LINCOLN 鈥斅燗s 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 鈥渃autiously optimistic鈥� 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 鈥渨ithin existing resources.鈥�

鈥淲e鈥檙e making progress, I think. Slowly. Not quick enough to make a difference in generations of children at this point,鈥� 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 鈥渟quishy anymore.鈥�

鈥淚 suppose in 2018, we kind of thought, 鈥榊ay, now we鈥檙e going to do dyslexia, and these kids aren鈥檛 going to be invisible anymore,鈥欌�� Schmidt said. 鈥淲e haven鈥檛 seen that materialize.鈥�

Norah Schmidt, now a college freshman, told the Examiner this month that she doesn鈥檛 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.

鈥淜ids who need extra help with education should be given that because that鈥檚 the main job of educators,鈥� Norah Schmidt said. 鈥淜ids should have the education they need to succeed.鈥�

Adding nuance

The Legislature took a major step in 2018 with the passage of the 鈥�,鈥� 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 鈥渞eading improvement plan.鈥�

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鈥檛 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鈥檚 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.

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

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

鈥楽houldn鈥檛 be new or scary鈥�

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

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

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鈥檚 already required in law, including targeted supports and the thrice-yearly reading assessments. The mandatory retention, which Conrad described as 鈥渧ery misguided,鈥� has been removed.

鈥淭his shouldn鈥檛 be new or different or scary,鈥� Conrad said, noting that schools already have policies on literacy and grade retention. 鈥淚鈥檓 not quite sure why there鈥檚 still so much opposition.鈥�

Conrad said the Education Committee鈥檚 work to add a parental override and more flexibility for English language learners and students receiving accommodations was a 鈥渇ar better iteration.鈥� For some, retention might be best, she said, but it can鈥檛 be 鈥渙ne size fits all鈥� 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.

鈥楳ore bureaucracy鈥�

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 鈥渉aves and have-nots,鈥� where families with resources could appeal and others were held back.

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

But Renner remains opposed to LB 1050 and doesn鈥檛 understand why it would need to be put into law, especially without more state funding to help local schools implement the policies.

鈥淚 just don鈥檛 think it adds anything to the statewide goal of improving literacy, other than more bureaucracy,鈥� 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 鈥渁ccountability piece that we鈥檙e lacking.鈥� She is a 鈥渓ittle bit leery鈥� of the model policy, because she doesn鈥檛 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.

鈥淎t some point, we have to say, 鈥楬ey, something鈥檚 not working with local control,鈥欌�� Schonhoff said. 鈥淲e鈥檝e got to figure that out because kids are going to be suffering, and it just keeps getting worse.鈥�

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鈥檛 punishment but providing targeted, strategic supports.

Tegtmeier said she was surprised no one from the Education Committee or Pillen鈥檚 team had reached out before LB 1050 was introduced, being 鈥渃onsequential legislation.鈥� She sees arguments on both sides but said the point is telling schools they 鈥渁bsolutely must do everything within their power to help children learn to read.鈥�

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

鈥淚鈥檓 just not sure I see the value in more legislation that doesn鈥檛 have any teeth,鈥� Tegtmeier said.

鈥楳ore harm than good鈥�

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鈥檛 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 鈥渂ombarded鈥� with messages from educators, schools and lobbyists for schools that LB 1050 is still a 鈥渂ad bill.鈥� She said Lincoln Public Schools has estimated a $4.2 million annual cost, which wouldn鈥檛 be covered by the state.

鈥淚t 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,鈥� Raybould said Wednesday. She said educators have told her retention would 鈥渄o more harm than good, particularly to children of color.鈥�

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 鈥渢oo fast鈥� leave her with 鈥渟heer frustration鈥� and a sense of 鈥渟tarting over again.鈥� It has largely been freshmen senators questioning the legislation.

鈥淭hat was stunning and just sort of makes somebody almost feel like what鈥檚 the point of continuing to try and change things?鈥� Schmidt said.

