In the past five years, virtually every state has enacted legislation aimed at improving reading instruction—a wave of reform the Shanker Institute has been (and still is) following closely. The legislation is far from perfect. Some laws lack clarity or feel clunky — somewhat misaligned with the complexity of teaching and learning to read. Others are overly rigid, and have unenforceable mandates that do little to inspire educators’ trust.
These are all valid critiques—ones we at the Institute have raised ourselves. But because we’ve taken the time to read and code these laws, we also take issue with how some of the criticisms are framed. Often, sweeping generalizations dominate the public conversation, misrepresenting both the content and intent of these laws. In this commentary, we address several of the most common misconceptions.
But before jumping in, here is some context: a total of 118 laws in 23 states and the District of Columbia use the expression “science of reading” in at least one piece of legislation passed between 2019 and 2024. By contrast, language invoking the use of “evidence” and “research” appears in virtually all states. As we noted in our 2023 report, states vary significantly in how they define “science of reading” – a topic we may tackle separately.
1. SoR Legislation Is All About Phonics
In the last three years, my colleagues and I have coded and analyzed over 400 literacy laws enacted between 2019 and 2024. If there’s one clear takeaway—and it surprised us too, given the prevailing public narrative—it’s this: these laws are not just about phonics. In fact, most bills that mention phonics also reference phonemic awareness, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension—that is, the five pillars identified by the National Reading Panel. Forty-one states mention the five pillars in at least one piece of legislation enacted between 2019 and 2024.
Does that mean the laws are flawless? Not at all. Many overlook crucial elements like oral language and writing – only 23 states enacted legislation that references the five pillars plus oral language and writing. Even more striking, the vast majority say little or nothing about the role of content and background knowledge in supporting reading comprehension. These are real gaps that deserve critique.
But starting the conversation with the claim that these laws are only about phonics not only misrepresents reality—it also shuts down space for thoughtful critiques that could make the legislation better. Even more troubling, that narrow framing is used to support a broader but equally flawed narrative: that the laws impose a rigid, one-size-fits-all model that strips teachers of autonomy and overlooks the needs of diverse learners. As we show above, this narrative rests on a shaky foundation. If you actually read the bills, the idea that they’re “just about phonics” simply doesn’t conform to the facts.
2. SoR Legislation is Only Happening in Red States
Virtually all states have passed at least one piece of legislation related to reading. Some of these states have enacted particularly comprehensive laws. According to our ongoing tracking, 70 percent of both blue and red states have adopted such comprehensive legislation.
While conservative organizations are often mentioned in discussions about SoR support, there are clear signs that the movement is bipartisan. Progressive organizations such as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the Center for American Progress, and the Education Trust have all voiced support for this policy effort. Given its broad and diverse backing, it is misleading to frame it as a politically motivated effort; a more accurate characterization is that of a nonpartisan initiative.
Union opposition is often cited as evidence that these laws are anti-teacher or anti–public education. But union positions are highly context-dependent, and blanket statements rarely capture the full picture. In 1998, the AFT passed a resolution that could easily serve as a preamble to many current reading laws. The resolution called for reading instruction that includes “early, systematic, and explicit instruction in the necessary subskills—including phonemic awareness and phonics—as well as an early emphasis on listening skills, language development, conceptual and vocabulary development, storytelling, and writing.”
The resolution went on to identify two major obstacles to this vision: first, that most elementary instructional staff had not received adequate preparation in evidence-based reading instruction; and second, that few instructional materials and programs grounded in this research had been developed or tested for effectiveness.
Of course, AFT’s leadership in literacy did not end in 1988. The seminal report Teaching Reading Is Rocket Science was first published in 1999 and updated in 2020, and the union’s magazine, American Educator, consistently made reading research accessible to teachers. Additionally, AFT developed professional development programs for its members and has been a founding partner in initiatives such as Colorín Colorado (2004) and Reading Universe (2023).
