California approves long list of options for training teachers in early literacy

As a key element in the state’s package of early literacy reforms, Gov. Gavin Newsom included $200 million in last year’s state budget to pay for instructing elementary school teachers in the new reading strategies. On Wednesday, the State Board of Education approved 31 training programs that school districts can now use.

That list of providers is about twice as long as some advocates of reading reforms recommended. And it will include a few programs that have proven to be minimally effective, the advocates said.

But board members weeded out a half-dozen of the lowest-ranked programs. They directed the Department of Education to provide easily accessible and detailed information on each of the 31 programs to help districts select the ones that  best meet their needs. ‘

“I know that (districts) are overwhelmed, and as much guidance as we can provide would be helpful,” said board member Haydee Rodriguez, a high school teachers who has designed adult literacy programs in Imperial County.

A Sept. 30 deadline set by the Legislature last year for approving the list precluded the board from recommending substantial revisions that would have required an unscheduled follow-up meeting. 

Long-time observers said this was the first time in memory that the State Board recommended professional development programs. The list reflects the state’s recognition, based on Mississippi and other states’ full-scale improvements, that a weak link in teacher training could undermine early literacy reforms. 

That is why the Department of Education approved a short list of vendors for the early literacy screener for reading challenges, like dyslexia, and the Commission on Teacher Credentialing, at the Legislature’s direction, revised the reading standards for teaching reading that all university credentialing programs must follow.

The next stage will occur later this year, when the State Board approves a new list of reading textbooks and materials aligned with the English Language Arts and English Language Development standards for English learners. The State Board must decide whether to repeat what it did with the math textbook adoption in November 2025, approving 64 different textbooks aligned with the new math framework. The alternative is to be more selective and only highlight textbooks emphasizing phonics and essential components of the evidence-based “science of reading.”

Districts can still receive state funding from the $200 million for professional development if they select a program that’s not among the 31 approved this week. However, they must verify that the program aligns with criteria aligned with the science of reading.

How the programs received ranked

The California Department of Education hired the nonprofit education research organization WestEd to lead an extensive review of applications from 37 eligible early literacy training providers. A panel of 29 teachers and experts measured 18 criteria, including access and suitability for English learners, under a three-point scale: strong, moderate, or minimal. The maximum score was 54 points.

Scores of the 31 approved programs ranged from 30 to 53 points. The two top-ranked providers were the California Association for Bilingual Education (CABE) and SchoolKit, LLC, with 17 of 18 criteria earning a strong rating. CABE had been one of the strongest opponents of comprehensive early literacy legislation out of concern it would minimize the needs of English learners.

The lowest-ranking program on the approved list was from the large, national ed tech company Amplify Education. Other well-known California-based training providers were among the top dozen on the list. One is Getting Reading Right, developed by the Los Angeles County Office of Education; it has offered a primer on the Science of Reading, with its emphasis on phonics, aural language skills, and reading comprehension for more than 12,000 TK-5 teachers since 2020. The other three providers are the Sacramento County Office of Education, the Reading League and CORE Learning.

A promise of a user-friendly, transparent website

Early literacy advocacy groups that pressed for legislation promoting the science of reading favored a shorter list of the higher-scoring programs.

“The come-one, come-all approach does not help (districts) distinguish top quality or prioritize where to invest,” said Yolie Flores, CEO of Families in Schools. “Our educators, ultimately students, including ELs, deserve a list that prioritizes the highest quality learning that will meet their needs.”

Molly Maloney, with Oakland-based GO Public Schools, said, “the rubric scores show that some programs have minimal evidence in critical areas. The state’s approved list should provide districts with a meaningful signal of quality that they can trust.”

Critics could not agree on how many providers should be on the list. One idea was to group the programs by tiers; one advocate suggested the top 19 ranked. Nonprofit organizations EdVoice, Children Now and other groups recommended 17 programs with the highest ratings or those that could demonstrate strong evidence of improving learning.

Demonstrating effectiveness was an optional factor, not one of the 18 criteria, because some programs were too new to submit data or evaluations. Because of that, board member Alison Yoshimoto-Towery, a former chief academic officer of Los Angeles Unified, urged the board to provide districts with clarity. 

“My belief is that we’re putting the list of what’s most aligned to the criteria, not most aligned to showing student outcomes. And (districts) need to understand that,” she said.

Board President Linda Darling-Hammond cautioned board members “to resist the temptation to micromanage the list because we’ve heard people say, ‘Cut the list here. Take the ones that have this criteria and take the ones that have that criteria.’ ”

The review process was thorough and transparent, she said. All the material from the evaluations will be available online for the public, she said, enabling users to compare programs like a Consumer Report, with summaries of ratings and detailed materials for those who want to go deeper.

Marshall Tuck, EdVoice’s CEO, while advocating for a shorter list, said he was encouraged by the board’s discussion and its directive to the department. “The goal is  to share expertise with districts, so guidance needs to be really strong.”

This story was originally published by EdSource.