Reading reform laws spark debate over content and implementation

In recent years, legislation focused on reading instruction has been enacted across the United States. This movement, closely monitored by the Shanker Institute, involves a variety of approaches and critiques. While some laws lack clarity or seem misaligned with educational complexities, others are viewed as overly rigid.

The Shanker Institute highlights that many criticisms misrepresent these laws. "Often, sweeping generalizations dominate the public conversation," they note. They emphasize that 118 laws in 23 states and the District of Columbia reference the "science of reading" between 2019 and 2024.

A common misconception is that these laws focus solely on phonics. However, most include references to phonemic awareness, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension—the five pillars identified by the National Reading Panel. Yet, only 23 states mention oral language and writing alongside these pillars.

Critics also argue that such legislation imposes a one-size-fits-all model on educators. The Shanker Institute counters this view: "If you actually read the bills, the idea that they’re 'just about phonics' simply doesn’t conform to the facts."

Another perception is that reading legislation is predominantly occurring in conservative states. The institute clarifies: "70 percent of both blue and red states have adopted such comprehensive legislation." The initiative enjoys bipartisan support from organizations like the NAACP and Education Trust.

Union opposition is often cited as evidence against these laws; however, union positions vary significantly by context. For example, a resolution passed by AFT in 1998 aligns with current reading law principles.

Concerns about prescriptive legislation are addressed as well. State-approved lists for instructional materials allow flexibility rather than dictating specific resources. There are also issues with vague legislative language regarding methods like three-cueing.

Technology's role in reading instruction has raised concerns about screen-based learning replacing traditional methods. Despite growing interest in AI, few states explicitly address technology's use in education within their laws.

The Shanker Institute stresses thoughtful critique based on accurate readings of legislation: "Thoughtful critique is essential—but it begins with an honest reading of the laws themselves."