In April 2024, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul made a bold promise: The state would revamp its approach to literacy and boost state reading scores by double digits. \u201cWe’re turning the page on how we teach students how to read,\u201d she said in front of a first grade class in Albany. The state would raise the share of third graders reading proficiently from 45 percent to 60 percent or higher, she said.\u00a0<\/p>\n
She\u2019d just signed budget legislation, branded \u201cBack to Basics,\u201d that was supposed to ensure that every school district adopts a strategy of teaching dubbed the \u201cscience of reading.\u201d The approach reflects decades of research showing that, among other things, children learn best when they\u2019re explicitly taught phonics: the relationship between letters and the sounds they make.\u00a0<\/p>\n
The law set aside $10 million to retrain 20,000 teachers on that evidence-based instruction and gave the money to the main state teachers union, New York State United Teachers, to use in developing the course. Last September, the union launched it.\u00a0<\/p>\n
But the course doesn\u2019t reflect the latest research and in fact promotes a teaching strategy that\u2019s been found ineffective and could actually impede students\u2019 progress, literacy experts say. Those reviewers say the course contains far too much material from the now outdated reading method that Hochul said she wanted to see replaced.\u00a0<\/p>\n
That assessment comes as reading scores in New York are falling while those of a few states that have invested heavily in evidence-based literacy instruction are rising.<\/p>\n
\u201cThere are just lots of inaccuracies and very old citations,\u201d said Susan Neuman, a New York University professor who specializes in early literacy development, after viewing a sample of 18 slides from the course. \u201cWe\u2019ve spent $10 million on this? Can I get a refund?\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
That questionable teaching strategy, known as \u201cbalanced literacy,\u201d is out of step with the science of reading. Balanced literacy presents phonics as just one strategy for identifying words; students are also taught to recognize words using clues like the context or grammar of a sentence, the word\u2019s visual appearance and accompanying pictures. This approach is called \u201cthree-cueing<\/a>,\u201d which some researchers liken to guessing.\u00a0<\/p>\n A review<\/a> last year of 68 studies pitted the results of balanced literacy against a science of reading-based approach called \u201cstructured literacy.\u201d The results provide \u201cstrong evidence that [structured literacy] programs are more effective than [balanced literacy] programs in improving a range of literacy skills,\u201d the researchers concluded.\u00a0<\/p>\n The governor\u2019s plan promised to eliminate balanced literacy. \u201cWith this budget, we’re throwing out debunked reading instruction practices and getting back to basics, using phonics, reading comprehension and other effective techniques to set our kids up for success,\u201d Hochul said in a press release.\u00a0<\/p>\n Related: A lot goes on in classrooms from kindergarten to high school. Keep up with our<\/strong> free <\/strong>weekly newsletter on K-12 education<\/strong><\/a>.<\/strong><\/p>\n A key part of the plan is the union\u2019s course, intended to equip teachers with evidence-based methods. But literacy advocates who took it, and national and state literacy experts who reviewed parts of it, say the course may push the state backward because it promotes balanced literacy and sometimes distorts what the research shows about how children learn to read.\u00a0<\/p>\n This criticism is landing at a time when more than one in five school districts in the state still use a balanced literacy or other non-evidence-based curriculum, according to new data<\/a>. Meanwhile, the state remains behind most others in shifting to evidence-based instruction, according to<\/a> groups that monitor state literacy policies.\u00a0<\/p>\n A growing share of New York\u2019s children struggle to read. In 2009, 29 percent of its fourth grade students scored at the lowest level on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, known as the Nation\u2019s Report Card<\/a> \u2014 meaning they didn\u2019t exhibit even partial mastery of grade-level reading skills. By 2019, the figure had grown to 34 percent and by 2024, 41 percent. Those results are ominous, research shows: Children who have trouble reading by third grade are unlikely to ever read proficiently and four times less likely to finish high school<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n New York\u2019s scores are going in the opposite direction of those in states like Mississippi and Louisiana that have adopted more measures that further the science of reading, according to a 2025 analysis<\/a> of state reading policies by ExcelinEd, an education early literacy advocacy group. Those measures include ongoing science of reading training for teachers, district adoption of instructional materials based on reading research and more. The analysis concluded that New York had put in place just two of 18 policies it judges essential to a comprehensive early literacy strategy, tied for last with Maine and Illinois.\u00a0<\/p>\n The teachers\u2019 union training, offered since September 18, is supposed to help remedy that. One of the first people to take it was Lori Govenettio, a professional development specialist for the Syracuse-based Reading League, which promotes evidence-based reading instruction. She wanted to see if it could be a resource for teachers she works with.\u00a0<\/p>\n But when she logged on to the first session in October, she was surprised that the course instructor didn\u2019t seem to know much about the science of reading. The instructor read from a script. She hadn\u2019t heard of a well-known controversy<\/a> in literacy circles over the effectiveness of teaching children sounds without showing their corresponding letters. Later, the trainer displayed a slide<\/a> on how to use a balanced literacy tool called a \u201crunning record\u201d to assess how well children can read. But under Hochul\u2019s Back to Basics plan, the state rejects that tool as inconsistent with the science of reading.