to learn to read. Then, retention would not be a worry.

“Kids who need extra help with education should be given that because that’s the main job of educators,” Norah Schmidt said. “Kids should have the education they need to succeed.”

Adding nuance

The Legislature took a major step in 2018 with the passage of the “,” led by former State Sens. Lou Ann Linehan of the Elkhorn area and Patty Pansing Brooks of Lincoln. The 2018 law set up a process where K-3 students are assessed three times a year and, if struggling in reading, are put on a formal “reading improvement plan.”

The bipartisan legislative duo toured schools in fall 2017 and later passed frameworks to and . Kindergartners in fall 2017 will head to high school this fall.

Lawmakers for years, including Linehan and former State Sen. Justin Wayne of Omaha, have urged the Legislature to act because kids can’t simply wait for legislative action.

LB 1050 entered the picture this year with support from U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon, who is visiting Nebraska on Thursday. The original bill would have mandated that students not able to read by the end of third grade be held back automatically.

Linehan had proposed similar legislation during her freshman year in 2017. She later proposed allowing parents to move their child to fourth grade if they choose. Lawmakers for a similar parental opt-out during this year’s first-round debate on March 26. The bill , and it returns for the second of three rounds of debate Wednesday. It needs 25 votes.

Some lawmakers opposing the bill worried it added bureaucracy, would be punitive or would pass on unfunded costs to schools, which they argued might increase property taxes to cover implementation costs.

State Sen. Jana Hughes of Seward, vice chair of the Education Committee and a former school board member, is leading the amendment being considered Wednesday, which would hand the development of reading intervention requirements to the Nebraska Department of Education and local school boards, rather than the Legislature.

“Very few policies are so easy or black and white that it fits a school of [Omaha Public Schools] size down to McPherson size,” Hughes said.

Nebraska public schools span the range in from roughly 52,000 students in OPS to about 50 students in McPherson County Schools.

‘Shouldn’t be new or scary’

However, advocacy organizations representing administrators, school boards and teachers remain opposed, Hughes and others said.

“The Hughes amendment is far better, but our preference is for this bill to die on select file,” said Nebraska State Education Association President Tim Royers. “The governor’s planned event tomorrow with Secretary McMahon is clear evidence that this is all driven by his desire to score political points, not what’s best for kids.”

Linehan and State Sen. Danielle Conrad of Lincoln, an Education Committee member, told the Nebraska Examiner this week that many current complaints about LB 1050 are about what’s already required in law, including targeted supports and the thrice-yearly reading assessments. The mandatory retention, which Conrad described as “very misguided,” has been removed.

“This shouldn’t be new or different or scary,” Conrad said, noting that schools already have policies on literacy and grade retention. “I’m not quite sure why there’s still so much opposition.”

Conrad said the Education Committee’s work to add a parental override and more flexibility for English language learners and students receiving accommodations was a “far better iteration.” For some, retention might be best, she said, but it can’t be “one size fits all” or exclude parents.

Parents already have the option to hold their child back in grades K-3 for academic reasons under a 2024 law that Conrad led.

‘More bureaucracy’

State Board of Education Vice President Liz Renner of Omaha said she worries that in some states with a parental exemption, such as Michigan, the system turned into a “haves and have-nots,” where families with resources could appeal and others were held back.

“I feel like a law is not quite flexible enough for the situation, because I just think there’s a lot of gray area for families and for students and for schools,” Renner said. “I definitely think it’s a great idea for it to come to the Board of Ed.”

But Renner remains opposed to LB 1050 and doesn’t understand why it would need to be put into law, especially without more state funding to help local schools implement the policies.

“I just don’t think it adds anything to the statewide goal of improving literacy, other than more bureaucracy,” Renner said.

The State Board officially took no position on the original LB 1050 after a motion to oppose it split 4-4 in early March.

A model policy?

State Board of Education President Elizabeth Tegtmeier of North Platte and fellow board member Lisa Schonhoff of Bennington also voiced hesitation on the model policy component, but not on the goal LB 1050 seeks to achieve.

Schonhoff . She described it as the “accountability piece that we’re lacking.” She is a “little bit leery” of the model policy, because she doesn’t know what it would look like, though she loves the deference to local control. At the same time, she noted that reading and test scores over the past decade have declined, with local control.

“At some point, we have to say, ‘Hey, something’s not working with local control,’” Schonhoff said. “We’ve got to figure that out because kids are going to be suffering, and it just keeps getting worse.”

She said she reached out to Mississippi and Louisiana education teams on how they improved reading proficiency, finding that many states have a retention policy. She, Linehan and multiple lawmakers have said the point isn’t punishment but providing targeted, strategic supports.

Tegtmeier said she was surprised no one from the Education Committee or Pillen’s team had reached out before LB 1050 was introduced, being “consequential legislation.” She sees arguments on both sides but said the point is telling schools they “absolutely must do everything within their power to help children learn to read.”

Providing a parental override is important, Tegtmeier said, but her concern with the model policy is that schools already have the power to act.

“I’m just not sure I see the value in more legislation that doesn’t have any teeth,” Tegtmeier said.

‘More harm than good’

State Sens. Ashlei Spivey and Margo Juarez, both of Omaha, had urged the Legislature to slow down and that the legislation was moving too fast.

Spivey, a member of the Appropriations Committee, proposed having the Legislature spend $15 million each year to implement the law. The state doesn’t have such room in its budget, and the Nebraska Department of Education has received an over a few years, specifically earmarked for reading from state, federal and private sources.

State Sen. Jane Raybould of Lincoln, who succeeded Pansing Brooks, has filed a motion to kill the bill. She said she is getting “bombarded” with messages from educators, schools and lobbyists for schools that LB 1050 is still a “bad bill.” She said Lincoln Public Schools has estimated a $4.2 million annual cost, which wouldn’t be covered by the state.

“It needs to put a pause in it to go back to committee and deal with a lot of the issues that they keep bringing up,” Raybould said Wednesday. She said educators have told her retention would “do more harm than good, particularly to children of color.”

Linehan said if it costs so much, she questioned what schools and others have truly done in the past 10 years to help struggling readers.

Schmidt said the arguments of being “too fast” leave her with “sheer frustration” and a sense of “starting over again.” It has largely been freshmen senators questioning the legislation.

“That was stunning and just sort of makes somebody almost feel like what’s the point of continuing to try and change things?” Schmidt said.

Schmidt described some deja vu and a feeling of “starting over again” like in 2017 and 2018, when some lawmakers then said the Linehan-Pansing Brooks efforts would be “repetitive” and weren’t needed.

Schmidt said lawmakers should keep personal stories in mind and know that for everyone who speaks, there are hundreds more. She said lawmakers need to understand legislative history.

Making a change

State Sen. Dave Murman of Glenvil, who is leading LB 1050 as Education Committee chair, said he is good with Hughes’ amendment because it includes three parts: the parental override to retention, reporting requirements and early parental involvement, as early as kindergarten.

“I kind of look at it as a participation trophy, not that it’s necessarily a trophy to move on, but there has to be accountability,” Murman said.

He and Schnoff said change is needed in part as have declined over the past decade. Linehan said officials don’t want to continue the “downward spiral.”

“We cannot keep doing what we have been doing and expect different results,” Murman said.

‘We can’t compete with the experts’

Murman noted term limits in the Legislature — restricting senators to up to two four-year terms — have also complicated the legislative process, giving increased strength to legislative staff and lobbyists compared to lawmakers. This includes efforts to address education and literacy.

Conrad, Linehan and Schmidt separately acknowledged the imbalance between a mother such as Schmidt and lobbyists. Conrad and Linehan said it might take a while before policymakers begin questioning what they’re told, with Conrad noting there’s a level of trust with local schools.

“No, we can’t compete with the experts. We don’t have the access. We don’t have the money. We don’t have the numbers,” Schmidt said. “But our stories and our voices should be more important than that.”

Linehan, no stranger to fights with school officials, said it might take three years to figure out that what a senator is being told by education leaders might not be reality.

“Then you fight them, and then you’re gone,” Linehan said.

Conrad’s first legislative election in 2006 was the first time term limits began booting senators. She said it’s harder to get up to speed on complex issues and natural for new policymakers to defer to school officials, including local ones.

She said it takes a while to build independence and balance goals to support public schools while also being unafraid to hold them accountable.

“I think, unfortunately, school officials have taken advantage of that lack of strength and institutional knowledge in the Legislature and have resisted accountability,” Conrad said, who returned to the Legislature after being term-limited.

Pansing Brooks is running to return to the Legislature, which would make her the second woman to return after sitting out due to term limits, after Conrad. Linehan said she’s happy about that potential.

“The only way we can hold the schools accountable to what we do, obviously, is by being there longer,” Linehan said. “I feel once Patty comes back, there’ll be a reckoning, because that is really a nonpartisan issue.”

