This story originally appeared in , a nonprofit news publication investigating power in New York. .

When Governor Kathy Hochul unveiled her signature literacy legislation in聽2024, she stressed that New York was late to the game 鈥� calling it 鈥渆mbarrassing鈥澛爐hat Connecticut, New Jersey, and other states had already embraced phonics-based instruction. New York schools had fallen behind the national curve, she said, and had been teaching students how to read the wrong way.

A large reason for that, she emphasized, is that under state law, districts choose their own curricula. The Back to Basics law was supposed to fix that problem, by requiring school districts to align instruction with research on how children best learn to read by September 2025.

Specifically, districts had to start teaching using the 鈥渟cience of reading,鈥� a phonics-based approach grounded in the idea that reading isn鈥檛 innate and must be explicitly taught through skills like sounding out words. At the time, it was gaining traction as the policy du jour in literacy instruction as an alternative to 鈥渂alanced literacy,鈥� an approach long embraced by New York districts that teaches children to instead rely on context clues for reading comprehension.

By passing the Back to Basics plan, New York joined聽 and the District of Columbia in a nationwide movement fueled in part by results in Mississippi, where rigorous literacy laws聽 in academic performance over the past 13 years.

But a New York Focus analysis of mandatory school surveys submitted to the state has found that more than 130 school districts are still using 鈥渂alanced literacy鈥� curricula.

Teachers in those districts, primarily in rural and suburban areas, are often required to use reading programs that advocates say contradict the settled body of research around teaching reading. The misaligned curricula could have an especially profound impact on students of color and those from low-income families, who are already more likely to experience reading difficulties, these advocates say.

New York鈥檚 law differs from those of some other states, which require districts to pick from a list of state-approved reading curricula and offer extra funding for districts to purchase them. Others have allocated hundreds of millions of dollars to advance multiyear literacy plans with clear benchmarks.

While New York鈥檚 Back to Basics law required the State Education Department to provide best practices to districts, it entrusts school districts with making the switch and measuring their own compliance 鈥� leaving in place a discretionary system that advocates argue contributed to New York鈥檚 low literacy rates to begin with.

So far, that piecemeal approach has left hundreds of thousands of students learning how to read with widely discredited curricula and instructional materials.

鈥淥ur concern is a lack of urgency,鈥� said聽Jeff Smink, deputy director at the advocacy group EdTrust-New York, which recently published聽 of the survey data submitted to the state in September. 鈥淚f 400,000 kids aren鈥檛 getting evidence-based instruction, that, to us, is a crisis.鈥�

Smink said the law lacks enforcement mechanisms in part because of New York鈥檚 deeply embedded culture as a strong local-control state, where most decisions about public schools are determined by districts, school boards, and even individual campuses. He also said the state teachers union wields significant influence and 鈥渙pposes anything they think threatens teacher autonomy.

The literacy law, which invested $10 million in teacher training and tasked the union with training 20,000 teachers, came under fire after a March聽 revealed that the training program heavily featured the instructional methods that Hochul set out to replace.

The survey data offers an unprecedented statewide look at how schools are teaching elementary school students how to read and write 鈥� and insight into the state鈥檚 progress as it gears up to replicate the same approach with聽.

New York鈥檚 reading scores are average at best.聽Thirty-one percent of New York fourth graders were proficient in reading last year,聽according to the National Assessment of Education Progress 鈥� just slightly above the US average and much lower than similar states like Massachusetts and New Jersey. Mississippi, the nation鈥檚 poorest state, also outperformed New York, which spends more money per pupil than any other state.

According to education advocates, the Back to Basics is doing little to make up for lost ground. 鈥淲e are shockingly behind,鈥� said聽Assemblymember Robert Carroll, a leading literacy advocate. 鈥淚f we don鈥檛 do something, we are on the path to be the last in the nation on this.鈥�

In response to a request for comment, a Hochul spokesperson wrote, 鈥淲e anticipate continued progress and are working with SED to ensure that all schools are implementing evidence-based literacy instruction.鈥�

The structure of New York鈥檚 education system means that students in neighboring districts may be learning with vastly different curricula. Until recently,聽Celine Schneider鈥檚 children attended school in Riverhead Central School District, where last year less than a third of third graders were proficient in reading.

On the literacy curricula survey, Riverhead was聽one of 16 districts that reported not aligning with the state鈥檚 best practices in every category of reading instruction, as well as in writing. The district said it uses a mix of curricula, including some aligned with the science of reading alongside balanced literacy programs critics say fail to teach children how to decode words properly.