Schmidt described some deja vu and a feeling of 鈥渟tarting over again鈥� like in 2017 and 2018, when some lawmakers then said the Linehan-Pansing Brooks efforts would be 鈥渞epetitive鈥� and weren鈥檛 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鈥� amendment because it includes three parts: the parental override to retention, reporting requirements and early parental involvement, as early as kindergarten.

鈥淚 kind of look at it as a participation trophy, not that it鈥檚 necessarily a trophy to move on, but there has to be accountability,鈥� Murman said.

He and Schnoff said change is needed in part as have declined over the past decade. Linehan said officials don鈥檛 want to continue the 鈥渄ownward spiral.鈥�

鈥淲e cannot keep doing what we have been doing and expect different results,鈥� Murman said.

鈥榃e can鈥檛 compete with the experts鈥�

Murman noted term limits in the Legislature 鈥� restricting senators to up to two four-year terms 鈥� 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鈥檙e told, with Conrad noting there鈥檚 a level of trust with local schools.

鈥淣o, we can鈥檛 compete with the experts. We don鈥檛 have the access. We don鈥檛 have the money. We don鈥檛 have the numbers,鈥� Schmidt said. 鈥淏ut our stories and our voices should be more important than that.鈥�

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.

鈥淭hen you fight them, and then you鈥檙e gone,鈥� Linehan said.

Conrad鈥檚 first legislative election in 2006 was the first time term limits began booting senators. She said it鈥檚 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.

鈥淚 think, unfortunately, school officials have taken advantage of that lack of strength and institutional knowledge in the Legislature and have resisted accountability,鈥� 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鈥檚 happy about that potential.

鈥淭he only way we can hold the schools accountable to what we do, obviously, is by being there longer,鈥� Linehan said. 鈥淚 feel once Patty comes back, there鈥檒l be a reckoning, because that is really a nonpartisan issue.鈥�

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

鈥楢 shining star鈥�

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

鈥淪he鈥檚 just a shining star when it comes to what it means to be an engaged and responsible citizen,鈥� 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.

鈥淚 wasn鈥檛 paying that much attention until Heather called me,鈥� Linehan said, adding later: 鈥淪he just keeps coming back. She鈥檚 just incredible.鈥�

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, 鈥淲hat if?鈥�

鈥淲hen I think of what could have been, it鈥檚 heartbreaking,鈥� Schmidt said. 鈥淚 don鈥檛 want other kids and families to have to worry about that.鈥�

Conrad said she can鈥檛 describe how intimidating or scary it can be for Nebraskans to engage with the Legislature and lawmaking process, but she said when people do 鈥斅燼s Schmidt has 鈥斅爄t makes public policy 鈥渞icher鈥� and 鈥渕ore responsive.鈥�

鈥淚 am grateful for her incredible work and impressed by her vigilance,鈥� Conrad said of Schmidt. 鈥淗er personal sacrifice in stepping forward and into advocacy has made the state a better place and should inspire others.鈥�

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 鈥� 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 鈥測eah, that鈥檚 what I was going to say.鈥� 

Together, they鈥檝e experienced getting married, losing a parent and having children. They have  also lived through the highs and lows of the classroom 鈥� some years 鈥渟oaring through expectations鈥� and others questioning if their teaching had worsened. 

鈥淲e were all learning together, struggling together, learning from our mistakes, growing together,鈥� Silluzio said, 鈥渁nd I think that’s a huge part of what led to our unity. We were in the same boat.鈥�

The Barry teachers鈥� 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鈥檚 academic success across the district. 

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

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

It鈥檚 about finding ways to put their students 鈥渋n a position to do things that people don’t believe are possible,鈥� said Crispino, now the district鈥檚 director of school leadership. 鈥淭heir backgrounds 鈥� all these things 鈥� are tough and you can鈥檛 control everything. But, what you can control is when they鈥檙e ours and that we鈥檙e giving them every single freaking thing possible to help them be successful and to get ahead of whatever challenges.鈥�

While there鈥檚 often an expectation that students in urban districts won鈥檛 perform well because of , which affect school funding levels and supporting high student needs, Meriden is Connecticut鈥檚 and is beating the odds in how successful it’s been at teaching kids to read.