The Legislature last year advanced a constitutional amendment to . Voters will weigh in on that amendment this fall.

‘A shining star’

Of Schmidt’s advocacy, Conrad and Linehan praised her work in helping the Legislature, especially in the era of term limits.

“She’s just a shining star when it comes to what it means to be an engaged and responsible citizen,” said Conrad, now in her 12th year as a lawmaker. She is unopposed for reelection.

Linehan, who was term-limited after 2024, described Schmidt as a dedicated mom who fought to make things work for her kids. She said those advocates are important, who know the facts and background, while lobbyists organize on the other side.

“I wasn’t paying that much attention until Heather called me,” Linehan said, adding later: “She just keeps coming back. She’s just incredible.”

The vigilance has also helped Linehan put in place in 2023. Schmidt, Linehan and Pansing Brooks all returned this February to fight to preserve those, and . The reporting is meant to add more accountability to the 2018 law. The group successfully fended off changes each time.

Of why she continues showing up, Schmidt said she looks at her girls and wonders, “What if?”

“When I think of what could have been, it’s heartbreaking,” Schmidt said. “I don’t want other kids and families to have to worry about that.”

Conrad said she can’t describe how intimidating or scary it can be for Nebraskans to engage with the Legislature and lawmaking process, but she said when people do — as Schmidt has — it makes public policy “richer” and “more responsive.”

“I am grateful for her incredible work and impressed by her vigilance,” Conrad said of Schmidt. “Her personal sacrifice in stepping forward and into advocacy has made the state a better place and should inspire others.”

is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Nebraska Examiner maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Aaron Sanderford for questions: info@nebraskaexaminer.com.

It started 12 years ago when Emily Angiletta, Stephanie Timek and Emily Silluzio were first time teachers at the Meriden, Connecticut school, staying late to plan lessons — long after the custodians shuttered the building. 

The teachers were hired under the leadership of a new principal with a new vision of what student success would look like in a low-income school. The three educators were in their 20s, fresh out of college and trying to figure out what it meant to be effective in the classroom.

More than a decade later, their friendship is like a sisterhood or a sports team: They call each other only by their last names and can practically finish each other’s sentences with a smirk and a head nod that says “yeah, that’s what I was going to say.” 

Together, they’ve experienced getting married, losing a parent and having children. They have  also lived through the highs and lows of the classroom – some years “soaring through expectations” and others questioning if their teaching had worsened. 

“We were all learning together, struggling together, learning from our mistakes, growing together,” Silluzio said, “and I think that’s a huge part of what led to our unity. We were in the same boat.”

The Barry teachers’ close relationships show not only what a culture shift in one school has done for staff, but also students. The friendship and strong working collaboration are the results of a bold plan set in motion by their former principal Dan Crispino, who helped transform the school from 5% proficiency to a in 2019. 

Now, Crispino has been tasked with scaling Barry’s academic success across the district. 

The Meriden school district, in many ways, is similar to Angilleta, Timek and Silluzio – learning, struggling and growing together. 

An almost decade-long overhaul of the district has been a systematic transformation – rooted in consistency across classrooms and campuses, accountability, hands-on oversight, relationship and trust.

It’s about finding ways to put their students “in a position to do things that people don’t believe are possible,” said Crispino, now the district’s director of school leadership. “Their backgrounds – all these things – are tough and you can’t control everything. But, what you can control is when they’re ours and that we’re giving them every single freaking thing possible to help them be successful and to get ahead of whatever challenges.”

While there’s often an expectation that students in urban districts won’t perform well because of , which affect school funding levels and supporting high student needs, Meriden is Connecticut’s and is beating the odds in how successful it’s been at teaching kids to read.

Despite being made up of nearly – more than three quarters of whom are from low-income families –  kids in seven of the district’s eight elementary schools are reading at higher levels than expected, according to a data project focused on Bright Spot schools launched by �鶹��Ʒ.

The data analysis highlighted schools that were among the top 5% of their state in outscoring their expected reading proficiency based on the percentage of children who qualified for free or reduced priced lunch. 

Connecticut was home to 25 exceptional schools. And of the state’s top five Bright Spot schools – three were in Meriden, including its highest need campus, Pulaski Elementary School, which has a poverty rate of 87.7% and expected just 16.4% of students reading on grade level but instead had nearly 54%.

In the last seven years, the school system has reworked its master schedule and implemented a rigorously supervised accountability model from district and school leaders who are in classrooms daily. Staff across the district have meticulously tracked student progress and have improved collaboration to make data more accessible among one another. 

The district has also incorporated instructional coaches, who are assigned by grade and travel between campuses. Their role, beyond meeting with educators several times a week, is bearing the weight of lesson planning every unit by outlining curriculum and other resources. 

The initiatives are part of an underlying mission: Alignment. 

No matter the school building or the classroom, all third grade classes across the district are learning the same material on the same schedule – even if it looks a little different teacher by teacher. They’re meeting with the same coaches and district leadership. 

System alignment through relationship building

Whether it’s children who have lost a parent, are experiencing homelessness, learning English or have a disability, Meriden staff have successfully worked with many such students — including Enzo, a third grade student at Pulaski Elementary School.

He doesn’t know what he wants to be once he gets older, but he knows he enjoys math and science. Enzo knows all about the Fibonacci Sequence, he said, explaining how “one plus one is two, and two plus one is three, and three plus two is five, and five plus three is eight,” going all the way up to 13 plus eight.

He admitted he thought reading was boring, but he couldn’t sit still when he talked about a book he’s reading at home.

“It’s called ‘What Cats Want,’” said Enzo, 8. “I’m on page 102.”

He’s more than halfway through the book and he likes to read “two or four” pages before he goes to sleep. His favorite tidbit of information from the book is to be careful when you let your cat outside.

“Number one, they can get run over. Number two, they can get lost. And number three, a stranger cat can attack them,” Enzo said, holding up three green marker stained fingers. But, “I remember [everything] from page one.”

Earlier this school year, Enzo lost his father. But through services at his school, including an individualized schedule that allows him to work for 30 minutes, then take a two minute break, he’s been able to stay on track in the classroom.

But before a student like Enzo can be successful, the needs of educators must be met.

Before taking on his central office job in 2020, Crispino spent more than 20 years as a first grade teacher and as a principal at Barry for a handful of years. When he began working as a district administrator, and was asked to mirror his success at Barry across campuses, union relationships were among his top priorities.

“I would never ask anyone to do anything that I wouldn’t do or have done myself,” Crispino said. “You don’t want surprises. They’re your human resource. They’re delivering what you’re trying to put forth. If you don’t have their support, then it’s never gonna work.”

Time and expectations were the biggest concerns from educators, both in Meriden and across the country, with surveys showing staff often feel like they’re in a school day.

Step one, in Meriden, was overhauling its master schedule, which originally “was not, physically, mathematically, possible,” Crispino said. Teachers were being asked to start reading at 12:30, the same time recess was supposed to end, so everyone’s transitional time looked different and there was no uniformity when students were actually supposed to be back in the classroom and at work. 

“That had to go away,” Crispino said. 

Though it seemed simple, just taking the first step in building in five minute transitions made the schedule “viable, conducive and real,” Crispino said, which helped align schools and teachers on expectations. They also built in a reteach day at the end of every unit for concepts that had students struggling.

Next was making oversight a norm. 

Crispino and his building principals spend most of their time in classrooms, at least four times a day. It began as a practice that at first “wasn’t pretty,” Crispino said, with many complaints from union leaders who said administrators spent too much time in the classroom, but has since shifted to educators stopping them when they walk by to see if they want to check their recent data collection.

“We’re not there to get you, there’s a difference,” Crispino said. “For support and accountability, we’re going to be there.”

Coaches that changed, and streamlined, the game

With administrators who better understand what’s going on in the classroom, it means resources can be allocated better. In Meriden, Crispino has spearheaded bringing in instructional coaches who are assigned by grade levels and rotate among campuses.

“When I was a first year teacher, … I had to go home and write all my little lessons. I had no one to help me. I was on my own. Your admin would come in doing observations and you’d either have it or you don’t,” Crispino said, “and that’s different now.”

Veronica Germe recalled being a teacher in the state capital’s public school system. In Hartford, a district home to more than 15,000 students, she remembered how she only saw her principal in her kindergarten classroom once during the entire school year and how “visibility is the biggest difference” between the two districts.

Germe, now a K-3 grade English language arts and math coach in Meriden, is part of a team of about a dozen other elementary instructional coaches who are responsible for supporting both new and veteran teachers by managing lesson planning and acting as a resource for implementation.

“We’ve almost become a catch all in the district for all the questions K-5,” she said. 

In many districts, instructional coaches may be brushed off by educators, but in Meriden, the group has worked hard to develop a relationship where they’re “almost like a teammate,” Germe said. “We’re not evaluating them. We’re there in it with them. We’re helping and we want to get to know the students too. … Their scores are our scores.”

