Esther Quintero Senior Research Fellow | Albert Shanker Institute
A recent analysis by the Albert Shanker Institute highlights ongoing debates about reading legislation and how personal beliefs influence interpretations of these laws. The Institute has been tracking and cataloguing reading-related state legislation for the past three years, aiming to clarify what is actually included in these laws versus common misconceptions.
Supporters of current reading legislation agree that student performance on reading tests is low, instruction is a significant factor in outcomes, many existing practices are not aligned with research, and that aligning instruction with evidence could improve results. Critics argue that the so-called reading crisis may be exaggerated, external factors like poverty play a major role in outcomes, many educators already use evidence-based methods, and greater alignment with research does not guarantee better results.
The article points out that while these perspectives appear opposed, they often differ mainly in emphasis—such as which solutions to prioritize or how quickly to act. Over time, these differences can lead to more pronounced disagreements about whether it is possible or worthwhile to align instructional practices more closely with research.
One area of contention is the selection of instructional materials. As more states require curated lists of evidence-based programs and assessments, questions arise about who creates these lists and how they are used. Some state laws make them advisory; others mandate their use but allow opt-outs. The Albert Shanker Institute advocates for precise yet flexible legislation developed with meaningful educator input. "Importantly, any aspect of legislation with direct implications for instruction should be developed with meaningful input from educators," according to the article.
Concerns exist over how curricula are selected and whether reliance on national evaluation tools such as EdReports or Florida’s FCRR tool might limit flexibility or overlook local needs. However, the article notes that rejecting shared guidance altogether would hinder consistency and equity across schools.
Research led by Susan B. Neuman (New York University), Esther Quintero (Albert Shanker Institute), and Kayla Reist (University of Virginia) has examined reading-related state legislation enacted since 2019.
Another point addressed is individual student needs versus universal aspects of learning to read. While children vary widely in background and learning requirements, core skills such as connecting sounds to written symbols remain consistent for all students. "That is why explicit instruction in sound–letter correspondence is a cornerstone of early reading instruction for all children—at least until they reach what David Share (1995) called 'self-teaching'... Explicit instruction is the onramp to this stage," the article explains.
The importance of balancing foundational skills like phonics with language comprehension—including vocabulary building—is also emphasized: "Equally critical is language comprehension—including vocabulary, knowledge building, and more."
The article concludes by arguing that aligning instructional practices with scientific consensus represents good professional practice: "The steady and deliberate alignment of materials and instruction with the scientific consensus on reading should be nonnegotiable. Not because it solves everything... but because it is essential good practice."
Researchers from the Albert Shanker Institute have also contributed studies evaluating K-12 school finance systems nationwide as well as comprehensive reviews on school funding's impact on student outcomes.
https://www.shankerinstitute.org/resource/effects-school-funding-student-outcomes
Susan B. Neuman provided feedback on an earlier draft of this piece.
Alerts Sign-up