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

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鈥檚 top five Bright Spot schools 鈥� 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 鈥� even if it looks a little different teacher by teacher. They鈥檙e meeting with the same coaches and district leadership. 

System alignment through relationship building

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

He doesn鈥檛 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 鈥渙ne plus one is two, and two plus one is three, and three plus two is five, and five plus three is eight,鈥� going all the way up to 13 plus eight.

He admitted he thought reading was boring, but he couldn鈥檛 sit still when he talked about a book he鈥檚 reading at home.

鈥淚t’s called 鈥榃hat Cats Want,鈥欌�� said Enzo, 8. 鈥淚’m on page 102.鈥�

He鈥檚 more than halfway through the book and he likes to read 鈥渢wo or four鈥� pages before he goes to sleep. His favorite tidbit of information from the book is to be careful when you let your cat outside.

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

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鈥檚 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.

鈥淚 would never ask anyone to do anything that I wouldn’t do or have done myself,鈥� Crispino said. 鈥淵ou 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.鈥�

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

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

鈥淭hat had to go away,鈥� Crispino said. 

Though it seemed simple, just taking the first step in building in five minute transitions made the schedule 鈥渧iable, conducive and real,鈥� 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 鈥渨asn鈥檛 pretty,鈥� 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.

鈥淲e鈥檙e not there to get you, there鈥檚 a difference,鈥� Crispino said. 鈥淔or support and accountability, we鈥檙e going to be there.鈥�

Coaches that changed, and streamlined, the game

With administrators who better understand what鈥檚 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.

鈥淲hen I was a first year teacher, 鈥� 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鈥檇 either have it or you don’t,鈥� Crispino said, 鈥渁nd that’s different now.鈥�

Veronica Germe recalled being a teacher in the state capital鈥檚 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 鈥渧isibility is the biggest difference鈥� 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.

鈥淲e鈥檝e almost become a catch all in the district for all the questions K-5,鈥� 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鈥檙e 鈥渁lmost like a teammate,鈥� Germe said. 鈥淲e鈥檙e not evaluating them. We鈥檙e there in it with them. We鈥檙e helping and we want to get to know the students too. 鈥� Their scores are our scores.鈥�

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 鈥� 鈥減henomenal鈥漞ven 鈥� Crispino said, thanks to a rollout supported by union leaders and the instructional coaches that gave educators 鈥渆verything they would need.鈥�

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 鈥渆qual footing,鈥� Crispino said, where everyone gets the same emails and meetings, then gets to decide what they鈥檙e doing with the resources. 

In mid-March, if you walked into Meriden鈥檚 Pulaski, Nathan Hale, or Thomas Hooker elementary schools during its rotational reading blocks, you would鈥檝e 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鈥檇 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 鈥渆vidence paper鈥� 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鈥檚 鈥渟peaking the same language,鈥� as Crispino would say, in every elementary building across the district. 

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

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鈥檛 even needed, Crispino and the school鈥檚 principal Kimberly Goldbach said, laughing. It was an automatic yes.

鈥淧art of me was like 鈥榊ou’d be an idiot to change what’s working,鈥� but then I said, 鈥榊ou’d be an idiot to not be innovative and creative enough to know when there’s a time to think outside the box,鈥欌�� Crispino said. 

It鈥檚 paying off. Their third grade class 鈥渉ad the highest scores they ever had,鈥� Crispino said. 鈥淚 think our scores are going to get even better because we’re being creative and innovative at the elementary level with departmentalizing.鈥�

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

鈥淚t 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,鈥� she said. 鈥淭hey 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.鈥�

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

When asked about the scalability of Meriden鈥檚 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.

鈥淐an 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,鈥� Crispino said. 鈥淵ou have to push [your staff and kids] to an uncomfortable place, 鈥� to challenge each other, have professional dialog and have high expectations, but then give them the resources to be successful.鈥�

The 鈥溾�� 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 鈥渄epth鈥� 鈥� 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.

