Led by Governor DeWine, the science of reading movement is taking off in the Buckeye State. While the push is new in Ohio, the reading science isn’t. Rather, it is a return to tried and true methods of teaching children to read through a focus on the five pillars of effective literacy instruction: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. At the same time, state leaders are working to root out ineffective “whole language” and “balanced literacy” approaches that have permeated too many Ohio classrooms.
To add fuel to this movement, the governor included significant literacy reforms in his budget proposals. Among them are a statewide requirement that Ohio schools adopt high-quality literacy curricula aligned with the science of reading, and tens of millions of dollars in state funding to support the implementation of scientifically based instruction. The House’s initial version of its budget bill wisely kept intact the governor’s key literacy proposals, though it reduced some of the funding for the initiatives.
So far, so good. But as we touched on in a recent piece, lawmakers should do more to shore up the literacy plan by adding transparency and enforcement provisions. These would ensure that parents and the public are informed about schools’ curricula decisions and deter schools from refusing to shift to scientifically based reading instruction. Because a number of states have already passed science of reading legislation—Ohio is late to this party—lawmakers can look towards other jurisdictions as models. This piece takes a deeper dive into the sunshine and non-compliance provisions in Colorado and Arkansas.
Colorado’s curriculum transparency law
It’s hard to hold schools accountable for using high-quality curricula when no one knows what’s being used. Unfortunately, program selection remains a black box across most Ohio schools. While the budget bill would require schools to report their grades K–5 reading curricula to the Ohio Department of Education (ODE), there’s no requirement to make that information public. It could simply sit hidden in a state database.
To ensure full transparency, Ohio lawmakers should require the department to publicly report schools’ reading curricula, exactly as Colorado does. Under its reading laws, not only must the Colorado Department of Education collect information about reading curricula, but it also has to post it on their website. Furthermore, local districts and schools are required to provide a link on their own websites to the state’s curricula webpage.
Thanks to this sunshine provision, we learn that Colorado’s two most popular core literacy programs in grades K–3 are Houghton Mifflin’s Into Reading, which receives strong marks from EdReports, and Amplify’s Core Knowledge Language Arts, another highly-rated curriculum that substantially boosts student achievement. We also see that Denver’s schools currently use Core Knowledge, while Boulder Valley disappointingly uses the Fountas & Pinnell whole-language-based curriculum (though recent news reports indicate it’s transitioning under pressure from the Colorado Department of Education).
Arkansas’ enforcement provisions
Public transparency is an important first step in making sure that schools are actually following the reading science. But it’s possible that sunshine will only go so far. In cases when schools are refusing to use evidence-based curricula or playing reporting games, state authorities should step in. Here in Ohio, the state budget bill’s curricula requirements would implicitly give ODE authority to enforce the law. It’s certainly possible that the agency will stringently do this, just as in Colorado. But the Ohio legislature could put even more oomph behind the effort by setting a clear expectation for enforcement and delineating penalties for non-compliance.
On this count, Ohio legislators could take a page from Arkansas’ science of reading legislation, which has particularly strong language on enforcement. First, the state’s Right to Read Act expressly states that its department of education is “vested with the authority to and shall enforce” the state’s reading law. Moreover, state implementation rules describe specific actions—including withholding funding—that must be taken if a district violates the law. Here’s the key language:
If a public school district, including an open-enrollment public charter school, fails to remedy its violation [of state reading laws] within sixty days of notification of its failure to comply, the state board shall direct the Division to withhold a maximum of ten percent of the monthly distribution of state foundation funding aid to the public school district.
Once the state board determines that a public school has complied...the Division shall restore the monthly distribution of state foundation funding aid to the public school district.
This clear legislative directive to enforce the reading law, along with concrete repercussions for non-compliance, signal to schools that Arkansas is serious about strongly implementing the science of reading. They also give the department of education political cover when and if they have to take the difficult step of sanctioning in a local district or school. Finally—and perhaps most importantly—establishing clear penalties for non-compliance is likely to result in quick action in schools that are not following the science.
* * *
Governor DeWine and state policymakers should be strongly commended for their support of scientifically based reading instruction. The budget bill offers an excellent start in removing ineffective instructional practices from Ohio schools and shifting to evidence-based approaches. With some critical finishing touches, lawmakers will make certain that all schools are truly following the science of reading.