The coaches organize curriculum into bite-sized emails that are delivered before a unit. The emails give an overview of the lessons for that unit, with breakdowns of assessments, test questions to pay attention to, review slides, videos and pacing guides. The emails also explicitly outline state standards, which allows teachers to better target their instruction.

They meet with teachers every week for at least one planning session for upcoming lessons, and observe and offer advice during classroom time. The group of coaches are also able to provide pacing calendars and resources to help teachers differentiate instruction based on class needs.

Last year, Connecticut implemented a that limited the curricula elementary schools could use to teach reading. When the district fully shifted its K-3 curriculum, it was painless – “phenomenal”even – Crispino said, thanks to a rollout supported by union leaders and the instructional coaches that gave educators “everything they would need.”

Despite budget constraints, the district has committed to leaving their elementary instructional coaches untouched, and funded by Title I, a federal grant for schools with high-concentrations of low-income students.

Investing in these coaches for early grades gives all teachers and children “equal footing,” Crispino said, where everyone gets the same emails and meetings, then gets to decide what they’re doing with the resources. 

In mid-March, if you walked into Meriden’s Pulaski, Nathan Hale, or Thomas Hooker elementary schools during its rotational reading blocks, you would’ve seen almost the same snapshot in the three campuses.

While teachers have autonomy on the use of laptops, printed worksheets or using dry erase boards, the 60-minute period across a dozen classrooms generally looked the same.

During the reading rotation block, a small group of students, usually six or less, would be sitting in one corner of the room working on answering questions about a text with their teacher. In another corner, you’d see a paraeducator, tutor or reading coach with another small group.

Scattered across the classroom, students would be working alone with a loose leaf piece of paper, called “evidence paper” and taking notes and analyzing stories about komodragons, the galaxy or Harriet Tubman. Pairs also worked on poster boards or white boards figuring out vocabulary, grammar, main ideas or comparing and contrasting two texts.

After 20 minutes, it was time to rotate, and every student knew what to do without being asked twice.

The scenes were a direct mirror of how everyone’s “speaking the same language,” as Crispino would say, in every elementary building across the district. 

“The coaching, the admin, the feedback, the curriculum that’s easily accessible, these emails, … eliminated a lot of excuses, and when we did that, we created this high standard of excellence,” Crispino said. The alignment “built independence. It built accountability. It built engagement. It built a vibrant learning environment.”

Innovation and scalability

Last year, Angilleta, Timek and Silluzio came into a meeting with administrators rehearsed and prepared to propose a departmentalized approach to third grade, where every student would rotate among the three educators for different subjects, similar to a middle and high school model. 

The presentation wasn’t even needed, Crispino and the school’s principal Kimberly Goldbach said, laughing. It was an automatic yes.

“Part of me was like ‘You’d be an idiot to change what’s working,’ but then I said, ‘You’d be an idiot to not be innovative and creative enough to know when there’s a time to think outside the box,’” Crispino said. 

It’s paying off. Their third grade class “had the highest scores they ever had,” Crispino said. “I think our scores are going to get even better because we’re being creative and innovative at the elementary level with departmentalizing.”

Beyond the academic piece, Timek also said she’s hopeful the approach will give children, particularly those with high-needs, more resources.

“It gives these kids another chance to have a teacher that they’re not stuck with all day long. You might have a closer relationship with one kid versus the other, but the other kid can go to another class and be closer with that teacher,” she said. “They have more adults in their corner that they trust and they know that’s providing them a good education and that they can go to if they have a problem.”

The district is working to add nearly two dozen more educators into the departmentalized approach.

When asked about the scalability of Meriden’s success in other schools across the state and country, Crispino, the district superintendent Mark Benigni and various principals said it was possible, but with a few caveats.

“Can districts have a schedule like we do? Yes, but you have to make sure you’re consistent with it. Can you have instructional coaches do the work we’re doing? Yes. Should admin be in rooms? Yes. Should the central office support and understand the work happening in the trenches? Yes,” Crispino said. “You have to push [your staff and kids] to an uncomfortable place, … to challenge each other, have professional dialog and have high expectations, but then give them the resources to be successful.”

The “” report, conducted by nonprofit research organization SRI, examined literacy instruction in districts in Texas, Maryland, North Carolina and Virginia that have been using materials rooted in the popular phonics-based literacy approach for at least five years. 

Through numerous classroom observations, teacher surveys and interviews with district officials in Aldine Independent School District, Baltimore City Public Schools, Guilford County Schools and Richmond Public Schools, researchers found a majority of reading lessons lacked “depth” – meaning foundational skills were mainly limited to working on single words rather than reading them in sentences. 

Comprehension lessons in later elementary grades also mainly focused on completing a task, such as identifying a main character, rather than using a text for discussion and understanding its purpose.

“You’re not able to really think about the unpacking of a complicated sentence. You’re not thinking about really intentional vocabulary instruction or the building of kids’ word knowledge over time,” said Dan Reynolds, one of the lead authors of the report. “Ultimately, how should we be framing kids to read? Are we teaching our K-4 kids that reading is just tasks? Are we teaching them that they just need to label stuff and fill out graphic organizers?”

In recent years, has passed science of reading laws, including many that have limited the type of programming and instructional materials a school can use – a move that has drawn that it’s too restrictive and that the instruction faces its own limitations.

The report defined surface literacy skills as a student’s ability to complete tasks and understand texts based on their literal meeting while robust instruction would further push a child to understand, evaluate and synthesize what they had read for its significance. 

The study said its “comprehension observations alone are more rigorous than nearly all studies conducted in the last 50 years.” It’s not expected to be representative of reading instruction across the country, Reynolds said, but “we have four big districts in four different states, and we saw this pattern happening in all four of them with three different curricula.”

The study also found that teachers struggled with implementing comprehension-focused learning materials and said many times the curriculum was too dense, required substantial planning or may not have been developmentally appropriate. Professional development opportunities for these educators were also limited.

Researchers reported less than a quarter of observed comprehension lessons were engaging in robust learning. More than two-thirds of the lessons focused on “surface-level” comprehension. 

“It seems that these curriculums are designed to build knowledge and they don’t develop meaning, and so then why read about the Civil War or about insects?” said Katrina Woodworth, director at SRI’s Center for Education Research & Improvement. “The point is to both teach reading and to build students’ knowledge base so that they have more scaffolding for future learning of both content and meaning.” 

The SRI researchers also found that many review tools that measure comprehension don’t make a distinction between surface-level and robust instruction and skills. So, while educators are tasked with meeting a baseline standard, like having a child compare and contrast a text, it may be “unintentionally encouraging teachers to focus on surface-level goals,” the report said.

Without distinction, it weakens instruction for students and can later manifest as a skills disadvantage, Reynolds said.

“Districts had done so much to get the kids all the way there [with literacy], but it was losing voltage in the end,” Reynolds said. “If we can actually shift the way that districts are thinking about improving their comprehension instruction, they can take that all the way home and deliver really high quality comprehension instruction because so many pieces are already in place.”

Reynolds and one of his fellow co-authors, Sara Rutherford-Quach, said they saw glimpses of “magic” in the classroom when students understood a passage in wide-ranging contexts, which is the type of instruction they’re hoping to see districts incorporate more of in early grades.

“The kids were way more engaged,” Rutherford-Quach said. “Surface-level is important and necessary in some cases, … but it really is fundamentally different when you start talking about meaning and making it matter to the kids, and you see that they’re invested in it.”

Reynolds added that it’s unlikely robust comprehension could make up 100% of lessons in the classroom, but “we are thinking that if we can shift that needle from 24% robust lessons up to 50 or 60, then that would be a real catalyst for comprehension growth.”

The report recommended district leaders create “a shared vision for robust comprehension and define what it means for students, teachers, schools and the district,” and align how to best measure the extent of learning. It also called for better professional learning structures that could help model and rehearse robust comprehension work. 

Previous reporting from �鶹��Ʒ found the percentage of recent high school graduates who lack “robust” comprehension skills is the highest it’s ever been, according to 2023 data. The sooner districts can engrain literacy skills that go beyond just explicit tasks, the easier it will be as they continue through the K-12 system, Reynolds said.

“I see the distinction between surface level and robust comprehension as critical to comprehension in fifth grade, but I also see it in the kids when they’re in 12th grade. Surface level comprehension and robust comprehension is the difference between a two on the AP exam and a three,” he said.

But that may or may not be due to anything the schools themselves are doing. And poverty is not destiny; around the country, schools are bucking that general trend.

Last year, we set out to find the schools that were doing much better at teaching third graders to read than their poverty levels might predict. After looking at data for nearly 42,000 schools, we identified 2,158 that we called Bright Spots. While these schools didn’t always have the highest absolute scores, their students performed much better than might be expected, based on their poverty rates.

