Pa. published, then removed science-of-reading curricula lists after criticism from educators

As Pennsylvania moves to overhaul how schools teach reading amid a growing movement embracing phonics and more structured lessons, educators had been waiting to see which curricula and programs the state would direct them to use.

When the Pennsylvania Department of Education posted lists of resources late last week, however, some were disappointed.

Rather than curricula vetted by Pennsylvania teachers and experts, the resources on the department’s website were a compilation of programs rated by outside curriculum review organizations and education departments in other states.

“How long would it have taken AI to create something like that?” said Pam Kastner, the former state lead for literacy at the Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance Network, which provides professional development to schools.

Between educators, “texts were flying” about the lists, Kastner said. Within hours, the department took the lists down.

A department spokesperson said Thursday that the resources were temporarily removed because “some stakeholders found the original format challenging to use” and that they would be reposted soon.

Here’s what to know about the controversy, and what it means for reading instruction in Pennsylvania:

Literacy advocates nationally have been pushing for reforms in line with the “science of reading,” a body of research into how children learn to read. Proponents say there is a disconnect between that research and what many schools have been teaching — with overreliance on a “balanced literacy” approach that favors more independent exploration of books and de-emphasizes phonics and other foundational skills that experts say are key for many kids.

Science-of-reading advocates have instead pushed for schools to embrace “structured literacy,” with a more systematic approach to teaching reading. Skills are taught sequentially, and the curriculum also promotes building background knowledge — so kids are just learning not just to decode words, but also to understand what they are reading.

Across the country, states have passed laws to shift schools toward structured literacy. In Pennsylvania, a law passed last year requiring the state education department to produce a list of “evidence-based” reading curricula, along with approved structured literacy trainings for teachers, screening tests to assess children’s reading abilities, and intervention methods for children who need added help. All would be optional for schools to use.

The department was required to convene a council of 20 members with expertise in structured literacy to produce those lists.

“We were expecting something really professionally done,” said State Rep. Jason Ortitay, a Republican who sponsored the legislation and represents parts of Allegheny and Washington Counties.

Ortitay said he was “genuinely embarrassed” when the lists posted last week. He found the material confusing, including a color-coded Excel spreadsheet that was difficult to interpret.

Then he started hearing from people that there were errors — curricula appearing on the list that were not actually offered anymore. Another program was listed as having declined review by a science-of-reading organization; in fact, the company had submitted its materials for review, Ortitay said.

“When schools are making purchasing decisions based on this information, accuracy is not optional. It is essential,” Ortitay said in a letter to acting Education Secretary Carrie Rowe. He said that the posted lists “do not reflect the intent, rigor or review standards that were envisioned when the law was enacted,” and that Pennsylvania teachers should be involved in vetting materials.

Education department spokesperson Erin James said that the feedback the department received about the lists was “largely positive” and that the lists “were compiled by literacy experts and aligned fully with the requirements” of the law passed last year.

While the Reading Leadership Council, which includes Pennsylvania teachers, played a role in the lists, council members did not review actual curriculum materials. Kastner said some of the lists supplied to council members had drawn criticism in other states; the council was also given reviews from EdReports, a nonprofit that has come under fire for approving programs with discredited reading techniques.

Mary Jean Tecce DeCarlo, a clinical professor in Drexel University’s School of Education, said that as a member of a council committee tasked with producing the list of professional development programs, she and others were given a list of programs vetted by the International Dyslexia Association.

“PDE brought us a list, and then asked us, ‘How do we make this work for school leaders so they can make sense of it?’” DeCarlo said. She said the process was also led by WestEd, a consulting group.

DeCarlo is a fan of the IDA, but said professional development in structured literacy should not be targeted just to teaching students with dyslexia. She noted that some programs are effective at teaching delayed readers the connection between sounds and letters, but do not help kids develop background knowledge necessary for comprehension.

She was reassured after learning the list would be targeted for kindergarten through third grade, where the emphasis “should be on basic sound-symbol connections.” But she also questioned how school leaders would use the list, given that its options included everything from a three-hour training to more intensive structured literacy trainings that can take a year. Many districts might just choose the least time-consuming path, DeCarlo said.

The message from the state to schools is “you really, really should” do this, “but we’re not paying for it and we’re not requiring it,” DeCarlo said. “It’s a weird interstitial space.”

DeCarlo had not been informed of the lists being taken down, but was awaiting further instructions from PDE.

“It’s a good start,” DeCarlo said, noting “there’s room for us to revisit a process and have it get better and better.” She said the council will meet again later this summer.

Ortitay and other lawmakers, both Republican and Democratic, have been pushing legislation that would require schools to adopt evidence-based reading curricula; under the proposal, schools that used materials from the state lists could apply for grant funding, Ortitay said.

The uncertainty around the lists could delay implementation of that plan, Ortitay said, adding that he was “extremely disappointed.”

Still, he said, he met with Rowe on Wednesday and did “feel a lot better about where things are headed now.”

Also up in the air is money to support schools in implementing new structured literacy programs. The Pennsylvania Literacy Coalition has been calling for $100 million to be added to the state budget; Gov. Josh Shapiro had not included funding targeted to structured literacy in his budget proposal earlier this year.

“This will not happen without funding,” Kastner said. She said Pennsylvania is “so far behind other states,” contrasting the state with Louisiana and Mississippi, which have invested in structured literacy training for teachers.

“We all want our kids to be able to read. The adults have to start acting like that,” Kastner said.