鈥淵ou’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鈥� word knowledge over time,鈥� said Dan Reynolds, one of the lead authors of the report. 鈥淯ltimately, 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?鈥�

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 鈥� a move that has drawn that it鈥檚 too restrictive and that the instruction faces its own limitations.

The report defined surface literacy skills as a student鈥檚 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 鈥渃omprehension observations alone are more rigorous than nearly all studies conducted in the last 50 years.鈥� It鈥檚 not expected to be representative of reading instruction across the country, Reynolds said, but 鈥渨e have four big districts in four different states, and we saw this pattern happening in all four of them with three different curricula.鈥�

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 鈥渟urface-level鈥� comprehension. 

鈥淚t 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?鈥� said Katrina Woodworth, director at SRI鈥檚 Center for Education Research & Improvement. 鈥淭he 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.鈥� 

The SRI researchers also found that many review tools that measure comprehension don鈥檛 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 鈥渦nintentionally encouraging teachers to focus on surface-level goals,鈥� the report said.

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

鈥淒istricts had done so much to get the kids all the way there [with literacy], but it was losing voltage in the end,鈥� Reynolds said. 鈥淚f 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.鈥�

Reynolds and one of his fellow co-authors, Sara Rutherford-Quach, said they saw glimpses of 鈥渕agic鈥� in the classroom when students understood a passage in wide-ranging contexts, which is the type of instruction they鈥檙e hoping to see districts incorporate more of in early grades.

鈥淭he kids were way more engaged,鈥� Rutherford-Quach said. 鈥淪urface-level is important and necessary in some cases, 鈥β燽ut 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.鈥�

Reynolds added that it鈥檚 unlikely robust comprehension could make up 100% of lessons in the classroom, but 鈥渨e 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.鈥�

The report recommended district leaders create 鈥渁 shared vision for robust comprehension and define what it means for students, teachers, schools and the district,鈥� 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 社区黑料 found the percentage of recent high school graduates who lack 鈥渞obust鈥� 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.

鈥淚 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,鈥� 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鈥檛 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 鈥� 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 鈥淎bout This Project鈥� 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 鈥渢hree-cueing鈥� 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 社区黑料 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.

鈥淲e鈥檝e come to the realization that phonics is crucial,鈥� Lewis said. 鈥淭he 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.鈥�

Three cueing is widely criticized for encouraging kids to make guesses when reading and doesn鈥檛 show how to sound out words, which is important for understanding complicated texts.

Missouri isn鈥檛 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 鈥�.鈥�

The series between phonics instruction and context-clue-based models and state laws followed 鈥� 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.

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

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.

鈥淲e are not going to police this,鈥� she said. 鈥淲e are going to show good practice and give support to good practice, so it just bolsters what we鈥檙e doing.鈥�

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.

鈥淭he work that our literacy teams are doing in the state is all being very well received. (Educators) are wanting more and more,鈥� Eslinger said. 鈥淚t is not because it is mandated, it is because it works.鈥�

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聽聽collected between 2012 and 2017. Critics have also said that the test is outdated and has added to the state鈥檚 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.

鈥淲e believe the literacy TPA will help ensure that new teachers demonstrate a strong grasp of evidence-based literacy instruction 鈥� an essential step toward improving reading outcomes for California鈥檚 students,鈥� 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.

鈥淲e鈥檝e 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,鈥� 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. 

鈥淚t鈥檚 very different,鈥� said Kathy Futterman, an adjunct professor in teacher education at California State University, East Bay. 鈥淭he RICA is an online test that has multiple-choice questions, versus the LPA 鈥� the performance assessment 鈥� 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.鈥�

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. 

鈥淚t鈥檚 more hands-on and obviously with real students, so in that regard I think it was very helpful,鈥� Futterman said.

State could offer flexibility

Upcoming budget trailer bills are expected to offer some flexibility to teacher candidates who haven鈥檛 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.

