Reading Legislation in California and Massachusetts – Is There a Third Path? 0 vpthomas October 20, 2025 Two pieces of reading legislation - one recently enacted in California and another one under consideration in Massachusetts - mark early efforts in these states to align classroom instruction with the broad scientific consensus on how children learn to read, why some students struggle, and which components are essential for effective reading instruction. There is evidence that reading policies can contribute to improved student outcomes, as seen, for example, in Mississippi. A recent national analysis likewise suggests that comprehensive early literacy laws are linked to gains in elementary reading achievement. While there is no single policy formula – as Matt Barnum notes, states adopting Mississippi-like policies may see meaningful gains but perhaps should not expect Mississippi-sized improvements – it is reasonable to conclude that strong legislation can contribute to raising literacy levels. Yet, these laws' potential, rest heavily on their effective implementation and sustained commitment over time. In this sense, the laws are best understood as setting the stage for reading reform, rather than as guarantees that change will unfold exactly as written.  How can more states move (or continue to move) toward stronger reading laws that set a better stage for improvement efforts? How can legislation meaningfully address something as complex as reading development and the instruction it requires? And what distinguishes laws that are best positioned to succeed? While lessons can be learned from states at the forefront, different contexts will call for different approaches. In this piece, we compare the paths taken by California and Massachusetts and highlight a third, promising model from Illinois, which enacted literacy legislation in 2023. *** After several stalled attempts (and here), California’s AB 1454 has become law. On the one hand, this bill is less specific than earlier proposals or even comparable legislation from other states. A previous draft had prioritized a particular instructional approach to decoding, followed by confirmation from context, grounded in the weight of evidence. However, AB 1454 opts for a more general reference to means of teaching reading that are “evidence-based" — something of a squishy term. On the other hand, AB 1454 packs a lot into one short paragraph, calling for “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 […].”  By contrast, Massachusetts has built its own reading bill (SB 338) around a tighter definition of what qualifies as evidence — explicitly identifying one practice to avoid (namely, three-cueing) and embedding definitions of both “evidence based” and “scientifically based” reading instruction directly in the bill text. SB 338 also cites the 2015 Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) where “scientifically based reading research” is defined. While ESSA doesn’t explicitly call for cumulative evidence, its four-tier evidence framework and accompanying federal guidance make clear that decisions should rest on the full weight of high-quality, replicated research, not isolated findings or single studies.  While the two paths seem distinct, their differences may be more of degree than kind. Even with stronger guardrails, as in Massachusetts, education policy shows how the term “evidence-based” can still become diluted over time. This raises a broader question: is there an alternative? One answer to that question surfaced as we looked more closely at California’s AB 1454. Although it merely enumerates a list of components, the inclusion of both oral language and background knowledge caught our attention and prompted us to cross-check our legislative database for similar language. We found only 18 other bills out of more than 400 that included these two components along with the far more frequently mentioned “five pillars,” namely phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency and comprehension.  Most of those 18 bills resembled AB 1454. Yet, among those 18, a few stood out as going beyond just listing (e.g., Wisconsin AB 321, New York S.8306C, Florida CS/HB 7004) and one – Illinois  SB 2243 presented a distinct model.  Illinois: Codifying Research-Based Principles  Instead of relying on the broad label of “evidence-based,” Illinois’ SB 2243 codifies well-supported research findings directly into statute. It begins with oral language as a foundation for reading, highlighting the importance of language-rich experiences from birth:  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 provides a clear account of how reading develops in the brain:  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. SB 2243 goes on to specify the elements of effective instruction - “direct, systematic, cumulative, and explicit reading instruction” focused on phonemic awareness, decoding, spelling, vocabulary (including morphology), oral language, fluency, and comprehension (including syntax and background knowledge).  In contrast, California’s AB 1454 identifies many key components of reading but relies on a broadly defined “evidence-based” standard. Massachusetts’ SB 338 adopts a stricter, federally derived definition of evidence, though it still defers many details to future guidance. Illinois’ SB 2243 goes further by codifying well-supported findings directly into law, reducing ambiguity about what counts as “evidence based.” This means districts’ choices of curricula, and professional development should be anchored in research-based principles written into statute.  Legislation can set important parameters, but its impact depends obviously on many factors — including how well its provisions capture the complexities of reading development, from which curriculum, professional development, assessments etc. all flow.  In a forthcoming Shanker Institute paper, Maryanne Wolf describes how interconnected learning to read truly is. She depicts reading development as a dynamic sequence in which the learners’ needs, teachers’ judgment, and the increasing complexity of texts determine the emphases of instruction.  Within this sequence, two broad emphases recur: expanded foundational skills and deep reading comprehension. Depending on learner strengths and needs, instruction foregrounds one emphasis while the other plays a supporting role. This dynamic shifts over time as students’ reading becomes more proficient. Yet, as texts also become more complex, neither emphasis ever disappears completely.  Foundational skills remain important as students advance, and comprehension is always present even in the simplest of connected texts. 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. The key takeaway from this commentary is that all three bills represent progress and hold the potential to benefit millions of students. States are trying out with different legislative strategies, each shaped by its own context, opportunities, and constraints. Tracking and monitoring implementation and making policy adjustments as needed will be important in all states. While there is no single formula for literacy legislation, states that embed robust principles and research findings directly into statute leave less to chance or deferred decision-making, potentially creating stronger foundation. Blog Topics literacy Issues Areas K-12 Education by Esther Quintero and Susan B. Neuman States are experimenting with different legislative strategies, each shaped by its own context, opportunities, and constraints.

View Entire Post