Today, we’re calling out 255 of those Bright Spots — five public schools in every state and Washington, D.C., that are beating the odds for their kids by the biggest margins.

For example, Merton E. Hill Elementary School in Orange County, California, had a student poverty rate of 87%. Given the relationship between poverty and reading outcomes across California, we expected the school to have just 29% of its third-graders reading proficiently. Instead, it surpassed 81%. As another example, Pocomoke Elementary School in Worcester County, Maryland, had 100% of its students qualify for free or reduced-price lunch, and yet it far exceeded statewide reading proficiency rates (71% versus 47%). 

Scroll through the list below to find the brightest stars in your state.

Bright Spots

Top Five Schools by State

(For more information on how we identified these schools, see the “About This Project” section here. Or to see where these schools are located in your state, check out our interactive map.)

Missouri lawmakers have banned educators from leaning on a model of reading instruction called the “three-cueing” method as part of a bipartisan education package signed by Gov. Mike Kehoe on Wednesday.

The law mandates that three cueing, which teaches students to , can be used to supplement lessons, but phonics should be the majority of instruction.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for �鶹��Ʒ Newsletter

State Rep. Ed Lewis, a Moberly Republican and sponsor of the legislation, told The Independent that the law builds on prior legislative efforts and work from the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.

“We’ve come to the realization that phonics is crucial,” Lewis said. “The three cueing system, when used as the primary source, evidence shows a decrease in the amount of learning that occurs, and for that reason, we want to use it less.”

Three cueing is widely criticized for encouraging kids to make guesses when reading and doesn’t show how to sound out words, which is important for understanding complicated texts.

Missouri isn’t the only state to ban three cueing. By the end of 2024, had explicitly banned the method.

The problem with three cueing, which once was lauded as an alternative to phonics, came to public attention when American Public Media reporter Emily Hanford and later launched the podcast series “.”

The series between phonics instruction and context-clue-based models and state laws followed — including a passed in Missouri in 2022.

The 2022 legislation required state education officials to create a teacher preparatory course on literacy. DESE, in turn, launched its , including instruction for educators.

As of this spring, 429 school districts and over 8,600 educators have had training in Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling, or LETRS.

“It is pretty intense training,” Missouri Education Commissioner Karla Eslinger told The Independent. “It creates an opportunity for the teachers to use that science of reading, that evidence-based best practices on how you teach reading.”

The training and other science-backed materials provided by the department are not mandatory but participation has been encouraging, Eslinger said.

She expects elementary literacy rates to rise as a result of the training and other efforts since 2022, like literacy coaches the department hired.

With a charge to ban three cueing as the primary form of reading instruction, Eslinger said the department will continue to push best practices.

“We are not going to police this,” she said. “We are going to show good practice and give support to good practice, so it just bolsters what we’re doing.”

As part of a checklist school districts provide annually to the department, they will be required to confirm that they are not using three cueing as a primary instructional model.

“The work that our literacy teams are doing in the state is all being very well received. (Educators) are wanting more and more,” Eslinger said. “It is not because it is mandated, it is because it works.”

is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Missouri Independent maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jason Hancock for questions: info@missouriindependent.com.

Next week, the unpopular teacher licensure test, the Reading Instruction Competence Assessment, will be officially retired and replaced with a literacy performance assessment to ensure educators are prepared to teach students to read.

The Reading Instruction Competence Assessment (RICA) has been a major hurdle for teacher candidates for years. About a third of all the teacher candidates who took the test failed the first time, according to  collected between 2012 and 2017. Critics have also said that the test is outdated and has added to the state’s teacher shortage.

The literacy performance assessment that replaces the RICA reflects an increased focus on foundational reading skills, including phonics. California, and many other states, are moving from teaching children to recognize words by sight to teaching them to decode words by sounding them out in an effort to boost literacy.

Mandated by , the literacy assessment reflects new standards that include support for struggling readers, English learners and pupils with exceptional needs, incorporating the  for the first time.

“We believe the literacy TPA will help ensure that new teachers demonstrate a strong grasp of evidence-based literacy instruction — an essential step toward improving reading outcomes for California’s students,” said Marshall Tuck, CEO of EdVoice, a nonprofit education advocacy organization.

Literacy test on schedule

Erin Sullivan, director of the Professional Services Division of the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, said the literacy performance assessment is ready for its July 1 launch.

“We’ve been field-testing literacy performance assessments with, obviously, the multiple- and the single-subject candidates, but also the various specialist candidates, including visual impairment and deaf and hard of hearing,” Sullivan said. 

California teacher candidates must pass one of three performance assessments approved by the commission before earning a preliminary credential: the California Teaching Performance Assessment , the Educative Teacher Performance Assessment ( or the Fresno Assessment of Student Teachers ().

A performance assessment allows teachers to demonstrate their competence by submitting evidence of their instructional practice through video clips and written reflections on their practice. 

“It’s very different,” said Kathy Futterman, an adjunct professor in teacher education at California State University, East Bay. “The RICA is an online test that has multiple-choice questions, versus the LPA — the performance assessment — which has candidates design and create three to five lesson plans. Then, they have to videotape portions of those lesson plans, and then they have to analyze and reflect on how those lessons went.”

Field tests went well

, the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing board is expected to hear a report on the field test results, approve the passing score standards for the literacy cycle of the performance assessment and formally adopt the new test.

All but one of the 280 teacher candidates who took the new CalTPA literacy assessment during field testing passed, according to the report. Passing rates were lower on the FAST, with 51 of 59 passing on the first attempt, and on the edTPA with 192 of 242 passing.

 Cal State East Bay was one of the universities that piloted the test over the last two years. 

“It’s more hands-on and obviously with real students, so in that regard I think it was very helpful,” Futterman said.

State could offer flexibility

Upcoming budget trailer bills are expected to offer some flexibility to teacher candidates who haven’t yet passed the RICA, Sullivan said. 

The commission is asking state leaders to allow candidates who have passed the CalTPA and other required assessments, except the RICA, to be allowed to continue taking the test through October, when the state contract for the RICA expires, she said.

“We are looking forward to putting RICA to bed and moving on to the literacy performance assessment, but … we don’t want to leave anybody stranded on RICA island,” Sullivan said.

The commission has approved the Foundations of Reading examination as an alternative for a small group of teachers with special circumstances, including those who would have completed all credential requirements except the RICA by June 30, but the test may not be the best option for them, Sullivan said.

“It’s just a very different exam,” Sullivan said. “It’s a national exam. And while the commission looked at it and said, ‘We think this will work for our California candidates,’ it’s not the best-case scenario. So, trying to get these folks to pass the RICA and giving them every opportunity to do that until really it just goes away, that’s kind of what we’re looking at.”

The Foundations of Reading exam, by Pearson, is used by . It assesses whether a teacher is proficient in literacy instruction, including developing phonics and decoding skills, as well as offering a strong literature, language and comprehension component with a balance of oral and written language, according to the commission’s website.

Teacher candidates who were allowed to earn a preliminary credential without passing the RICA during the Covid-19 pandemic; teachers with single-subject credentials, who want to earn a multiple-subject credential; and educators who completed teacher preparation in another country and/or as a part of the Peace Corps are also eligible to take the Foundations of Reading examination.

The Foundations of Reading test has been rated as strong by the National Council on Teacher Quality.

State focus on phonics

SB 488 was followed by a revision of the Literacy Standard and Teaching Performance Expectations for teachers, which outlined effective literacy instruction for students.

California state leaders have recently taken additional steps to ensure foundational reading skills are being taught in classrooms. On June 5, Gov. Gavin Newsom confirmed that the state budget will include hundreds of millions of dollars to fund legislation needed to achieve a comprehensive to early literacy.

, which passed the Assembly with a unanimous 75-0 vote that same day, would move the state’s schools toward adopting evidence-based literacy instruction, also known as the science of reading or structured literacy. 

On paper, that seemed like the right approach. But in reality, it left too many students behind — and failed to challenge others who were ready to move forward.

So, we decided to do something bold.

Ellis Elementary, followed by several other Rockford schools, started grouping students by reading ability instead of by grade. It wasn’t seamless. It wasn’t easy. But it was necessary. And the results have been worth every bit of effort.

Coming out of COVID, our students’ learning gaps were wide — and getting wider. The urgency was impossible to ignore. As teachers, we were trying everything we could to meet the needs of all our students, but our one-size-fits-all structure just wasn’t working.

Teaching whole-group lessons to a class of students who varied drastically in their reading skills meant instruction often landed in the middle — reaching few, if any, with the depth they needed.

It became clear: Our diverse learners needed diverse instruction. That shift in mindset was the beginning of everything.