\u00a0<\/p>\n Small details were also off. The instructor shared a video, produced by a Taiwan-based company, designed to show students learning to read the correspondence between letters and sounds. In it, some sounds are pronounced incorrectly \u2014 for example, \u201cm\u201d is pronounced as \u201cmuh\u201d when it should be \u201cmmm.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Related: Reading comprehension loses out in the classroom<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n On the opposite end of the state, literacy advocates were hearing similar feedback. Deborah Aiello, founding member of the Long Island Literacy Coalition, which promotes evidence-based reading instruction, said teachers reported that the union\u2019s instructors seemed new to the science and promoted balanced literacy tools in the course.\u00a0<\/p>\n National literacy experts with whom The Hechinger Report shared excerpts from the course also criticized its content.\u00a0<\/p>\n One slide, citing the work of literacy researcher Isabel Beck and two colleagues, differentiates types of words. It defines \u201cprecision words\u201d as those used more in written than spoken language \u2014 \u201ccite\u201d and \u201cevaluate,\u201d for example \u2014 noting that those don\u2019t \u201cusually require explicit instruction.\u201d Beck said that slide renders her work backward: What it calls precision words do indeed require explicit instruction, one of three substantive errors on that slide alone, she said. \u201cI don\u2019t want my name on this,\u201d she added.\u00a0<\/p>\n Tim Shanahan, a professor emeritus at the University of Illinois at Chicago and former chair of two federal literacy panels, took issue with five slides. One notes that high-frequency words \u201ccan easily be decoded,\u201d a statement that isn\u2019t true, he said: Many of the highest-frequency words derive from the Anglo-Saxon spelling tradition and are irregular. \u201cI think that would be a slide I’d say, \u2018Get rid of that or rewrite it dramatically,\u2019 \u201d he said.\u00a0<\/p>\n Another slide portrays a \u201cdebate\u201d between the \u201cphonics approach\u201d and the \u201cwhole language approach,\u201d whose ideas were incorporated<\/a> into the later balanced literacy framework. Both \u201caim to enhance students\u2019 reading skills and comprehension through different methods,\u201d the slide notes. But the scientific literature \u201creally contradicts\u201d the whole language approach, said Mark Seidenberg, a professor emeritus and cognitive neuroscientist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. \u201cIt has been abandoned in many parts of the country.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n The New York State Department of Education refused to answer questions about these criticisms, who reviewed the course, the qualifications of instructors or the course content suggesting that balanced literacy is compatible with the science of reading. Instead, the department referred all questions to New York State United Teachers and the governor. The union didn\u2019t respond to repeated inquiries.<\/p>\n In addition to those questions, The Hechinger Report asked Gov. Hochul whether she had considered using an existing high-quality science-of-reading training \u2014 such as an introductory course for New York City teachers showcased<\/a> to a National Governors Association delegation in 2025 \u2014 rather than allocate money for a new course.\u00a0<\/p>\n Emma Wallner, a Hochul spokesperson, replied by email that the state education department and the union continue to refine the training and that the governor\u2019s office \u201cremains engaged in supporting the rollout of the Science of Reading\u201d to ensure that the governor\u2019s plan \u201cis successfully implemented in classrooms statewide.”\u00a0<\/p>\n Literacy activists said the course\u2019s content reflects the persistence of balanced literacy across the state.\u00a0<\/p>\n The governor’s 2024 plan requires districts to submit a form each year attesting that they use curricula and instructional practices aligned with the science of reading. But state law gives local districts control over curricula and instructional methods. So the final determination about whether their teaching methods are aligned is made by individual districts, not the state, according to a state guidance document.\u00a0<\/p>\n Many districts that say they\u2019re aligned are actually blending balanced literacy and the science of reading, said Jeff Smink of EdTrust-New York, a nonprofit that launched a 2024 campaign<\/a> to address the state\u2019s \u201cliteracy crisis.\u201d As of last December, 147 districts \u2014 about 21 percent of the total \u2014 were still using non-evidence-based or balanced literacy curricula, according to a response to a freedom of information request the organization filed with the state department of education.\u00a0<\/p>\n Related: Many students can\u2019t read, even in high school. Is the solution teaching reading in every class?<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n There\u2019s little research on the effects of combining approaches, but researchers doubt it can work. Shanahan said balanced literacy programs often suffer from problems that can\u2019t be remedied by grafting in phonics, so it\u2019s \u201chard to imagine that it would be a sufficient response.\u201d Neuman, the early literacy professor, was more critical: \u201cWhen you take two systems that are so diametrically opposed, what you’re doing is adding to children’s cognitive load in a very dramatic manner,\u201d she said.\u00a0<\/p>\n One family says a balanced literacy curriculum blocked their children\u2019s efforts to read. The Indian River Central School District sits outside the town of Philadelphia in north-central New York. Anne, who asked to use her middle name because the family fears retaliation, lives there with her husband and their second- and third grade children.\u00a0<\/p>\n The parents read to their children every night, but both have struggled since kindergarten. When Anne and her husband looked at their second grader\u2019s oral reading quizzes, the student appeared to have guessed at words instead of sounding them out \u2014 for example, reading the word \u201cthe\u201d as \u201ca,\u201d \u201ca\u201d as \u201cmy\u201d and \u201cthe\u201d as \u201cmy.