In California, controversy is brewing over the state’s proposed slate of recommended reading programs, a list that could shape literacy instruction for millions of elementary and middle schoolers.
A state science of reading law passed last year requires districts to use materials that take an evidence-based approach to literacy instruction. Districts don’t have to pick off the state list, but it’s the main resource that many will use to guide their choices.
But now, several groups that advocated for the legislation say the list doesn’t give districts enough information to parse the strengths and weaknesses of each curriculum.
It’s an argument that taps into broader debates in the science of reading movement nationally about how materials should be evaluated—and how prescriptive states should be in determining what counts as evidence-based.
More than 40 states have passed science of reading legislation, with many encouraging or requiring districts to adopt reading curricula from a state-approved list. But how these states create their lists, and what’s on them, varies widely.
California’s list, which the state board will vote on in January, includes more than 40 approved options in grades K-8, but doesn’t rank them.
At a state board meeting on Thursday, representatives from a host of organizations—including EdVoice, Californians Together, EdTrust-West, and the California Teachers Association—asked the board to delay the adoption and direct the state education department to re-review materials, providing more granular information about programs and the differences between them.
“We are exploring a fundamental shift there,” said Rigel Massaro, the chief of policy and programs at EdVoice, in an interview. “Under the maxim of local control, we have accepted that local education agencies have the burden of doing all the work. The state can and needs to, should, take ownership and accountability for teeing up quality.”
In an emailed statement, Scott Roark, a spokesperson for the California Department of Education, said criteria in the state’s English/language arts and English-language development framework detail how to conduct a “rigorous review, with more than 120 individual evaluation criterion statements that are considered per grade level.”
“Local educational agencies’ needs and priorities vary greatly in the state, and the approved lists seek to provide materials they can evaluate to determine if they meet local needs,” said Roark.
Advocates argue science of reading implementation is faltering
California passed its reading legislation in 2025 after a prolonged, pitched battle.
Education reform organizations and dyslexia advocates pushed for a law that would have required schools to pick curricula from a vetted list and mandated that educators take science of reading training. Teachers unions and English-learner advocacy groups pushed back, arguing that the proposed language focused too much on phonics and didn’t offer schools enough flexibility in a state where districts have long retained control over decisions about curriculum and teaching methods.
The law that Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, signed struck a compromise. It made professional development optional, removed some specific language around phonics, and gives districts the option of selecting curricula from a state-approved list or certifying that another curriculum they choose is evidence-based. Advocates on both sides of the debate said they were hopeful the new law would lead to better outcomes for all kids.
Now, some are raising concerns. “The implementation part is just as important, and we’re seeing that falter here. That’s a problem,” said Efrain Mercado, the chief government affairs officer at EdVoice.
For each program on the list, reviewers note evidence from within the curriculum that demonstrates where it meets the state’s English/language arts and English language development standards. But reviews don’t differentiate between programs that barely met the standard and those that passed with flying colors, which sets up a “low threshold for quality,” Massaro said.
Reviews also cite examples of program strengths in four other categories: program organization, assessment, access and equity, and instructional planning and support. But Massaro said there’s no clear or publicly available definition of what constitutes a strength, meaning the criteria could differ from reviewer to reviewer.
When asked what guidance was provided to reviewers in identifying program strengths, Roark of the CDE said they “were instructed to cite the best exemplars for each program into their reports of findings.”
On Thursday, members of the state board voted to push the vote on the list from November to January. But EdVoice and other organizations urged the board to go further, doing away with the January deadline and reworking the reviews.
“California students deserve materials that drive literacy achievement, not a minimum threshold list,” said Raquel Morales, a government affairs manager at EdTrust-West.
A revised review process should include “clear definitions of quality, strong calibrations, and multiple performance levels to assess program criteria,” said Natalie Shin, a legislative advocate at Californians Together.
Still, other organizations have urged the board to stick to the January timeline. “We have confidence in the Instructional Quality Commission’s review process,” said Lucy Edwards, the ELA/ELD chair of the California County Superintendents, in a statement to Education Week.
“Local education agencies need both high-quality options and the flexibility to determine what will best serve their students. Further delaying adoption will not address the systemic challenges affecting literacy outcomes,” she said.
At the Nov. 12 meeting, state board of education member Alison Yoshimoto-Towery said she hoped there would be adequate time to discuss the list in January.
“There is a lot of discussion to be had, as we heard in public comment today, and I really believe that our priority should be achieving a high-quality list, not just meeting the deadline,” she said.
State reading curriculum lists are controversial nationally
The arguments over California’s list aren’t unique. State curriculum lists have become flashpoints across the country in the wake of science of reading legislation.
States have taken different approaches. Some lists simply outline approved materials; others rate program components against a list of criteria and rank curricula in tiers. Some offer more than a dozen choices; others offer only a handful.
In a June state board meeting, Todd Collins, an organizer of the California Reading Coalition, said California should take cues from states that designed shorter, more prescribed lists.
Long lists have “been the custom in California,” he said in June. “Just provide a list of every program that meets the minimum standard. But that’s a problem. … We need to make it very clear where the quality is. That’s what the most successful states do, like Mississippi or Louisiana.”
Mississippi, for example, has approved five programs for grades K-5. Other states, like Michigan, have greenlit more programs, but offer publicly available reports that score strengths and weaknesses against common criteria.
There are many factors that can affect curriculum quality, and a state needs to evaluate these factors against a clear rubric, said Pam Kastner, an educational consultant and the former state lead for literacy at the Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance Network.
Kastner spoke out against Pennsylvania’s initial list of reading programs, released last year, which critics said contained errors and was hard for districts to navigate. Pennsylvania’s department of education pulled the list and now directs districts to other state and national curriculum evaluation systems.
In any state, she said, reviews would ideally provide information about what kind of teaching practices the curriculum supports, how much support is embedded in the program for teachers, and whether there are common instructional routines that the core program and intervention materials share.
If states don’t provide analyses on these questions, Kastner said, “they’re leaving a lot of detail out.”