As we began exploring the science of reading, we saw the potential to align our practices with how children actually learn to read. But more importantly, our teachers were ready. There was an energy and openness at Ellis that I’ll never forget. Everyone understood that what we had been doing wasn’t enough — and they were eager for change.

You may have heard about this strategy on a recent episode of the popular podcast “,” which highlights East Elementary in Steubenville, Ohio.

Here’s how it works at my school: Every morning, for 45 minutes, all students in grades K–2 receive Tier 1 instruction using Reading Horizons. That’s 14 classrooms running simultaneously, including general education teachers and interventionists.

To begin, we administer a spelling inventory aligned to the Reading Horizons scope and sequence. Based on those results, we create skill-based groups — regardless of students’ ages or grade levels. Groups range from letters and sounds coupled with phonemic awareness (more foundational), all the way to multisyllabic decoding and comprehension strategies (more advanced).

If your school isn’t ready to jump right into grouping by skill-level across grades, a possible first step is grouping by skill-level across same-grade classrooms, e.g., re-arrange all 1st grade students for foundational reading instruction. In this model, first-grade classrooms would “shuffle” to one classroom that focuses on more foundational concepts and moves slower, while another moves faster and brings in more authentic text.

But, at Ellis Elementary, we’ve gone all in on regrouping by skill level, regardless of grade. We have 5-year-olds and 7-year-olds learning side by side, because that’s where they are in their reading journey.

Nobody learns at exactly the same pace. And that’s okay. In fact, it’s powerful.

As the instructional coach, I coordinate our skill groups, support teachers during instruction, and lead progress monitoring. We developed RH Checkpoints: simple assessments where students read and write words after each lesson to demonstrate their understanding.

We don’t move on if a group isn’t showing mastery. We pause. We support. And sometimes, we shift students into a group that’s a better fit.

This model has been a game-changer for our teachers. When they step into their English Language Arts block, they teach skills that every student in the room is ready for. There’s no guessing. No watering down instruction. It’s focused, intentional, and impactful.

And the students? They now see themselves as readers. They’re more confident, more engaged, and more successful.Teachers are happier. Students are thriving.

Grouping by ability isn’t without its challenges. Yes, it was messy at first. Yes, there were growing pains. But we committed to flexibility and collaboration. We moved beyond the idea that a teacher is responsible only for the students assigned to their classroom. Instead, we adopted a collective mentality:

All Ellis students are our students. With enough time, we found a rhythm.

There are some logistical hurdles when you mix age groups, especially for our most vulnerable learners. To address this, we try to keep groups small and ensure we have strong behavior support in place. But in four years of doing this work, we’ve never encountered a problem we couldn’t solve with a little creativity and a team mindset.

The results we’re seeing go beyond test scores, though those have improved as well. Since the post-COVID low point in 2021, third-grade, end-of-year oral reading proficiency has risen by 18 percentage points, including an 8-point gain this school year alone. The number of students identified as at-risk has dropped by 25 points, with 19 of those points occurring this year.

Even more compelling: In one class, 72% of students who began the year labeled “at-risk” have reached or exceeded the end-of-year proficiency benchmark. While that outcome represents a single class, we’re seeing similar outcomes across the board.

Here’s what I’d tell any school thinking about making this shift:

● It will feel chaotic at first. Stick with it.

● Rules and procedures are critical. Set them early.

● Everyone must be on board. From students to administration

● Be ready to regroup. Mid-year reassessment is key.

● Let the data guide you. Not assumptions. Not classrooms. Not grade levels.

This approach has created a culture where every adult is responsible for every student’s success, where no child is held back or left behind because of their age and where reading instruction is the best part of the day.

We’ve made ability-based grouping our new normal. And we’ve never looked back.

A lawsuit filed in Massachusetts state court accuses famous literacy specialists Lucy Calkins, Irene Fountas, and Gay Su Pinnell and their publisher Heinemann of pushing reading curriculums they knew didn’t work.

Adopting a consumer protection approach, the lawsuit charges the curriculum authors with “deceptive and fraudulent marketing.” The filing alleges they willfully ignored decades of research into more effective practices and used shoddy studies to prop up their own work, then charged school districts for updates when they were forced to admit their materials were not effective.

“Think about that: If your car is broken, and it’s the fault of the manufacturer, the manufacturer recalls the part and fixes it,” said attorney Ben Elga, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs. “They do not charge you for their failure. It’s outrageous.”

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for �鶹��Ʒ Newsletter

The lawsuit also names Heinemann parent company HMH, previously known as Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, and Teachers College at Columbia University.

The plaintiffs, who are seeking class action status and inviting other families to join the lawsuit, are two Massachusetts families whose children struggled to learn to read. One of the parent plaintiffs, Karrie Conley, said in the lawsuit that due to her school district using Calkins’ Units of Study curriculum, she had to spend more on private school tuition and reading tutors for two of her children than she spent to send her older child to college.

“Nothing is more painful than trying to help them, but not knowing how,” she said in a Wednesday press conference announcing the lawsuit. “So many times I’ve asked myself, How did it get like this? I trusted that when I was sending my children off to school, they were getting instruction that had been tested and proven effective. I trusted that these so-called experts were actually experts.”

The lawsuit comes as many states are overhauling their approach to reading instruction to better align with decades of research into how children learn. What’s known as calls for explicit phonics instruction that helps students connect letters and sounds, as well as texts that help students build the background knowledge to understand what they read.

Calkins’ Units of Study curriculum and Fountas and Pinnell’s Leveled Literacy Intervention and other materials instead relied on exposure to books and promoted discredited methods such as three-cueing, in which students use the first letter of a word and various context clues, including pictures, to guess what a word might be.

These curriculums were widely used in American schools, with Calkins in particular achieving near legendary status among teachers. Critics say these instructional methods are largely to blame for American students’ low rates of reading proficiency. Journalist Emily Hanford’s and her podcast helped push these pedagogical debates into the public eye.

Calkins later and changed Units of Study to include more phonics instruction. But . Units of Study was once the , but the nation’s largest school system . Last year, Teachers College .

Fountas and Pinnell, meanwhile, have .

A lawsuit represents one perspective on a complaint. Representatives of Heinemann, Teachers College, and Calkins, Fountas, and Pinnell could not be reached for comment Wednesday. Heinemann has .

Dozens of states have adopted new curriculum standards that , but others, including Massachusetts, have not.

Elga, the lead attorney and founding executive director of , has a background in consumer protection and antitrust cases. He said he believes this is the first time that a consumer protection approach has been used to advance an education policy agenda.

“Consumer law is very broad, so there are a lot of cases that challenge products that don’t do what they say they should do or are marketed in a deceptive way,” he said. “This is the first case we’re aware of applying those laws to this type of product.”

The lawsuit is seeking unspecified damages and injunctive relief, including that the defendants provide an early literacy curriculum that reflects the science of reading at no charge.

Families have previously sued states and school districts over rock-bottom literacy rates, alleging that government entities have failed in their obligation to meet students’ basic educational needs. These and that sent millions of dollars to districts with low reading levels but without mandates on how to teach reading.

Elga said he sees school districts as victims alongside students.

“It’s our contention that one of the major problems here is that the school districts have been the victims of this faulty marketing,” he said. “So we wanted to bring a case that challenged the people who were actually distributing these types of materials.”

This story was originally published by Chalkbeat. Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools. Sign up for their newsletters at .

Oregon’s highest needs schools that are focused on revamping literacy instruction and boosting student reading proficiency will get federal financial help next year.

The U.S. Department of Education announced last week that it will send Oregon schools $11.5 million next school year, and could potentially allocate up to $57 million over the next five years to help the state’s Early Literacy Success Initiative. That initiative was passed by the Legislature in 2023 with an investment of $120 million in state dollars.

An investigation by the Capital Chronicle found the state has spent more than $250 million in the past 25 years to improve reading instruction in schools. But that money has failed to help more than a generation of students, with many teachers not using methods that work to teach reading. Many, the investigation found, were not taught effective reading instruction in the state’s public colleges of education.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for �鶹��Ʒ Newsletter

Over the last 25 years, nearly two in five Oregon fourth graders and one in five eighth graders have scored “below basic” on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, often referred to as the nation’s report card. That means they struggle to read and understand simple words.

Schools can use the federal dollars for teacher development, reading tutors and specialists, literacy coaches and new reading curriculum, according to the news release from the U.S. Department of Education. Most Oregon schools are using one of the 15 reading curriculum on the state Board of Education’s approved materials list, but about 30% are not, , director of education initiatives for Gov. Tina Kotek’s office.

About 95% of the federal money will be funneled to districts through a competitive application process via the Oregon Department of Education, according to Marc Siegel, a spokesperson for the department. Precedence will go to schools with a high proportion of historically underserved students, including multilingual students and students with disabilities.

The rest of the federal money will help fund a comprehensive statewide literacy plan, Siegel said.