鈥淲e are looking forward to putting RICA to bed and moving on to the literacy performance assessment, but 鈥� we don鈥檛 want to leave anybody stranded on RICA island,鈥� 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.

鈥淚t鈥檚 just a very different exam,鈥� Sullivan said. 鈥淚t鈥檚 a national exam. And while the commission looked at it and said, 鈥榃e think this will work for our California candidates,鈥� it鈥檚 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鈥檚 kind of what we鈥檙e looking at.鈥�

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鈥檚 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鈥檚 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 鈥� 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鈥檛 seamless. It wasn鈥檛 easy. But it was necessary. And the results have been worth every bit of effort.

Coming out of COVID, our students鈥� learning gaps were wide 鈥� 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鈥檛 working.

Teaching whole-group lessons to a class of students who varied drastically in their reading skills meant instruction often landed in the middle 鈥� 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鈥檒l never forget. Everyone understood that what we had been doing wasn鈥檛 enough 鈥� and they were eager for change.

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

Here鈥檚 how it works at my school: Every morning, for 45 minutes, all students in grades K鈥�2 receive Tier 1 instruction using Reading Horizons. That鈥檚 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 鈥� regardless of students鈥� 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鈥檛 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鈥檝e 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鈥檚 where they are in their reading journey.

Nobody learns at exactly the same pace. And that鈥檚 okay. In fact, it鈥檚 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鈥檛 showing mastery. We pause. We support. And sometimes, we shift students into a group that鈥檚 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鈥檚 no guessing. No watering down instruction. It鈥檚 focused, intentional, and impactful.

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

Grouping by ability isn鈥檛 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鈥檝e never encountered a problem we couldn鈥檛 solve with a little creativity and a team mindset.

The results we鈥檙e 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 鈥渁t-risk鈥� have reached or exceeded the end-of-year proficiency benchmark. While that outcome represents a single class, we鈥檙e seeing similar outcomes across the board.

Here鈥檚 what I鈥檇 tell any school thinking about making this shift:

鈼� It will feel chaotic at first. Stick with it.

鈼� Rules and procedures are critical. Set them early.

鈼� Everyone must be on board. From students to administration

鈼� Be ready to regroup. Mid-year reassessment is key.

鈼� 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鈥檚 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鈥檝e made ability-based grouping our new normal. And we鈥檝e 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鈥檛 work.

Adopting a consumer protection approach, the lawsuit charges the curriculum authors with 鈥渄eceptive and fraudulent marketing.鈥� 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.

鈥淭hink about that: If your car is broken, and it鈥檚 the fault of the manufacturer, the manufacturer recalls the part and fixes it,鈥� said attorney Ben Elga, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs. 鈥淭hey do not charge you for their failure. It鈥檚 outrageous.鈥�

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for 社区黑料 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鈥� 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.

鈥淣othing is more painful than trying to help them, but not knowing how,鈥� she said in a Wednesday press conference announcing the lawsuit. 鈥淪o many times I鈥檝e 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.鈥�

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鈥檚 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鈥� Units of Study curriculum and Fountas and Pinnell鈥檚 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鈥� low rates of reading proficiency. Journalist Emily Hanford鈥檚 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鈥檚 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.

鈥淐onsumer law is very broad, so there are a lot of cases that challenge products that don鈥檛 do what they say they should do or are marketed in a deceptive way,鈥� he said. 鈥淭his is the first case we鈥檙e aware of applying those laws to this type of product.鈥�

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鈥� 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.

鈥淚t鈥檚 our contention that one of the major problems here is that the school districts have been the victims of this faulty marketing,鈥� he said. 鈥淪o we wanted to bring a case that challenged the people who were actually distributing these types of materials.鈥�

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鈥檚 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鈥檚 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鈥檚 public colleges of education.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for 社区黑料 Newsletter

Over the last 25 years, nearly two in five Oregon fourth graders and one in five eighth graders have scored 鈥渂elow basic鈥� on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, often referred to as the nation鈥檚 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鈥檚 approved materials list, but about 30% are not, , director of education initiatives for Gov. Tina Kotek鈥檚 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 鈥� 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鈥檚 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鈥檚 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 社区黑料 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.

