California literacy training list draws criticism over quantity, quality of programs

California’s State Board of Education will decide Wednesday whether to approve a list of 37 professional development programs designed to train TK-5 educators in literacy instruction, a key piece of the state’s effort to improve student literacy.

The selection of professional development programs for teachers is the latest step in a multiyear plan to ensure that all California students have literacy instruction in their classrooms that focuses on decoding words by sounding them out, a process known as phonics.

Some education advocates say the list of 37 programs, based on evidence-based literacy instruction known as the science of reading, is too long, includes programs with scores that are too low and leaves district staff with the arduous task of vetting them.  

“Districts do not have the time and the resources to comb through a list of 37 options and evaluate them in any meaningful way,” said Todd Collins, founder of the nonprofit California Reading Coalition. “This is one of many, many things they have to do, and they are not going to be able to do that. The state should be doing it for them, and separating out the best programs and giving them the option, giving them the skinny list so they can pick their favorite.” 

The recommended list of professional development programs for teachers, and classified staff who assist in literacy instruction, is part of the 2025 state budget, which included $200 million to fund the literacy training. 

Although the training is not mandatory, districts will receive funding if they use one of the professional development programs on the list. 

Why so many choices?

Forty-six eligible programs offered by private companies, nonprofits, county offices of education and universities applied to be on the list. Thirty-seven met the criteria established by the state, said Elizabeth Zagata, a special education program manager for WestEd, which developed the list for the CDE.
“California is a large and diverse state, and the range of programs that are proposed for approval include county office programs, bilingual and biliteracy training and programs that have options of different lengths and formats that reflect the diversity of school and district needs across the state,” Zagata said.

Some education advocates say a higher bar should have been set to ensure that there is quality literacy teacher preparation in every district. The 37 programs on the list scored from a high of 53 to a low of 24, out of 54 possible points. 

“I believe we — especially the parents of these children — want the best for them, not simply whatever meets the minimum requirements,” said Yolie Flores, president and CEO of Families in Schools, an education advocacy organization. “It’s frankly unacceptable that California would settle for the minimum.” 

In a letter sent to the state Board of Education Friday, Efrain Mercado, the chief government affairs officer for the EdVoice Institute, also expressed concern about the “quality bar” that was set for the programs. He questioned why programs merely had to “meet the minimum standards of review” to make the list. 

EdVoice, a nonprofit education advocacy and lobbying organization, has recommended that only 17 of the programs be included on the list. 

“Our bottom line is that the spirit of this law was to help get really strong programs to schools to build capacity for teachers to improve instruction around literacy and reading,” said Marshall Tuck, chief executive officer of EdVoice. “And the current list includes a lot of really high-quality programs, but also includes a lot of programs that were not ranked by the state as high quality. They were getting ranked at minimum quality or minimal-to-moderate quality.”

Districts need help

There is also concern that school staff in small districts may not have the resources to properly vet the options or travel to other districts to evaluate programs. 

“The challenge is that the districts with the least resources are going to have the least ability to do their own research,” Collins said. “And they’re going to have to quickly pick something off the list, but based on familiarity or what the district uses or what the county office told them or something.”

Tuck would like the state to provide clear guidance and analysis behind the scores, and develop a user-friendly online tool that allows district officials to see how programs are ranked and why.

“It should be really accessible and easy,” Tuck said.

State responds to criticism

Parents, educators, school staff and education advocates have written to the state Board of Education asking that the list be pared down or that it include summaries and comparisons of each program to help district staff make more informed decisions. 

In response, the state provided program memos on the CDE website that show how each provider was scored and a table that allows the programs to be compared. The list, which had been alphabetical, was changed to rank the professional development programs from highest to lowest, based on weighted evidence scores across 18 required rubrics, according to the agenda item for the board meeting on Wednesday.

“I supposed the memos could be helpful if the rubric were not flawed, as many of us believe,” Flores said.

Some of the inadequacies in the rubric include making the score for evidence of effectiveness optional and offering little transparency as to who rated what programs, making it difficult to know if there was a conflict of interest, she said. The rubric also offers no points for being certified by the International Dyslexia Association — an important differentiator for meeting high standards for structured literacy, Flores said.

Concerns about English learners

The state Board of Education also received letters expressing concern that some programs may not adequately prepare educators to teach English learners and multilingual learners. 

“Inclusion on the approved list should not be interpreted as evidence that a program fully addresses the instructional needs of multilingual learners,” said Martha Hernandez, executive director of Californians Together, in a letter to the board. “Because the review criteria required only limited evidence of alignment with California’s English Language Arts/English Language Development Framework, districts will need additional guidance to make informed decisions.”

Training is key

Efforts to improve literacy in California began in earnest in 2020 with state leaders allocating $50 million for the Early Literacy Support Block Grant. Since then, the state has set aside more than $1 billion to improve literacy, including $500 million for literacy coaches and $200 million for teacher training.

In 2024, fewer than half of the state’s third grade students were deemed proficient in English — a predictor of future academic success.

State leaders are hopeful that by switching to evidence-based reading instruction, California can follow in the steps of states such as Mississippi, which jumped in rankings from 49th to 9th in national fourth grade reading scores.

The success in these states proved that training teachers in the science of reading is key to student achievement, Collins said. But in Mississippi, like other states with successful programs, the state picked either just one or a handful of programs to train teachers to teach literacy effectively.

“California kids — particularly struggling readers and English learners — are depending on the state to approve only high-quality programs,” said Mercado, in his letter. “Educators should only spend out-of-classroom time on professional learning that is highly likely to improve classroom practice and student outcomes for years to come.”

This story was originally published by EdSource.