Pa. could become the latest state to mandate ‘evidence-based’ reading instruction

As a reading specialist in the Cumberland Valley School District in Central Pennsylvania, Megan Gierka saw her roster of students who needed extra help swell to all but seven of her school’s second graders.

Gierka didn’t understand how so many children were struggling.

But as her school began to shift to a “structured literacy” approach, she saw how her district’s previous methods had failed: Teachers hadn’t been taught how explicit reading instruction should be — breaking sentences down not just to words, but units of sound. Screening assessments weren’t catching struggling readers. And teachers’ instruction varied from classroom to classroom.

Teachers were “kind of left to their own devices,” said Gierka, now a senior content developer at the AIM Institute for Learning and Research, the nationally known research and training arm of the private school for children with language-based learning differences in Conshohocken.

As battles over how best to teach kids to read play out in districts across the state, Gierka and other advocates for the so-called science of reading movement are paying close attention to the latest Harrisburg efforts to legislate reading instruction. A bill that cleared the Senate Education Committee earlier this month would require that school districts use “evidence-based” reading curricula, and screen students in kindergarten through third grade three times a year with specific tests measuring their reading competency.

» READ MORE: A battle over how to teach kids to read is playing out in Philly-area classrooms. Parents are losing trust.

Gierka is among those who favor tighter rules on curricula, along with better teacher training to boost reading proficiency: Just over one-third of fourth graders in Pennsylvania are proficient in reading, according to national testing data. But the effort is meeting pushback.

Following conversations with the Pennsylvania State Education Association, lawmakers recently softened a requirement that schools choose from a list of preapproved curricula — creating an option for districts to submit programs to the state Department of Education for review.

The amended bill, which directs the department to create a 20-member “reading leadership council” to choose curricula, “ensures that educators will play a role in vetting and selecting the evidence-based reading curricula and programs that schools can choose from,” said Chris Lilienthal, a PSEA spokesperson.

While advocates have expressed concern the amendment would potentially allow schools to avoid making changes to a curriculum, they also acknowledge that curriculum lists aren’t a panacea — with some states selecting programs that science-of-reading proponents consider ineffective. About 30 states have imposed curriculum or instruction requirements.

» READ MORE: This is how your kids are being taught to read

The debate reflects the challenges of rethinking reading instruction as the science of reading movement gains traction. Experts agree that certain instructional methods — such as encouraging kids to guess words based on visual cues rather than sounding them out — are counterproductive, failing to teach reading.

But charting a path forward is less clear-cut. Some experts worry the science of reading movement is putting too much emphasis on teaching components of reading, rather than reading itself.

Mark Seidenberg, a cognitive scientist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison whose work has been influential in the rise of the science-of-reading movement, has called the recent surge of laws a “necessary evil,” given the failure of other reform efforts. But during a December talk at Yale University, he expressed concern that structured literacy, the approach favored by science-of-reading advocates, could be “too plodding.”

Advocates say they aren’t looking to mandate excessive skills instruction. The focus should be on “you learn to read, and then you read to learn,” Gierka said. Daily instruction in word recognition should be limited, and teachers should simultaneously focus on building students’ background knowledge — reading material aloud that is two to three grade levels ahead of their students, Gierka said.

Teachers can retain autonomy while adhering to a designated curriculum, Gierka said, drawing comparisons to an actress. “They have a script, but that actress really brings it to life and adds in nuances,” she said. “That’s what good structured literacy does.”

In addition to creating a curriculum list, the bill working its way through the legislature would require districts to have certain teachers participate in training developed by the state Department of Education. And it would mandate screening tests that Gierka likened to “blood work” — helping schools identify which students need reading intervention services.

The bill would also establish a grant program for districts to apply for funding to enact the changes — though how much money lawmakers might appropriate is unknown. One of the bill’s sponsors, Rep. Justin Fleming (D., Dauphin), called that “one of the biggest question marks.”

Not only do school districts need money for curriculum, “but also to do the training with fidelity,” said Fleming, whose daughter struggled with reading but got help in first and second grade from a reading specialist. (“I can’t say with 100% certainty if it was science-of-reading curriculum,” he said, but “it made a world of difference.”)

In New York, Gov. Kathy Hochul last month proposed spending $10 million on training teachers in the science of reading, along with requirements for school districts to certify their curricula are based on “scientifically proven” approaches to literacy. Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers last year signed a science-of-reading law accompanied by $50 million for hiring reading coaches and adopting new curricula.

Lilienthal, of the PSEA, noted that Florida last year spent $170 million on literacy efforts.

Manuel Bonder, a spokesperson for Gov. Josh Shapiro, said the governor supports the amended version of the structured literacy bill. He didn’t comment directly on funding, which is likely to be part of budget negotiations.

During a hearing earlier this month, Republican State Sen. David Argall, the education committee chair, said data from Mississippi — which has garnered headlines for moving from among the lowest-performing states on reading to the nation’s most improved — were “really intriguing.”

The changes in Mississippi, which started in 2013, weren’t a onetime effort. A decade later, the state is still training its teachers, including through the AIM Institute this year.

Enacting meaningful change in Pennsylvania will also take time, advocates say, as well as further reforms. A 2022 law required that school districts incorporate structured literacy into professional development plans, and also required teacher preparation programs to add competencies in structured literacy starting in August. But licensure tests still don’t incorporate the topic.

The movement in Pennsylvania is “very much grassroots right now,” Gierka said. “It’s really just trying to get people to understand the sense of urgency.”