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

Pre-pandemic comparisons to measure if students鈥� 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 鈥渆fforts are underway鈥� 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鈥檚 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鈥檚 Edunomics Lab.聽

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. 

鈥淗istorically, our tendency has been to look the other way on special ed spending,鈥� . 鈥淚t hasn鈥檛 gotten the same scrutiny [as] other elements in the district budget.鈥�

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 鈥� some 8% 鈥� 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鈥檚 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 鈥� 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鈥檚 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 鈥� New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and Maine 鈥� 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 鈥渙ther health impairment鈥� 鈥� a diagnosis category that includes ADHD 鈥� 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鈥檛 necessarily correlate to better student outcomes could be that instruction is being delivered by paraprofessionals 鈥� often low-skilled, entry-level staff 鈥� 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 鈥� which Edunomics researchers praised for its unusually transparent spending reports 鈥� 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鈥檛 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 社区黑料.

State officials are looking to hire workers 鈥� teachers and non-teachers alike 鈥� 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 社区黑料 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鈥檚 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 鈥渉undreds of additional instructors鈥� for the program, which has a goal to serve 10,000 students.

鈥淵ou 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,鈥� said Public Education Secretary Arsenio Romero.

Summer reading instructors would make $35 per hour, according to the news release. That鈥檚 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鈥檚 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鈥檚 desk.

, which passed the Senate by voice vote Thursday, would formally implement the 鈥渇ive essential components of reading鈥� 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 社区黑料 Newsletter

鈥淭his bill can ensure all New Hampshire children are afforded reading development and instruction that鈥檚 delivered in a manner that meets their individual abilities and their individual needs,鈥� 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 鈥渞eading, writing, speaking, listening, reasoning, and mathematics.鈥�

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: 鈥減honemic awareness, phonics (both decoding and encoding of sounds and words), fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension.鈥�

The instruction would need to be aimed at allowing each student to achieve 鈥済rade level literacy,鈥� the bill states.

The bill also expands on the current requirement that schools teach mathematics by requiring 鈥渕athematics reasoning鈥� and 鈥渕athematics calculation鈥� 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鈥檚 Department of Education at the time. 鈥淲e saw success in the percentage of kids that improved in literacy,鈥� she said.

But she said there has been less emphasis on the practice, and that some schools had since 鈥渇allen by the wayside.鈥�

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 鈥淔.鈥�

Then, in 2023, the gave it an 鈥淎+.鈥� 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鈥檚 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 社区黑料 Newsletter

To be fair, the University of Rhode Island got an 鈥淎.鈥� But today is about the 鈥淎+鈥� story. What happened in the relatively short time between 鈥淔鈥� and 鈥淎+鈥�?

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鈥檚 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. 鈥淲e didn鈥檛 feel like we were jumping on a bandwagon or letting go of anything,鈥� like Balanced Literacy, Obel-Omia said. 鈥淲e were just building our competencies.鈥�

McDermott-Fasys has of how RIC worked with various partner organizations toward 鈥渟hared responsibility between general education and special education.鈥� Together, they broke down silos that too often led to the need for 鈥渟pecialized language schools [which] in our area often had no seats available.鈥� (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鈥檚 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鈥檚 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 鈥渕y course鈥� to 鈥渙ur scope and sequence,鈥� McDermott-Fasy proudly told me.

When Rhode Island鈥檚 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 鈥淎+鈥�.

The 鈥檚 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鈥檚 public prep programs, they鈥檒l 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鈥檚 English curriculum with the science of reading 鈥� 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. 

鈥淎ll 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,鈥� reads the bill which was submitted to the Assembly鈥檚 education and higher education committee in February.

Schools would require a waiver if educators wanted to use instructional materials that aren鈥檛 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鈥檛 reading at grade level skills by the time they reach third grade. 

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

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.