Riverhead declined an interview request, but provided a statement through a communications firm verifying that its reading curriculum and instruction 鈥渁re aligned with the state鈥檚 core curriculum standards and teaching practices.鈥�

Schneider said that in Riverhead, students were promoted from one grade to another without gaining basic literacy skills. After watching her daughter fall behind, lose confidence, and endure bullying for not knowing how to read, Schneider said she decided to transfer her children to a nearby district with stronger reading intervention, despite the hefty tuitions required to switch districts. (The district, Quogue Union Free School District, said in its survey response that it uses science of reading curricula and aligns with the state鈥檚 best practices, though it did also report using a popular balanced literacy program.)

鈥淚t was either let them continue to fail, or struggle financially to make sure my kids are okay in the long run,鈥� she said.聽

Schneider asked Quogue to assess her children鈥檚 reading abilities, and expected mixed results: Her oldest struggled with dyslexia, and she had just learned her other daughter was going to enter second grade as a nonreader. But the other three seemed to be succeeding in school.

Instead, the results were shockingly similar 鈥� all five were at least a grade level behind.

鈥淣ot being able to read destroys a child鈥檚 future,鈥� she said. 鈥淲e are setting our kids up to fail.鈥�

Educators and policymakers have long debated how to best teach students how to read. 鈥淏alanced literacy鈥� dominated US classrooms for much of the past 20 years, but many schools have moved away from it due to mounting evidence that can lead to poor reading outcomes.

The science of reading, on the other hand, represents a vast body of research emphasizing the importance of phonics 鈥� the relationship between letters and sounds 鈥� in teaching children how to read. While the approach has some detractors who say it pushes a 鈥渙ne-size-fits-all鈥� approach that may not work for every child, studies show that instruction based on the science of reading improves reading proficiency, especially for children with dyslexia.

But whether it can underpin an effective education policy depends on how it is implemented, and some worry New York鈥檚 patchwork approach could limit its potential benefits.

In 2024, 46 percent of New York third graders were below basic proficiency in reading.聽Those outcomes could have profound implications: Research shows聽children who fail to read proficiently by third grade are four times more likely to drop out of high school.

Mississippi鈥檚 success with the science of reading is hard to ignore. The state was ranked second worst nationwide for fourth-grade reading in 2013 and rose to the top 10 within a decade. Nearby states that followed suit, including Alabama and Louisiana, saw similar gains, a trend referred to as the 鈥淪outhern surge.鈥� Outcomes in other states have been more mixed, fueling debate between critics who see stalled scores as a cause for concern and proponents who argue the reforms need time to take hold.

Under New York鈥檚 Back to Basics plan, all school districts were supposed to confirm in the September survey that they transitioned to the science of reading in their curricula, instruction, and teacher training, and that they鈥檙e following best practices in seven literacy and writing categories. As part of the survey, districts submitted the curricula they use.

Most school districts reported meeting best practices, but the results still show areas of concern, especially in writing, fluency, and vocabulary practices; in each of those areas, over 100 school districts and BOCES 鈥� regional organizations that provide educational resources to districts 鈥� said they were out of alignment. Many also shared plans to improve instruction, including by reviewing curricula, revamping teacher training, and establishing literacy committees to inform programming.

Plattsburgh, Friendship, and Watkins Glen school districts all reported misalignment even though they submitted curricula that align with the science of reading. Superintendents at those school districts said they opted for candor, and that the survey revealed where instruction still needs improvement.

鈥淭here was a relatively large learning curve to get a full staff of teachers up to the expectation of Back to Basics,鈥� said聽Watkins Glen Superintendent Kai D鈥橝lleva.聽鈥淏ut there has been tremendous buy-in, and we鈥檙e excited to see the fruits of this labor develop over the next few years.鈥�

Overall, more than 130 of the state鈥檚 713 school districts submitted balanced literacy curricula, with the most popular being Fountas and Pinnell and Lucy Calkins鈥� Units of Study, two of the most controversial programs. Scores of districts also created their own curriculum or reported using other programs that have not been reviewed by EdReports, a nonprofit that states and districts use to review the quality of K-12 instructional materials.

Kat Fratticci, co-founder of the Long Island Literacy Coalition, a community-based advocacy group founded in 2024 to promote the science of reading, said some districts are hesitant to revamp reading instruction because they鈥檝e already invested heavily in their current curriculum, instructional materials, and teacher training.

At the same time, the state law does not have any clear enforcement mechanism built in to account for these variations. And the survey results don鈥檛 capture the full picture. Districts have to fill out the attestation survey annually, but they鈥檙e not required to submit proof that their curricula are aligned, and the state doesn鈥檛 provide guidance on what programs districts should steer clear of. Dozens of districts reported using balanced literacy programs despite confirming their alignment with all best practices.

