California and Massachusetts take different approaches with new reading legislation

Two states, California and Massachusetts, are advancing reading legislation that aims to bring classroom instruction in line with scientific understanding of how children learn to read. These efforts reflect a broader movement across the United States to improve literacy outcomes by grounding teaching methods in research.

Evidence suggests that strong reading policies can lead to better student performance. For example, Mississippi has seen improved results after implementing comprehensive early literacy laws. A national analysis also indicates that such laws are associated with gains in elementary reading achievement. However, experts caution that while legislation is important, its effectiveness depends on implementation and ongoing commitment.

California’s recently enacted AB 1454 requires “explicit and systematic instruction in print concepts, phonological awareness, phonics and word recognition, and fluency to all pupils, and attending to oral language development, vocabulary and background knowledge, and comprehension […].” The law uses the term “evidence-based” without specifying particular instructional approaches.

In contrast, Massachusetts’ proposed SB 338 provides a more precise definition of what counts as evidence. It specifically discourages the use of three-cueing strategies and references federal definitions from the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), which emphasizes high-quality, replicated research as the standard for scientifically based reading instruction.

A third approach is seen in Illinois’ SB 2243, which was enacted in 2023. Rather than relying on broad terms like “evidence-based,” this law codifies detailed research findings directly into statute. It begins by emphasizing oral language as foundational for reading: “Oral language development is a prerequisite for reading and writing that is nurtured from birth through talking, reading, storytelling, singing, nursery rhymes […] intentional dialogue with rich vocabulary, home visiting programs, access to books, high-quality childcare and preschool…” The bill also explains how reading develops neurologically: “Reading builds new neural pathways in the brain as people, usually children, learn to connect the sounds in language to letters on a page to the meaning of the text.” Further requirements include “direct, systematic, cumulative, and explicit reading instruction” focused on multiple aspects such as phonemic awareness and comprehension.

The three legislative models show different ways states are trying to address literacy challenges. While California’s law lists key components but leaves room for interpretation under an “evidence-based” label, Massachusetts seeks clarity by defining evidence within its statute. Illinois takes it further by embedding specific research principles into law.

The impact of these laws will depend on how well they account for the complexities of reading development—affecting curriculum choices and teacher training accordingly.

Maryanne Wolf describes learning to read as an interconnected process shaped by both foundational skills and deep comprehension abilities. She notes: “Within this sequence…two broad emphases recur: expanded foundational skills and deep reading comprehension…Instruction foregrounds one emphasis while the other plays a supporting role…Foundational skills remain important as students advance…and comprehension is always present even in the simplest of connected texts.”

She adds: “The most important idea is that all learners require explicit and systematic instruction across both emphases but…the timing, pace and dosage will inevitably vary by individual student characteristics.”

All three bills represent steps forward according to their proponents. Their success will hinge on effective implementation and ongoing evaluation—a point supported by recent work led by researchers including Esther Quintero from the Albert Shanker Institute who have examined state-level reading legislation since 2019.

This work builds on related projects such as a national evaluation of K-12 school finance systems conducted by teams at the Albert Shanker Institute, University of Miami, and Rutgers Graduate School of Education; as well as comprehensive reviews linking school funding levels with student achievement.

While there may not be one formula for successful literacy policy nationwide, integrating robust research findings directly into state statutes may help ensure greater consistency in practice across districts.