鈥淗istorically, we鈥檝e seen low performance in literacy in California,鈥� said Eugenia Mora-Flores, a professor and an assistant dean at USC鈥檚 Rossier School of Education. 鈥淚t鈥檚 not surprising, actually. We鈥檝e 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.鈥�

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 鈥渨hole language,鈥� which focuses on the meanings of words instead of breaking them down into pieces.

That鈥檚 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.

鈥淸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,鈥� said Pedro Noguera, dean of USC鈥檚 education school. 鈥淚f 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.鈥�

Noguera said a mandate alone won鈥檛 solve California鈥檚 literacy problem without looking at the bigger picture when it comes to teaching kids to read.

鈥淚f we just focus on the science of reading, on phonics, we鈥檙e also missing the point, right?鈥� Noguera said. 鈥淚f 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.鈥� 

鈥淎ll 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,鈥� 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.

鈥淚n 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,鈥� Mora-Flores said. 鈥淥n the other side of that, it’s really going to come down to the quality of translation and implementation.鈥�

This article is part of a collaboration between 社区黑料 and the USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism.

The St. Louis NAACP recently launched the 鈥淩ight to Read鈥� 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鈥檚 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. 

鈥淭his 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, 鈥楬ey, we know that we can do better and we know that we can do better collectively,鈥� ” Buchanan said. 鈥淪o this is a call to action for all school districts to recalibrate, to recommit and to be more deeply committed to improving literacy scores.鈥�

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.

鈥淵ou have a young African American, male or female, who may be a parent, who dropped out of high school 鈥� 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,鈥� chapter president Adolphus Pruitt said. 鈥淪o we thought of economic empowerment and literacy as being one in the same.鈥�

Missouri鈥檚 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鈥檚 a focus on third grade because that 1 in 6 children who aren鈥檛 reading proficiently by then won鈥檛 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. 

鈥淭he 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,鈥� 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.

鈥淎 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,鈥� said CEO Krystal Barnett. 鈥淭hey didn’t know that they could ask for their kids鈥� 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.鈥�

More than 300 parents have participated in Bridge 2 Hope鈥檚 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, 鈥淚 think the Right to Read will open the eyes of people about what strong reading instruction can actually do for a child.鈥�

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.

鈥淲e have the resources here in St. Louis. We’re just not connecting with each other,鈥� she said. 鈥淚 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.鈥�

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

鈥淟iteracy is an issue across the board, even with affluent students,鈥� he said. 鈥淏ut one of the things that history tells us is that when white America has the flu or a cold, Black America has pneumonia.鈥�

Let me get this hard sell on the table right up front: You should listen to 鈥�,鈥� 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 鈥淪old a Story鈥� is about more than a national problem; it鈥檚 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鈥檛 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 鈥� to decode written words 鈥� 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 鈥渢hree-cueing鈥� 鈥� 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 鈥� “Units of Study for Teaching Reading” from Lucy Calkins and “Leveled Literacy Intervention” from Irene Fountas and Gay Su Pinnell 鈥� 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, 鈥淚f only I had known. 鈥︹��

Of course, the significance of that fallout hinges on whether Hanford and Peak鈥檚 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.聽

As to the quality, EdReports, a nonprofit reviewer of K-12 instructional materials, last year found lacking 鈥� labeling both as 鈥渄oes not meet expectations.鈥� However, you need not lean on expert reviews to see the disconnect in this curricular approach. In a tacit admission, Calkins revised her 鈥淯nits of Study鈥� curriculum to incorporate the Science of Reading. The disconnect is even plainer in Fountas and Pinnell鈥檚 of their approach that encourages guessing words from context. They write, 鈥淚f a reader says 鈥榩ony鈥� for 鈥榟orse鈥� because of information from the pictures. 鈥� His response is partially correct, but the teacher needs to guide him to stop and work for accuracy.鈥�

That response lays bare how detached their approach is from teaching students to actually read text. Getting 鈥減ony鈥� from the word 鈥渉orse鈥� can be 鈥減artially correct鈥� 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, 鈥淪old a Story鈥� 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.