The state shouldn鈥檛 tell school districts exactly what to purchase and teach, said聽Tarja Parssinen, founder of the Western NY Education Alliance,聽but 鈥渢here has to be some guidance, some support, and some recommendations about what to stay away from.鈥�

Balanced literacy curricula can mask dyslexia and other learning delays, research shows, because they often encourage students to guess words based on pictures or context clues rather than decode letters and sounds. In Schneider鈥檚 case, she said she thought her children were reading at the appropriate level because they would read aloud at home 鈥� until she noticed they were just reciting passages they had memorized in class.

Other Riverhead parents told New York Focus how their children who struggled to read were pushed along without proper intervention. One mother, who asked to remain anonymous due to potential litigation, said her son was reading at a kindergarten level in fourth grade before he started receiving one-on-one reading intervention.

鈥淭here鈥檚 a mantra in New York state: Just wait and see, wait and see if they grow out of it,鈥� said聽Yolanda Thompson, special education advocate and three-time Riverhead school board candidate. 鈥淭here needs to be a huge cultural mindset shift. We can鈥檛 fix something we don鈥檛 understand.鈥�

The students most harmed when districts don鈥檛 use best practices are often students of color, those from low-income families, and multilingual learners, said Fratticci. 鈥淭hey don鈥檛 necessarily have that safety net of private tutoring or reading specialists outside of school, so when the classroom fails them, there鈥檚 no backup.鈥�

That鈥檚 true in Riverhead, said Thompson. A majority of students there are from low-income families and around聽40 percent are English language learners.

In the survey, Riverhead wrote that many of its teachers are new to the profession and work with high-needs students, and that financial constraints limit access to instructional resources. The district added that it hired three literacy coaches to lead professional development and support implementation of the science of reading, and is evaluating the need to purchase new instructional materials to teach phonics.

Education Department spokesperson Karen Male said in a statement that the agency plans to reach out to noncompliant districts to provide free instructional resources, explore professional development with colleges and universities, and work with districts to identify other needs. The agency did specify when districts must achieve full compliance.

Without holding districts accountable, Assemblymember Carroll said, New York will continue to lose the race to literacy.

In 2023, Carroll introduced a bill called the Right to Read Act, which would require all elementary school teachers to be trained in the science of reading, provide grants to districts to hire literacy coaches, and mandate school districts to choose from a list of approved, evidence-based curricula. The legislation is currently awaiting action in the education committee, but Carroll said he鈥檚 optimistic it will advance this year, citing recent conversations with colleagues and the governor about the need to improve New York schools to keep residents from leaving the state.

鈥淩ight now, in New York, you have to be lucky to learn how to read 鈥� and that is unjustified and unconscionable,鈥� Carroll said. 鈥淲e know how to fix this, and I know the governor wants to fix this. But we all need to work together because this is going to take the effort of the legislature and the governor working together to get this done.鈥�

Carroll鈥檚 bill has the support of EdTrust, which is also calling for school districts to submit literacy plans with evidence of implementation and notify parents if they are using non-evidence-based curricula. In addition, the organization wants to see the state invest聽$15 million so that districts can purchase science of reading curricula, and mandatory universal screening in grades K-3.

鈥淲e have to catch up with the rest of the nation,鈥� Smink said. 鈥淔or the amount of money we spend and for how important learning to read is, we deserve policies like every other state.鈥�

Interim reading assessments frustrate teachers and students and devalue what students are learning, even though they鈥檙e intended to provide useful information about student progress and help teachers target instruction throughout the year. They have not moved the needle on reading proficiency or reducing inequities, as new confirm.

Today, we鈥檙e issuing a clarion call to assessment stakeholders at all levels: Do better for teachers, so they can do better for students.

Right now, periodic reading tests prompt students to 鈥渇ind the main idea鈥� or identify a 鈥減oint of view鈥� 鈥� discrete standards and skills that don鈥檛 add up to reading comprehension. They are misaligned with the on how kids learn to read well and ignore the foundational role of knowledge in reading comprehension. Reading is a meaning-making endeavor, and comprehension is an outcome that occurs when readers apply a dynamic set of reading processes and knowledge to a text.

But that鈥檚 not what we鈥檙e measuring. Consider this fourth-grade Reading Standard 3 for literature: 

Describe in depth a character, setting, or event in a story or drama, drawing on specific details in the text (e.g., a character鈥檚 thoughts, words, or actions).

Students could miss a test item tied to this standard because of weak decoding skills, insufficient vocabulary, difficulties parsing syntax or transitions, or insufficient background knowledge. Often, it鈥檚 a combination of these factors, not misunderstanding the standard itself, that contributes to a wrong answer. But the interim assessments we give students today can鈥檛 identify what went wrong.

Reporting test results by standards, strategies, genre or any single construct confuses cause and effect. Answering a question based on a standard is an effect of comprehension, not a cause. And a student鈥檚 response to any one question tied to a standard does not predict how well that student will do on a similar question using a different text.