Oregon received the second highest award among the 23 state grants. Only the New Mexico Department of Education received more – about $11.9 million.

is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Oregon Capital Chronicle maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Lynne Terry for questions: info@oregoncapitalchronicle.com. Follow Oregon Capital Chronicle on and .

Alaska’s Department of Education and Early Development released statewide assessment data on Friday that shows most students are not proficient in core subjects.

The scores are similar to overall, even though the state in January. Education Commissioner Deena Bishop said then that Alaska’s standards are still in the top third in the nation.

The Alaska System of Academic Readiness test, commonly referred to as the AK STAR assessment, evaluates student knowledge of grade-level standards in English language arts and mathematics for third through ninth graders and grade-level standards for science in fifth, eighth and 10th grades.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for �鶹��Ʒ Newsletter

Student scores fall into four levels of achievement: advanced, proficient, approaching proficient, and needs support.

Across grade levels, roughly 32% of Alaska students were proficient or advanced in both English language arts and mathematics. Nearly 37% of students across grade levels tested were proficient or better in science.

Bishop appealed to Alaskans to use the results for continuous improvement in a statement released on Friday.

“State assessments play a role in measuring how well our students meet the Alaska standards — standards shaped by Alaskan educators. By accepting the results without defense, we commit to using these data for improvement,” she said in a news release. “Alaska is not merely focused on the outcomes themselves, rather our goal is to build the capacity in our students’ foundational knowledge and ability for their future in work and life.”

Pre-pandemic comparisons to measure if students’ scores are improving after school closures are difficult because the state changed its assessment. Scores were in the 2018-2019 academic year, however. Then, 39% of students were proficient in or advanced scorers in English language arts and nearly 36% of students were proficient or better in math.

Fifth graders performed best on the 2024 tests. More than 37% met or exceeded state proficiency standards, which was a nearly 2% increase over the previous year. Nearly half of fifth graders, more than 47%, were proficient or better in science standards.

Eighth, ninth and tenth graders had lower levels of proficiency. The state said “efforts are underway” to support students in reading and offer career and technical education options.

Officials with the state Department of Education and Early Childhood did not respond to questions about how to understand this year’s scores in the contact of previous years and pandemic recovery.

is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Alaska Beacon maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Andrew Kitchenman for questions: info@alaskabeacon.com. Follow Alaska Beacon on and .

An early look at new special education datasets reveals massive inconsistencies in how many children states are identifying as needing services, how much is being spent on them and whether that funding is tied to better outcomes, according to Marguerite Roza, director of Georgetown University’s Edunomics Lab. 

Preliminary though the research is, even the broad takeaways are especially timely, Roza recently told a group of policymakers, educators and journalists. The number of students with disabilities has risen dramatically over the last decade, as has the share of school budgets dedicated to paying for special education. 

“Historically, our tendency has been to look the other way on special ed spending,” . “It hasn’t gotten the same scrutiny [as] other elements in the district budget.”

One immediate takeaway is that states that provide sound literacy instruction for all students also post better reading scores for special education students, Roza noted. Case in point: Mississippi, where in literacy have been credited to a 10-year push by state officials to ensure evidence-based reading instruction is taking place in every classroom.

Mississippi is one of two states that dedicated the smallest portion of its education budget — some 8% — to meeting the needs of special education students, yet it is one of four where children with disabilities perform the highest on the reading portion of the National Assessment of Educational Progress.

By contrast, Connecticut spends nearly 22% of its education budget on special education but has middle-of-the-pack reading performance among students with disabilities. More than half of the state’s third graders are reading below grade level, and a new law requiring science-based literacy instruction will until 2025. 

This finding is particularly important because the most common special education diagnosis, specific learning disability, includes children who are dyslexic or who have other neurological differences that interfere with their ability to process language or do math. More than a third of students receiving services fall into this category. 

High-quality core literacy instruction could mean fewer students who need an individualized education program — a federally mandated plan that spells out how a child with a disability will be served. Other research has shown that struggling readers whose needs are identified early are less likely to need intensive support in later grades. 

In the 2019-20 school year, the National Center for Education Statistics, part of the U.S. Department of Education’s research arm, began collecting data compiled by states on district-level special education spending. A number of states have yet to provide any information, but Edunomics researchers were able to combine the first two years of information with existing records to begin building an overview. 

Between the 2013-14 and 2022-23 school years, the number of children in special education rose from 6.5 million to 7.5 million, even as public school enrollment fell by more than 400,000. In four Northeastern states — New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and Maine — 1 in 5 students now have an individualized education program, or IEP, while in 11 states, 13% or fewer receive services.

From state to state, diagnoses are wildly inconsistent, raising questions about the subjectivity of how students are funneled into special ed. New Mexico, for example, diagnoses specific learning disabilities in 8% of students, versus less than 3% in Kentucky and Idaho. However, despite identifying a high number of children with learning disorders, New Mexico has some of the lowest literacy rates among special education students in the country. 

New York refers almost three times as many children for speech and language services as Vermont and Maryland. Students in Maine are more than three times as likely to be categorized as “other health impairment” — a diagnosis category that includes ADHD — as pupils in Montana, Nevada and Utah.

States also vary wildly in how many special education staffers schools employ, with Ohio and Idaho having less than 20 per 200 students. Hawaii, New York and New Hampshire have three times as many. Yet Hawaii significantly underperforms national averages. 

The data also raise questions about the quality of staff delivering services and inequities in how teachers are assigned to schools. Since 2007, the number of special education teachers has risen by 12%, while the number of specialists and paraprofessionals has jumped by 35% and 37%, respectively. 

One reason higher staffing levels don’t necessarily correlate to better student outcomes could be that instruction is being delivered by paraprofessionals — often low-skilled, entry-level staff — and not special education teachers. 

The data also suggest that the perennial shortage of special educators contributes to inequities in which kids get the most qualified instructors. In Massachusetts — which Edunomics researchers praised for its unusually transparent spending reports — low-poverty schools have higher numbers of licensed special educators. High-poverty schools have fewer teachers and far more paraprofessionals. 

Districts often cite federal maintenance-of-effort laws, which put strict guardrails on attempts to lower special education spending, as a reason why they don’t scrutinize the cost-effectiveness of their services. While some of these assumptions are incorrect, more legal flexibility would help, said Roza.

Disclosure: The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Walton Family Foundation provide financial support to Edunomics Lab and �鶹��Ʒ.

State officials are looking to hire workers — teachers and non-teachers alike — to teach elementary and middle school students how to read this summer.

The New Mexico Summer Reading Program will provide reading instruction in small group, four-hour classes of children ranging in age from those becoming kindergarteners to ninth graders.

People hired to help children read will start the program in June and continue for four to six weeks through July, according to a news release.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for �鶹��Ʒ Newsletter

The deadline to apply is May 24; however, the state is encouraging people to apply by May 17 so they can start in June.

More information and the application can be found at . The program’s website shows 42 summer reading locations across New Mexico.

Three state agencies, the New Mexico Public Education Department, the Higher Education Department and the Early Childhood Education and Care Department said Monday they need “hundreds of additional instructors” for the program, which has a goal to serve 10,000 students.

“You do not need to be a licensed teacher to become a literacy instructor, but we encourage retired educators and educators on summer break to consider joining this historic statewide literacy effort,” said Public Education Secretary Arsenio Romero.

Summer reading instructors would make $35 per hour, according to the news release. That’s significantly higher than the in New Mexico of $20 per hour.

People would have to commit to working for at least 25 hours per week.

The weeklong training will be paid at the same rate $35 per hour rate.The specialized training will be done by literacy experts prior to the program, at the end of May or the beginning of June.

New Mexico ranks 50th in literacy with 79% of fourth grade students reading below grade level, to the children’s literacy nonprofit Reading is Fundamental.

is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Source New Mexico maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Shaun Griswold for questions: info@sourcenm.com. Follow Source New Mexico on and .

New Hampshire public school teachers and officials would be required to update how they teach reading under a bill heading to Gov. Chris Sununu’s desk.

, which passed the Senate by voice vote Thursday, would formally implement the “five essential components of reading” into curricula across the state. That teaching process, developed in 1997 by the National Reading Panel, focuses on teaching phonetics rather than older instructional models that allow students to guess words based on visual patterns.

The approach for decades as a more thorough way to teach reading, but not all New Hampshire school districts have implemented it on their own, proponents of the bill say.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for �鶹��Ʒ Newsletter

“This bill can ensure all New Hampshire children are afforded reading development and instruction that’s delivered in a manner that meets their individual abilities and their individual needs,” said Rep. Corrine Cascadden, a Berlin Democrat, in testimony to the Senate.

Under , elementary schools are required to teach literacy up to third grade, instruction that includes “reading, writing, speaking, listening, reasoning, and mathematics.”