\u201d Tests the child had passed included pictures to give students clues to words. But when Anne later printed the text and covered up the pictures, the child couldn\u2019t read it.\u00a0<\/p>\n Frustrated and worried, last May the couple hired outside tutors who use a structured-literacy approach grounded in the science of reading, and since then both children have made more progress than in the prior three years, said Anne. In late January she saw her older child read a new book for the first time on his own. \u201cHe was so excited,\u201d she said. \u201cIt was like a lightbulb moment.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Still, tutoring costs $330 a week. They\u2019re burning through their savings and aren\u2019t sure they can continue, Anne said.\u00a0<\/p>\n Tanya Roy, a literacy coach in the Indian River district, responded that all students from kindergarten to third grade have been getting at least 20 to 30 minutes of daily phonics instruction since 2016.\u00a0<\/p>\n But the district also uses the cueing system, including having students identify words by using accompanying pictures, she said. Words that are irregular \u2014 like \u201cthe\u201d \u2014 have to be memorized because they can\u2019t be sounded out, said Roy. That contradicts two science of reading tenets: that even irregular words can be sounded out by memorizing only the part of the word that\u2019s irregular, and that whole-word memorization interferes with students\u2019 ability to learn letter-sound connections.\u00a0<\/p>\n State data show how many of the district\u2019s students struggle to read: 56 percent of its fourth graders score below proficient in English, compared with 46 percent statewide.\u00a0<\/p>\n Frustrated with districts’ resistance to abandoning balanced literacy, two Democrats in the state legislature introduced bills last year that would require the state education department to compile a list of evidence-based reading curricula, as several other states have done<\/a>, and give districts grants to buy them. All teachers would have to complete 35 to 50 hours of training on using an approved curriculum to teach reading, and both bills would ban cueing.<\/p>\n But those measures are stuck in committee, and an unnamed state education department spokesperson expressed opposition last October. \u201cA one-size-fits-all mandate is not the answer,\u201d that person told the New York Post.<\/p>\n Assembly bill sponsor Robert Carroll said parents and education administrators should have a say in how their schools are run. \u201cBut that doesn\u2019t mean we shouldn\u2019t make sure that schools and teachers are providing the best practices and best instruction,\u201d he told The Hechinger Report.\u00a0<\/p>\n At the federal level, a bill moving through Congress would redefine allowable literacy instruction, effectively barring the use of approaches like three-cueing in programs that receive federal funds to support how reading is taught.<\/p>\n Until about three years ago, New York was doing \u201cabsolutely nothing\u201d on the science of reading, said EdTrust’s Smink. It\u2019s since made progress, \u201dbut a lot more work needs to be done to catch up with the rest of the country.\u201d<\/p>\n Contact editor Meredith Kolodner at 212-870-1063 or kolodner@hechingerreport.org<\/a>or on Signal at merkolodner.04.<\/p>\n This story about phonics and the science of reading<\/a>was produced by\u00a0The Hechinger Report<\/a>, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on\u00a0inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for our weekly newsletter on K-12 education<\/a>.<\/p>\n This <a target=”_blank” href=”https:\/\/hechingerreport.org\/new-york-ten-million-reading-instruction\/”>article<\/a> first appeared on <a target=”_blank” href=”https:\/\/hechingerreport.org”>The Hechinger Report<\/a> and is republished here under a <a target=”_blank” href=”https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by-nc-nd\/4.0\/”>Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License<\/a>.<img src=”https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/hechingerreport.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/06\/cropped-favicon.jpg?fit=150%2C150&ssl=1″ style=”width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;”><\/p>\n <img id=”republication-tracker-tool-source” src=”https:\/\/hechingerreport.org\/?republication-pixel=true&post=115565&ga4=G-03KPHXDF3H” style=”width:1px;height:1px;”><script> PARSELY = { autotrack: false, onload: function() { PARSELY.beacon.trackPageView({ url: “https:\/\/hechingerreport.org\/new-york-ten-million-reading-instruction\/”, urlref: window.location.href }); } } <\/script> <script id=”parsely-cfg” src=”\/\/cdn.parsely.com\/keys\/hechingerreport.org\/p.js”><\/script><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"by Steven Yoder, The Hechinger Report March 29, 2026 In April 2024, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul made…\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":689478,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_share_on_mastodon":"0"},"categories":[5122],"tags":[5229,8388,405,403,5226,5225,5228,5227,80,289017,22598,1399,67,586,132,5230,68,2969],"class_list":["post-689477","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-new-york","tag-america","tag-curriculum","tag-new-york","tag-new-york-city","tag-newyork","tag-newyorkcity","tag-ny","tag-nyc","tag-politics","tag-teacher-preparation","tag-teachers","tag-top","tag-united-states","tag-united-states-of-america","tag-unitedstates","tag-unitedstatesofamerica","tag-us","tag-usa"],"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@us\/116310780365577089","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/689477","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=689477"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/689477\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/689478"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=689477"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=689477"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=689477"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}