It鈥檚 time to transform. Few schools 鈥� or teachers 鈥� will move to text-focused classrooms and abandon using standards as the organizing force for daily lessons if the assessments they鈥檙e provided use an outdated, ineffective approach. It鈥檚 a vicious and damaging cycle. There鈥檚 a better way.

Transforming Assessment Questions and Classroom Conversations 

We need new assessments that reflect the research base and diagnose the degree to which actual reading comprehension is occurring. 

Assessments should focus students on the most challenging sections of a text and pose questions that can determine whether students navigated the passage for meaning. Questions also should address what world knowledge can be learned from reading the text carefully. And, questions should focus on challenging vocabulary or phrases to see if students understand the contributions that vocabulary makes to meaning. Only then should tests feature standards-based questions that fit the text to determine if students鈥� comprehension reflects the depth and complexity called for by the standards. (For an example of this approach, see the Case Study .) 

Such assessments would provide more meaningful information and play a more powerful role in the classroom. Rather than issuing reports on mastery of this or that standard, assessment developers need to release their passages and items in full, along with guidance on how to discuss the results with students. Then teachers could use interim assessments to deconstruct student thinking in class, by revisiting reading assessment texts and asking students to share their thoughts, passage by passage, about each question they encountered and explain why they answered questions as they did. 

This is a low-tech, labor-intensive, and high-impact way to use interim data to inform instruction. We learn from our mistakes, and in the case of comprehension questions, the richest discoveries will come not from asking which items students missed, but by asking why. Students can go astray for a variety of reasons, and the best way to identify the path they followed, or where comprehension broke down, is to ask them what they were thinking. The challenges any text presents will vary, but the number and types of obstacles are not infinite. As obstacles are revealed, teachers 鈥� and eventually, students 鈥� can lead discussions that explore how best to overcome them. This collaborative approach enhances comprehension for all students, expanding their understanding by recognizing how ideas, language, and vocabulary interact with knowledge to make meaning. 

Deconstructing assessments with students connects instruction directly to the science of reading comprehension rather than treating reading as a disjointed series of atomized elements. Teachers might find that what they are already doing to support students鈥� reading comprehension is on the right track, but they need to do more of it, or some areas require less attention. Over time, teachers and students will recognize the nature of the various obstacles that complex text presents and how these can be addressed. In other words, assessments can do what is intended of them: inform instruction. 

Teachers face a learning curve, and these candid, text-driven conversations take time to do well. However, it is hard to imagine a more powerful way for teachers to support students in learning about texts, probing their thinking, tackling common challenges, deepening comprehension, and exploring the suite of constructs known as literacy. 

Contextualizing Assessments Is Key

An even more enduring and essential reform is to ensure tests actually measure what students are learning. Better interim reading assessments, then, would not only reflect the science of reading comprehension but they also would be based in curriculum and connected to the books and topics students study in class. 

This vision rejects the false premise that reading comprehension is a content-neutral skill that can be taught and tested in the abstract. Rather than asking students to address items tied to random passages they may not know anything about, a contextualized approach to reading assessment would offer a multidimensional view of students鈥� reading comprehension. It would be more fair, authentic and equitable, and would more accurately mirror the literacy tasks students will encounter after graduation.

It’s time to invest genuine energy and resources into creating interim assessments that provide actionable insights and align with research and the real world. Current assessments are standards-specific and knowledge-agnostic 鈥� the inverse of what research and experience tell us teachers and students need. This approach is a closed loop that is steering teachers and students off-course. 

Rather than assess frequently, study the error patterns in data meetings, map those errors onto matching discrete skills or standards, isolate those standards, and instruct teachers to repurpose reading into a relentless repeating pattern of practicing said standards 鈥� interim assessments, whether created by assessment providers or curriculum publishers, simply must focus on the real and varied causes of breakdowns in comprehension.  

Developers need to revamp their tests to tackle the challenges inherent in content-rich text. They need to abandon the practice of reporting by state standards, strategies or any other atomized element. They need to release items that allow teachers and students to thoroughly analyze and comprehend what students are learning. 

Designing the right tests will empower and incentivize the right teaching and make reading tests genuinely valuable to educators and students. The responsibility and power rests with interim assessment providers and publishers, as well as the state and local leaders who procure them. Test developers, hear our call: We need an interim assessment do-over.

Susan Pimentel is co-founder of StandardsWork, a nonprofit education consultancy that sponsors the Knowledge Matters Campaign. She was the lead author of the Common Core State Standards for English/language arts literacy and led development of the Knowledge Matters Review Tool. 

David Liben has worked with schools and districts nationwide to improve student learning for over 20 years.  He is the former principal of a high-performing school in Harlem and is the co-author of two highly acclaimed books on reading.