The bill requires instruction up to fifth grade and adds specific requirements for that instruction. According to the bill, the teaching must be measurable and evidence-based, and must include instruction in the five components: “phonemic awareness, phonics (both decoding and encoding of sounds and words), fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension.”

The instruction would need to be aimed at allowing each student to achieve “grade level literacy,” the bill states.

The bill also expands on the current requirement that schools teach mathematics by requiring “mathematics reasoning” and “mathematics calculation” in state statute.

If signed into law, the bill will not take effect until July 2027, which sponsors say is intended to give schools more time to implement it.

Cascadden, a former elementary school principal in Berlin, said she had implemented the five components in 2005, when they were recommended by the state’s Department of Education at the time. “We saw success in the percentage of kids that improved in literacy,” she said.

But she said there has been less emphasis on the practice, and that some schools had since “fallen by the wayside.”

The bill passed the House nearly unanimously in March, 365-9.

is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. New Hampshire Bulletin maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Dana Wormald for questions: info@newhampshirebulletin.com. Follow New Hampshire Bulletin on and .

In its 2016 state-by-state, college-by-college Teacher Prep Review, the branded the reading preparation program at Rhode Island College (RIC) with an “F.”

Then, in 2023, the gave it an “A+.” A meteoric change.

The council has been assessing teacher-preparation programs nationally since 2000. Its evaluations are controversial and often dismissed as out of touch with what teacher prep programs were actually doing. Well, yes. The council has long condemned the now debunked approach to reading instruction as outright harmful, even though it dominated higher education’s prep programs for 50 years. Instead, its evaluation criteria judges programs according to the novices need to become competent reading teachers.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for �鶹��Ʒ Newsletter

To be fair, the University of Rhode Island got an “A.” But today is about the “A+” story. What happened in the relatively short time between “F” and “A+”?

Recently, in a conference room at RIC, I put that question to Associate Professor  (special education) and Associate Professor . (Interim Dean Carol A. Cummings and Interim Associate Dean Beth Pinheiro were also there.)

RIC’s transformation story starts slowly. Around 2009, the reading professors began refining their coursework with more science-based lessons, in effect seeding what will become fertile curricular soil. “We didn’t feel like we were jumping on a bandwagon or letting go of anything,” like Balanced Literacy, Obel-Omia said. “We were just building our competencies.”

McDermott-Fasys has of how RIC worked with various partner organizations toward “shared responsibility between general education and special education.” Together, they broke down silos that too often led to the need for “specialized language schools [which] in our area often had no seats available.” (And cost a fortune.)

Mending the division between general and special education led to the realization that a successful revamp of their reading program would hew to the needs of the dyslexic population. What works for them, works for all kids.

Together they studied a multi-tiered support system that teaches educators to chart and monitor struggling students. This framework can apply to all subjects, and problematic behavior, by sorting skills and remediation, in this case for reading, into three tiers of intensifying personalized support:

Tier I is for all kids, the general education that builds foundational skills. Tier II are intervention techniques for those showing signs of struggling. Tier III is for students whose special needs lie beyond the capacity of a regular classroom teacher, like those with serious dyslexia.

But RIC’s reading redesign folks wanted more. In 2016, they began working with the Center on their protocol.

They identified what RIC graduates should know and be able to do to support all their students, whether they had special needs or not. Then the program redesigners took a microscope to their curriculum looking for redundancies, gaps and opportunities.

Proficient reading requires many skills to come together. Glitches in any one of those skills can screw up a kid’s progress. For example, the inability to hear the distinction between the sounds that make up words will leave the kid entirely in the dust. Thus, a course of study must teach novices to:

Provide an aligned sequence of all the necessary skillsHave assessments that flag problemsBe equipped with techniques that ameliorate or resolve those problems.

The professors broke down their courses into units that could be mapped. What was actually being taught? In what order? With what intensity? The mapping laid bare previously unseen details of their curriculum. Some competencies seemed randomly spread across the four courses already designated for teaching reading.

The shocker: finding few early intervention units (Tier II). If kids are struggling with general education, what are available methods of getting the kid back on track before turning to specialists? And whose responsibility are early reading problems, the classroom teacher or special educators? The redesign team decided that responses to early red flags should be shared by both.

So they reorganized the content into four new, well-aligned courses. Two classes focus on the foundational skills. But a new, dedicated intervention course equips all teachers to help a child starting to struggle. The specialists still have their specialized training, but now they also take a general education course so everyone shares an understanding of the spectrum from general to special education.

The philosophy of the elementary department changed from “my course” to “our scope and sequence,” McDermott-Fasy proudly told me.

When Rhode Island’s 2019 passed, RIC compared its demands with the newly-aligned program. They were in superb shape. The state approved their program in 2023, the same year the council gave them the “A+”.

The ’s new document estimates that with effective instruction, over 90% of students would learn to read without needing specialist attention.

Rhode Island has about 4th graders, of whom roughly 3,300 kids were proficient in the 2023 English Language Arts state test. As new and improved teachers emerge from Rhode Island’s public prep programs, they’ll join the existing classroom teachers also learning science-backed techniques.

In the fullness of time, we could have 9,000 proficient 4th-grade readers, prepared for academic success and a better shot at thriving in their lives.

is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Rhode Island Current maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Janine L. Weisman for questions: info@rhodeislandcurrent.com. Follow Rhode Island Current on and .

Assemblymember Blanca Rubio (D-Baldwin Park) and 13 co-authors have proposed a bill that would update the state’s English curriculum with the science of reading – research that has found the best way to teach reading is through phonics, phonemic awareness, oral reading fluency, vocabulary and comprehension.

The bill calls for more instructional materials and curriculum for classrooms to align with the science of reading. It also emphasizes the need for increased professional development for teachers and more progress monitoring for students struggling with reading. 

“All English language arts, English language development, and reading textbooks and instructional materials for transitional kindergarten, kindergarten, and any of grades 1 to 8, inclusive, shall adhere to the science of reading,” reads the bill which was submitted to the Assembly’s education and higher education committee in February.

Schools would require a waiver if educators wanted to use instructional materials that aren’t aligned with the science of reading. It is supported by 12 Democrats and two Republicans in the state assembly.

 A December 2023 by , and found 60% of California students aren’t reading at grade level skills by the time they reach third grade. 

“As an educator, I have firsthand knowledge of the struggles instructors face to ensure their students know how to read,” Rubio said in a statement. “California teachers work tirelessly to better the success of each student. However, California is failing its students, especially diverse students from low-income families.”

In the 2022-2023 school year, 31% of third-graders in low-income families were reading on grade level. For students not considered low-income, 63% were reading on grade level.

That trend has been steady for nearly a decade, with low-income students underperforming in reading tests every year since at least 2014.

“Historically, we’ve seen low performance in literacy in California,” said Eugenia Mora-Flores, a professor and an assistant dean at USC’s Rossier School of Education. “It’s not surprising, actually. We’ve definitely seen low literacy performance in large districts like L.A. Unified and others where we have students that are not performing at grade level.”

To address low scores, legislators want teachers to use the science of reading. Some schools across the state already use this method when teaching students. Others use “whole language,” which focuses on the meanings of words instead of breaking them down into pieces.

That’s different from the science of reading, which relies on phonics and encourages students to learn how letter combinations sound out loud to decode words based on their spellings.

“[The science of reading] is an acknowledgment that kids will learn to read if they can learn the letters, sound them out and gradually pick up on fluency over time,” said Pedro Noguera, dean of USC’s education school. “If you don’t read at proficiency by third grade, then you’re in trouble because everything in school is literacy-based. After learning to read, then you read to learn, right? If you can’t read a math problem, you can’t do the math.”

Noguera said a mandate alone won’t solve California’s literacy problem without looking at the bigger picture when it comes to teaching kids to read.

“If we just focus on the science of reading, on phonics, we’re also missing the point, right?” Noguera said. “If we want kids to be good readers, phonics is not going to take them there. They need good books. They need a comprehensive approach to literacy.” 

“All English language arts, English language development, and reading textbooks and instructional materials for transitional kindergarten, kindergarten, and any of grades 1 to 8, inclusive, shall adhere to the science of reading,” the bill reads.

Dozens of states across the country have already implemented laws enforcing the science of reading.

Last year, Indiana mandated that schools must use the science of reading by fall 2024. So have legislators in Michigan, Utah, Kansas, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Pennsylvania and the Carolinas, among others. 

In a state with one of the in the country, Mora-Flores said it will come down to how well the mandate is implemented across California.

“In some ways, [the bill] can be seen as a good thing because it’s saying, at minimum, we all need to make sure kids are getting something, and you’re going to be held accountable to it because now it’s policy,” Mora-Flores said. “On the other side of that, it’s really going to come down to the quality of translation and implementation.”

This article is part of a collaboration between �鶹��Ʒ and the USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism.