3. SoR Legislation is Too Granular and Too Prescriptive
Reading legislation is sometimes criticized for being too specific or granular – i.e., mandating one curriculum, or set of materials, or an assessment. However, this criticism misrepresents how these laws function. Legislation doesn’t typically dictate which instructional materials districts must adopt. Instead, laws call for the creation of state-approved lists, which are developed outside the legislative text and vary widely in scope and process.
Some states, like Connecticut and Virginia, offer relatively broad selections, with nine and ten approved programs respectively. Indiana lists five K–5 programs and six for early education, developed by the Department of Education and vetted by content experts. Texas focuses its list specifically on phonics programs, while New Mexico includes programs in both English and Spanish. Minnesota’s Read Act includes requirements for alignment with the five pillars of reading and to be culturally and linguistically responsive materials. Wisconsin, through its Early Literacy Council, approved four programs using a rubric adapted from the Reading League and the Knowledge Matters Campaign.
This variation underscores that state approaches to curriculum guidance are not monolithic. In fact, a more common problem is the opposite: vague legislative language that can be hard to interpret. Take bans on three-cueing, for example. At least 17 states include such prohibitions, but definitions of three-cueing vary and are usually too simplistic or entirely missing. Ohio, for example, defines three-cueing as any model relying on meaning, structure, syntax, and visual cues. As Tim Shanahan has argued, these aspects are central to reading comprehension, so this ban could create confusion among educators and do more harm than good.
Some states, like California, have tried to incorporate more nuanced wording. For example, AB 1121 (introduced — but not signed into law — in early 2025) required that programs and materials contain “instructional strategies in word recognition skills that prioritize the use of phonics to decode words first and use word meanings and context to confirm reading accuracy.” Unfortunately, this kind language, which lays out instructional priorities more clearly, has a harder time making it into final legislation.
From our vantage point it is preferable to have laws that are well-specified (high precision) yet not overly prescriptive (use incentives, not mandates). In other words, the most effective laws might be those that recognize and capture the complexity of reading instruction but also, simultaneously, allow room for district, school, and educator-level adjustment and decision-making. This seems counterintuitive, but it is likely a pragmatic and effective middle ground—especially considering the practical limits of enforcement and that the ultimate goal is a culture and instructional shift —not a set of marching orders for teachers.
4. Technology Is Central in SoR Legislation
Another concern raised about reading legislation is that it might encourage screen-based learning at the expense of meaningful engagement with printed materials, books, and teachers. However, our detailed review of how reading laws address digital media in instruction, assessment, and student supports reveals that explicit discussions of technology are relatively uncommon.
Only nine states address student-related dimensions of technology use. Typically, when technology is mentioned in these laws, it is limited to requirements for school districts to post resources or information online. Despite growing interest in artificial intelligence (AI), just four states—California, Florida, New Mexico, and Tennessee—have passed legislation specifically addressing AI. Collectively, these bills aim to promote safe, equitable, and effective integration of AI into teaching and learning. Their provisions include establishing working groups to study AI (California, New Mexico), incorporating AI and media literacy into K–12 curricula (California), providing grants for AI-powered learning tools (Florida), and requiring schools to develop clear policies governing AI use (Tennessee).
Our primary concern lies less with what these laws explicitly state about technology, and more with what they omit. Most reading legislation does not address the broader implications of digital media and AI in reading instruction, which we view as a missed opportunity. More explicit guidance could encourage greater use of print-based instruction in early grades, particularly for beginning readers. Evidence suggests that print formats offer distinct cognitive and developmental advantages over digital formats at this learning stage.
***
Throughout our three years of tracking and analysis of over 400 reading laws, we’ve aimed to remain both rigorous and fair—recognizing strong examples while highlighting areas for improvement. That’s why we’re a bit disheartened when critiques of reading legislation rely on sweeping generalizations, and anecdotes rather than careful analysis. Thoughtful critique is essential—but it begins with an honest reading of the laws themselves.
View the original article and our Inspiration here