Clarification: This story was updated to more precisely characterize the language of a previous reading bill, AB 1121, proposed in California.
California may soon pass legislation mandating evidence-based reading instruction, after more than a year of tense negotiations between battling advocacy groups.
The bill, AB 1454, would incentivize districts to offer professional development and select materials from a list to be created by the state, and would require training for aspiring administrators to include instruction in supporting evidence-based literacy teaching. It passed the state Assembly on June 5.
Its passage would represent a major turning point for the “science of reading” movement in California—the nation’s largest state serving more than 2.6 million elementary school age children, which has a checkered past on reading.
The Golden State was first to popularize a “whole language” approach in the 1980s, which emphasizes immersing children in text and developing a love of reading, with little direct instruction. Since then, California has swung back and forth between both sides of the “reading wars.”
As more than 30 states have enacted laws requiring schools to use methods and materials aligned to the research base on how children learn to read, similar proposals in California have faced strong pushback from teachers’ unions and some advocates for English learners.
Those critics have argued that prior proposed legislation introduced placed a disproportionate emphasis on phonics instruction—teaching students how letters represent sounds, a foundational aspect of learning to read—at the expense of other components of literacy, and that mandates for teacher training would place an unfair burden on schools.
Now, advocates on both sides feel they’ve reached a conclusion that, while imperfect, will move literacy instruction forward in the state. Its hallmark is that, while the bill encourages districts to adopt approved materials and offer evidence-based training to teachers, it doesn’t mandate that they take these steps.
Some observers worry that the compromise bill isn’t specific or prescriptive enough to shift practices in schools.
“There’s so much latitude as to what districts can do, that I don’t see what’s going on now changing in any substantial way,” said Claude Goldenberg, a professor emeritus of education at Stanford University whose work focuses on reading achievement in English learners.
And the bill still must clear several hurdles, including passing the state Senate. Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, has included $200 million for the teacher and administrator professional development envisioned in the bill in his proposed budget, which legislators are currently debating.
Even then, there are open questions about how the state board of education will craft the lists of approved training programs and curricula, and how widespread uptake will be in districts.
“We are very enthusiastic about where we are,” said Megan Potente, the co-state director of Decoding Dyslexia California, one of the groups supporting the bill.
Still, she said, “it’s always about implementation.
“I hope that people’s urgency related to literacy continues and that our department of education and our teacher-preparation programs and everyone in this work receives the support that they need.”
Advocates strike a compromise on phonics and mandates
Schools in California have traditionally had wide latitude over which materials and methods they use to teach reading.
The state has passed legislation over the past five years to revamp how it credentials teachers to teach reading and screen students for reading problems, including dyslexia, but has stopped short of specifying what training teachers in classrooms should receive, or what curricula they should use.
Last year, a more aggressive proposal introduced by Democratic state assembly member Blanca Rubio would have mandated action on these two aspects of instruction.
The legislation, supported by Decoding Dyslexia California, EdVoice, and Families in Schools, died without a hearing. Opponents of the bill—including the CTA and English-learner advocacy coalition Californians Together—lobbied the chair of the state assembly’s education committee not to move forward. They contended that the bill had a narrow focus on foundational skills and didn’t focus enough on supporting English learners’ language and literacy development.
A similar bill that Rubio introduced this year also saw opposition from teachers’ unions and English learner groups, until the Speaker of the Assembly Robert Rivas, a Democrat, pushed for advocates on both sides to come to the table to work out a compromise.
“We’re appreciative that the speaker stepped in and helped a couple of members and organizations come in and find where our commonalities are,” said Tristan Brown, the legislative director for the California Federation of Teachers. “We want to make sure that we weren’t being over-prescriptive, which I think is the major gear shift from what was happening before.”
The union wanted to ensure, he said, that if the training approved by the state board didn’t move the needle for students, teachers wouldn’t be “restricted from trying everything else under the sun to crack that code to make sure that child becomes a reader.”
Instead of mandating professional development, the current bill makes it optional. Also removed was language requiring state-adopted materials to prioritize an evidence-based approach to teaching word recognition—strategies that use “phonics to decode words first and use word meanings and context to confirm reading accuracy.”
“That was a big disappointment for me,” said Yolie Flores, the CEO and president of Families in Schools.
Still, she said, the bill is a step forward. “We think the fact that there will be materials that will be aligned to evidence-based literacy instruction, and there are resources for professional development, that will hopefully motivate the teaching force to move along the science of reading,” she said.
While professional learning isn’t mandated, the funding Newsom has proposed for training is a strong incentive, said Marshall Tuck, the CEO of EdVoice. “The money goes to districts and they can only use it for this purpose, and if you don’t use it, it goes back,” he said.
Martha Hernandez, the executive director of Californians Together, highlighted the requirements that training and materials align to the state’s framework for English/language arts and English-language development, or ELD.
“There’s always compromise, but we’re happy because the bill ensured that English learners were centered,” she said. “What we are hopeful of is that districts will finally be able to get professional learning for teachers on integrated and designated English-language development.”
As the bill continues its legislative journey, it’s not clear what could be added or modified by amendments.
‘The real details will be defined outside of the legislative text’
Exactly what professional development the state would choose to greenlight, and what materials it’ll add to a recommended list, are yet to be seen. The bill’s criteria for selection are broad enough that they could encompass a wide variety of options, experts say.
“We’ve seen many more bills that are much more precise, much more specific. They contain tight definitions of what counts as evidence,” said Esther Quintero, a senior fellow at the Albert Shanker Institute, who has tracked science of reading legislation nationwide.
“This is lacking in this bill,” she said. “There are a lot of aspects that are somewhat vague.”
For example, she said, the legislation outlines that professional development and materials should be “aligned to the current ELA/ELD Framework,” a guideline that she said is “not very precise.”
“This is a huge document—what does it mean, being aligned?” Quintero said.
California’s proposal is not alone in lacking precision. About half of recent state laws on reading instruction are similarly vague, Quintero said.
Goldenberg, the Stanford emeritus professor, said he would want to see more clarity on the definition of “research-based.” Many flawed reading programs have single studies that show improvements in student outcomes, but states should prioritize methods that are supported by a preponderance of evidence in the field, he said. (Few state laws address the distinction in their definition of research-based.)
California’s law also relies on incentives and recommendations, rather than mandates. That’s not inherently a bad thing, said Quintero. “But coupled with the lack of precision, what it signals to me is the real work, the real details, will be defined outside of the legislative text.”
The various stakeholders all have items to add to a wish list for what professional learning and materials should include.
Hernandez, for one, would want to see materials that are culturally and linguistically responsive, addressing the needs of English learners throughout, rather than as an addendum. Potente said it would be “amazing” if decisionmakers considered criteria in the curriculum evaluation rubric from the Reading League, a national organization that promotes evidence-based literacy.
She’s “hopeful” that the state’s board of education and department of education would be “open to ideas, especially from those of us in the coalition.”