The St. Louis NAACP recently launched the “Right to Read” campaign, which focuses on improving proficiency and educational equity for students of color. Its mission: By 2030, all children in the city and county of St. Louis will receive the materials and support they need to help get them reading well by third grade.

The campaign began with a Jan. 17 screening of a film it’s named after, called . The documentary follows Oakland-based NAACP activist Kareem Weaver, who filed a petition with the school district demanding change because of low reading scores. LeVar Burton, who hosted the television series Reading Rainbow for 23 years, was an executive producer.

The St. Louis NAACP will soon launch a listening tour to get feedback from superintendents, teachers, parents and nonprofits about how to improve student reading.

Education chairman Ian Buchanan said the chapter plans on partnering with local school districts in the coming months in order to reach that goal. 

“This extreme crisis in literacy has impacted Black and brown students more acutely than others. And so, given this reality, we want to take a stand and put a line in the sand to say, ‘Hey, we know that we can do better and we know that we can do better collectively,’ ” Buchanan said. “So this is a call to action for all school districts to recalibrate, to recommit and to be more deeply committed to improving literacy scores.”

With more than 16,500 students, St. Louis Public Schools has had bleak reading scores for the past 10 years. But the disparity between Black and white students has been skyrocketing. In 2013, 19% of Black third graders scored as proficient in reading on standardized tests, versus 43% of their white classmates. But by last year, that disparity had increased by 23 points, to 14% versus 61%.

that students with low literacy rates have a higher risk of dropping out of high school, entering poverty or becoming involved in the criminal justice system.

“You have a young African American, male or female, who may be a parent, who dropped out of high school — their literacy level is extremely poor and there’s no way that didn’t create this burden, blocking (them) from opportunities and being successful in the long haul,” chapter president Adolphus Pruitt said. “So we thought of economic empowerment and literacy as being one in the same.”

Missouri’s reading proficiency scores have also declined over the last decade. For third graders, scores dropped from 48% in 2013 to 42% in 2023. These results prompted a new literacy law to be passed last year, requiring schools to create success plans for students with reading deficiencies.

The law is part of a comprehensive plan, , that aims to increase evidence-based literacy instruction, part of the science of reading.

Buchanan said Right to Read’s initial goal is to close the literacy gap between Black students and the state average. There’s a focus on third grade because that 1 in 6 children who aren’t reading proficiently by then won’t graduate from high school on time.

Even school districts in higher-income communities have wide gaps between Black student reading proficiency and the state average. 

For example, just 9% of students in the Kirkwood School District qualify for free or reduced-price lunch, but only 33% of Black students were reading proficiently at the end of third grade in 2023, according to state data. 

“The data tells us that all we really need to do in order to first eliminate the gap between Black students and the state average is to move, on average, one or two students per third grade, per school, per year to proficiency,” Buchanan said.

Other local nonprofits that are committed to boosting student literacy are partnering with Right to Read this year. For example, parent advocacy group has been managing a literacy campaign called Bridge 2 Freedom since last summer. 

The campaign distributes books, hosts essay writing contests and is part of a free parent academy that teaches families to become better advocates for their children and connects them to services and academic resources.

“A lot of our parents who come into the program didn’t know that they had rights. They didn’t know the right questions to ask,” said CEO Krystal Barnett. “They didn’t know that they could ask for their kids’ reading scores. They didn’t even know that a report card was not an accurate depiction of what a child can do in school.” The academy, she said, “puts people in the position to make different decisions and to get better results.”

More than 300 parents have participated in Bridge 2 Hope’s parent academy. Other organizations around the U.S. have pursued similar paths of making parents education advocates, such as Oakland REACH, which worked with its local NAACP branch to push the Oakland Unified district to adopt a research-based reading program.

Barnett added, “I think the Right to Read will open the eyes of people about what strong reading instruction can actually do for a child.”

Another St. Louis initiative is training older adults as tutors to help advance student reading proficiency. The Oasis Institute partners seniors with students in kindergarten through third grade who need academic or social emotional support. A found that the parent-led tutoring effort produced similar gains in reading for youngsters as instruction from classroom teachers.

Nonprofit is also teaming up with Right to Read. The organization was launched in 2020 as a local chapter of the , a national organization that has more than 300 branches across the U.S. 

Founder Lisa Greening said Turn the Page STL is a network of nonprofits with one goal in mind: improving St. Louis students’ reading proficiency. 

The organization is especially focusing on the area’s lowest-performing districts, where Greening said Black and brown children still receive an inequitable education.

“We have the resources here in St. Louis. We’re just not connecting with each other,” she said. “I don’t know anything more important than a child being able to read, because that is one of the most critical self-determinants of life.”

Buchanan said pulling together resources across the St. Louis community to help dissolve systemic inequities is essential.

“Literacy is an issue across the board, even with affluent students,” he said. “But one of the things that history tells us is that when white America has the flu or a cold, Black America has pneumonia.”

Let me get this hard sell on the table right up front: You should listen to “,” a podcast about reading instruction in U.S. schools. After all, you can be concerned that 1 in 3 American fourth graders read and still not want a deep dive into how literacy is taught. But “Sold a Story” is about more than a national problem; it’s about a deeply personal struggle experienced by families of all kinds.

In the hands of adept reporter and storyteller Emily Hanford, that deep dive unfolds with crystal clarity, emotional anchors and dramatic cliffhangers to spotlight why many students struggle to read: It is because many schools don’t teach them the specific skills they need to successfully do so.

The podcast’s basic premise is that extremely popular approaches to teaching young kids to read — to decode written words — give short shrift to explicit lessons that connect letters in words to the sounds they represent. In many schools, this explicit phonics instruction is sprinkled into reading lessons, but in woefully inadequate amounts and crowded out by other strategies, including “three-cueing” — which coaches students to use context or pictures to guess what unknown words are. Research, much of it decades old and now called the , shows that systematic phonics instruction is key to helping students become fluent readers. But these other approaches have largely ignored it.

Why? In six episodes, Hanford and her colleague Christopher Peak deftly stitch together the complete picture: an overview of those popular approaches to reading instruction, the national political battle over how to teach literacy and the reading guru whose three apostles, with their billion-dollar publishing company, championed this flawed approach.

The podcast focuses on the idea, established by reading guru Marie Clay, that children can become readers by leaning on context clues instead of sounding out words. Two very popular curricula from celebrated authors — “Units of Study for Teaching Reading” from Lucy Calkins and “Leveled Literacy Intervention” from Irene Fountas and Gay Su Pinnell — were the primary promoters of this flawed idea in school districts and education schools across the country, generating millions of dollars for them and their publisher, Heinemann.

Throughout, Hanford and Peak ground these episodes not in who should be blamed, but in who bears the consequences. The fallout is hitting students struggling to learn to read, parents flummoxed by their children’s lack of progress and teachers who keep saying something like, “If only I had known. …”

Of course, the significance of that fallout hinges on whether Hanford and Peak’s provocative claims about the scope and quality of these curricula are actually correct. There are compelling reasons to believe they are.

Regarding its scope, a 2019 nationally representative Education Week found that “Leveled Literacy” intervention was used by 43% of K-2 early reading and special education teachers, while “Units of Study” was used by 16%. These curricula are Heinemann’s biggest sellers. Hanford and Peak found Heinemann brought in over $233 million in the past decade from just the 100 largest districts. Imagine their business across the remaining 13,000 smaller school districts. 

As to the quality, EdReports, a nonprofit reviewer of K-12 instructional materials, last year found lacking — labeling both as “does not meet expectations.” However, you need not lean on expert reviews to see the disconnect in this curricular approach. In a tacit admission, Calkins revised her “Units of Study” curriculum to incorporate the Science of Reading. The disconnect is even plainer in Fountas and Pinnell’s of their approach that encourages guessing words from context. They write, “If a reader says ‘pony’ for ‘horse’ because of information from the pictures. … His response is partially correct, but the teacher needs to guide him to stop and work for accuracy.”

That response lays bare how detached their approach is from teaching students to actually read text. Getting “pony” from the word “horse” can be “partially correct” only if the goal is something other than teaching students to read accurately, because it rewards children for learning to do something other than read the word. It rewards guessing. Such a strategy might get students partial meaning in the short run, but it will produce struggling readers over time. Indeed, it has.

Hanford deserves credit for her work championing the Science of Reading and pressing the case against predominant approaches to literacy used in many schools across a nation of struggling readers. Fortunately, some states and districts are . recently outlawed three-cueing, and New York City has to increase phonics instruction. But it will take time and deliberate efforts to change instruction in schools. In the interim, “Sold a Story” gives frustrated parents of struggling readers good questions to ask and the courage to demand better instruction. Clear, engaging and, yes, enraging reporting like this can help policymakers, teachers and families ensure that they are not sold a story that might hold their young readers back.