California schools can, for now, continue using a looser approach to how reading is taught to young children after a bill to mandate a 鈥�science of reading鈥� strategy failed to even garner a hearing in the legislature.
The legislation鈥攚hich supporters said would have required teachers to shift their instructional practices to align with the body of evidence on how kids learn to read鈥攄rew strong opposition from the state鈥檚 largest teachers鈥� union and an advocacy group for English learners.
Some 37 states, including California, have adopted policies to this end, although the Golden State has so far mainly relied on grants and incentives, rather than mandates and prohibitions.
The , introduced by Democratic state assembly member Blanca Rubio in February, would have taken a more aggressive approach. It proposed requiring school districts to use specific reading curricula, and it would have required all elementary reading teachers and those who support them, such as principals and instructional coaches, to complete an approved science of reading professional development course. Additionally, it would have assessed the quality of teacher-preparation programs specifically on literacy.
鈥淒espite this setback, I will not give up on comprehensive, evidence-based early literacy reform to help close the extreme reading achievement gap our state is currently facing,鈥� Rubio said in a statement to Education Week. Rubio spent 16 years as a teacher. 鈥淚t鈥檚 what our educators need and our students deserve鈥攑articularly low-income Black and Latino students, English learners, and students with disabilities who are experiencing disproportionate reading challenges in our classrooms.鈥�
In a science of reading framework, teachers start by teaching beginning readers the foundations of language in a structured progression鈥攍ike how individual letters represent sounds and how those sounds combine to make words. At the same time, teachers are helping students build their vocabulary and their knowledge about the world through read-alouds and conversations.
However, most teachers in the United States have practiced balanced literacy, a less structured approach that relies heavily on teacher choice and professional judgment.
The bill had the support of nearly 70 advocacy and research organizations, such as the California State PTA, Children鈥檚 Defense Fund California, and the National Council on Teacher Quality.
Al Muratsuchi, the chair of the state assembly鈥檚 education committee, told Education Week in an email that he supports the science of reading but wants to make sure that the state develops 鈥渁 literacy instruction strategy that works for all of our students.鈥�
Teachers鈥� union opposed the bill
The decision not to move the bill forward came after opponents of the bill, such as the California Teachers Association and English-learner advocacy coalition Californians Together, sent letters to Muratsuchi arguing that it isn鈥檛 the right way to ensure all kids will succeed.
The that the bill is 鈥渇lawed because it assumes all students learn in the same way.鈥� The state鈥檚 largest teachers鈥� union said that it鈥檚 鈥減roblematic鈥� to place a definition for science of reading in statute because the research is 鈥渘ot static and it can and should change over time if we are to grow in our knowledge.鈥�
The union also argued that the bill would undermine current literacy initiatives.
Gov. Gavin Newsom hasn鈥檛 indicated his position on the bill.
In California, the state鈥檚 2023-24 budget allocates funding for literacy coaches, reading screening assessments, and the creation of a 鈥渓iteracy roadmap.鈥�
Teacher-preparation programs are required to demonstrate that they鈥檙e preparing teachers to deliver 鈥渇oundational reading skills鈥� instruction, including for English learners. And elementary and special education teacher candidates are required to pass a new credentialing test on reading and literacy, starting in 2025.
Prior research has found that California鈥檚 investment in early literacy as a result of the settlement of a state lawsuit paid dividends for student achievement.
鈥業t鈥檚 a solvable problem鈥�
Advocates for an evidence-based approach to teaching reading say that it鈥檚 important for California to mandate this change in literacy instruction.
Rubio has argued that current state law doesn鈥檛 ensure teachers and school personnel are provided with the necessary evidence-based training to effectively teach reading. The current law also doesn鈥檛 provide support or adequate oversight to ensure teacher-preparation programs鈥� literacy-teaching standards are grounded in the science of reading, she said.
In 2022-23, less than half鈥�43 percent鈥攐f on the state鈥檚 standardized test for English/language arts. When broken down, 27 percent of Black students, 32 percent of Latino students, and 35 percent of low-income children were reading at grade level. By comparison, 58 percent of white, 69 percent of Asian, and 66 percent of non-low-income students were reading at grade level.
鈥淥ne aspiration that families who have very young children have when they start school is that they鈥檙e going to go to school to learn to read, because they know it鈥檚 the foundation for learning,鈥� said Yolie Flores, the CEO and president of Families in 69传媒, an organization focused on improving student success through family engagement. 鈥淎nd yet, we haven鈥檛 delivered on that promise.鈥�
鈥淚t鈥檚 a solvable problem,鈥� she added. Families in 69传媒 was one of the organizational supporters of the bill, along with EdVoice and Decoding Dyslexia California.
Flores and other proponents of the bill point to Mississippi鈥攁 state that had long had some of the lowest reading performance鈥攁s a model. Starting in 2013, the Magnolia State passed a series of laws overhauling its approach to teaching reading and preparing future reading teachers. Just under a decade later, in 2022, the numbers of students performing at or above the basic level of proficiency in reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress had reached 64 percent鈥攕lightly better than the national percentage of 61 percent.
Teachers need flexibility, opponents say
Still, opponents of the bill say a mandate wouldn鈥檛 work.
鈥淲e have the same North Star,鈥� said Martha Hernandez, the executive director of Californians Together. 鈥淲e recognize the urgency of addressing equity and literacy outcomes, especially for our very diverse state.鈥�
Hernandez and other opponents believe that a uniform mandate isn鈥檛 what teachers and students need.
The bill 鈥渙verlooks the importance of allowing teachers to adapt instruction to fit the unique needs of their students, to differentiate for their students,鈥� Hernandez said.
Teachers鈥� unions in other states have bristled at prescriptive reading laws, such as the one in Ohio that bans the teaching practice of having students use multiple 鈥渃ues鈥� to learn new words. Generally, they argue that such tight control of teaching interferes with teachers鈥� professionalism and ability to design lessons as they see fit.
Some opponents are open to working together with the authors of the bill to find a better solution to the state鈥檚 literacy challenges.
鈥淲e can perceive this as an opportunity to regroup and put forth a stronger version of the bill,鈥� Hernandez said. For her, a better version of the bill would drop the mandate and offer a more comprehensive definition of the science of reading.
Rubio and the sponsors of the bill said they look forward to reintroducing it during the next legislative session, hopefully with more feedback from and collaboration with those who have issues with the current language in the bill.
鈥淒oing what we鈥檙e doing now is not working,鈥� Flores said. 鈥淒oing what we see other states doing, where we see improvements for English learners and all kids, deserves a shot.鈥�
