
Has California turned the page on its reading crisis?
Tribune News Service
For years California has faced a literacy crisis, with less than half of third- and fourth-graders reading at grade level in the 2023-24 school year and the state often trailing national reading achievement. Even before the coronavirus pandemic stalled learning, California students struggled to meet reading expectations. Recent state and national testing data shows they have been slow to regain ground lost during the pandemic. The gap between socioeconomically disadvantaged students and their more affluent peers is wider than ever, and the second largest in the nation. Now, though, with Gov. Gavin Newsom pledging to include $200 million in funding for evidence-based literacy instruction in the state budget and California schools preparing for the first time this year to screen every student in kindergarten through second grade for reading challenges, educators and literacy advocates are hopeful the state will finally turn a page in the decades-long struggle.
But how did we get here? And why does California struggle more than most states with getting students up to reading standards? The best way to teach kids how to read has been widely debated in the Golden State, and educators and literacy advocates have said some students are capable of masking their reading struggles because of the way schools have taught reading for decades — a technique referred to as 'balanced' literacy.
Using a blend of whole language and phonics, balanced literacy focuses on teaching students to memorize sight words and use context and picture cues to understand a word's meaning. Kim Tran, a K-5th-grade reading specialist and partner with the UC Berkeley California and Literature Reading Project, called it a 'guessing game' where students look at the first letter and last letter of a word they don't know and try to guess the rest. 'That's just kind of muddling through it and hoping there's enough pictures or context for you to understand what's happening,' she said.
But decades of growing research — referred to as the science of reading — has revealed that balanced literacy isn't the most effective way to teach students to read. Also known as structured literacy or evidence-based reading, the science of reading uses cognitive research, focusing on phonics, comprehension and fluency. Most states have adopted this approach, but California has not amid pushback from teachers unions and English-learner advocates.
'The whole point is that you don't teach them to get proficient in reading by teaching them guessing and teaching them to pretend to read,' said Rachel Hurd, a San Ramon Valley Unified school board member. 'You teach them to read and they practice reading and in the meantime you read to them a ton so that they're interested.' The National Council on Teacher Quality found that California is behind most other states in implementing the science of reading and ranks among the worst in the nation for the quality of its reading programs. But a new bill — AB 1454 — is moving through the state Legislature and would provide state-approved training and textbooks to all teachers on evidence-based reading. Marshall Tuck, CEO of the educational advocacy nonprofit EdVoice — a key supporter of the bill — said one of the biggest reasons California has been slow to implement evidence-based reading curriculum is because of the state's emphasis on local control, especially in schools, meaning it's up to districts to decide curriculum and funding priorities.
'A lot of districts that maybe had been teaching kids to read a certain way for a long period of time without that very focused engagement from the state, it's quite hard for them to change,' Tuck said. New curriculum is expensive, school board member Hurd pointed out, and many Bay Area districts are already cash-strapped and short-staffed. The $200 million included in the budget for evidence-based reading instruction is one-time funding, so districts would need to pay for future training and instruction. Unlike oral language, reading is not a natural ability we're born with, explained Kristen Koeller, a San Jose-based reading specialist with more than 22 years of experience teaching California students. It's a skill that needs to be taught at a young age, usually by the end of 3rd grade. After that, it's much harder to rewire the brain, Koeller said.
After third grade, California switches from an emphasis on learning to read to 'reading to learn,' said Chris Norwood, founder of the Bay Area Tutoring Association and president of the Milpitas Unified School Board.
'So if the skills aren't developed, then all of a sudden you start to see an increase in the skill gaps of individuals because now they're not able to read and comprehend and execute what the teacher may be asking,' Norwood said. Many students who spent their early education in distance-based or virtual learning — referred to as the 'COVID kindergarteners' — continue to face additional challenges. Tran, the reading specialist, said it was hard to teach students to read on a computer screen where you couldn't hear all of the kids, many were dealing with technology issues and students struggled to focus. But educators said it wasn't until those COVID kindergarteners hit fourth grade last year that the significant impact the pandemic had on their education was really clear — and shocking.
Michelle Robell, a first-grade teacher in Palo Alto, said even kids who appeared to be reading weren't always understanding the material. 'They can be a super strong reader that can read super fast and super accurate, but they have no idea what they're reading,' Robell said. Technology has also had an impact. Robell said students are used to slouching in chairs and staring at tablets, so she has to spend more time teaching kids to sit up and look up from the ground before she teaches them to read.
Kids are used to instant gratification from their devices and have shorter attention spans, Koeller added. And kids imitate their parents, Koeller pointed out. She sees parents drop off their kids at school while scrolling on their phones instead of engaging with their child. 'You learn to read in part through talking. ... Any verbal skills that are lacking have to be made up for in school before you can really start to learn how to read,' Koeller said. But even when parents promote a love for literacy, success isn't guaranteed. Karla Galvez-Lima, a parent of two young children in West Contra Costa County, said she exposed her 7-year-old daughter, Camilla, to reading at a young age, prioritizing story time and taking her to the library every week.
But Camilla began to pull away from her love for reading after first grade, and she was no longer reading at grade level. Galvez-Lima said she doesn't know why, but thinks there is a disconnect between what students learn in school and what they practice at home. She wishes there were 'a bridge between the two' to support students. Still, educators say while it might be harder to teach students how to read in a post-pandemic and technologically advancing world, and California has trailed many states in reading, they're hopeful. 'I do feel like we've turned a corner in California,' Koeller said. 'The question is, will state leaders and district leaders recognize that this crisis needs immediate attention? This isn't something that we're going to work on for the next five to eight years. We need to get busy, and we need to get busy now because it's kids in the crosshairs. ... It's a crisis, but it's a solvable crisis.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Al Etihad
18 hours ago
- Al Etihad
Trump and Putin end Alaska summit without Ukraine deal
16 Aug 2025 09:02 ANCHORAGE (AFP)US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin made no breakthrough on Ukraine at their high-stakes summit on Friday, pointing to areas of agreement and rekindling a friendship but offering no news on a an abrupt ending to three hours of talks with aides, Trump and Putin offered warm words but took no questions from reporters.'We're not there yet, but we've made progress. There's no deal until there's a deal,' Trump called the meeting "extremely productive" with "many points" agreed, although he did not offer specifics.'There are just a very few that are left, some are not that significant, one is probably the most significant,' Trump said without also spoke in general terms of cooperation in a joint press appearance that lasted just 12 minutes.'We hope that the understanding we have reached will... pave the way for peace in Ukraine,' Putin Trump mused about a second meeting, Putin smiled and said in English: 'Next time in Moscow.'Putin also tried to flatter Trump, who had voted admiration for the Russian leader in the past. He told Trump he agreed with him that the Ukraine war, which Putin ordered, would not have happened if Trump were the summit, Trump had warned of 'severe consequences' if Russia did not accept a ceasefire. But when asked about those consequences during a Fox News interview with Sean Hannity after the talks, Trump said that "because of what happened today, I think I don't have to think about that now."The friendly reception contrasted with Trump's berating of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky when he met him at the White House in earlier said he wanted a three-way meeting with Zelensky but did not announce one at the summit. Instead, Trump said he would now consult Zelensky as well as NATO leaders, who have voiced unease about the US leader's outreach to Putin.'Now it's really up to President Zelensky to get it done,' Trump said in the Fox News interview after the invited Putin just a week ago and ensured there was some carefully choreographed drama for their first in-person meeting since two leaders arrived in their respective presidential jets and descended on the tarmac of an air base, with Trump clapping as Putin appeared. US military might had been on display with a B-2 stealth bomber flying grinned widely as Trump took the unusual step of escorting him into "The Beast," the secure US presidential limousine, before a meeting in a room before a screen that said -- in English only -- "Pursuing Peace."Putin smiled and joked with Russian reporters on the had insisted he would be firm with Putin. While he was traveling to Alaska, the White House announced that Trump had scrapped a plan to see Putin alone and he instead held the talks alongside Secretary of State Marco Rubio and his roving envoy Steve was not included and has refused pressure from Trump to surrender territory seized by Russia. 'It is time to end the war, and the necessary steps must be taken by Russia. We are counting on America,' Zelensky said in a social media post.


Gulf Today
2 days ago
- Gulf Today
Once again, politicians are choosing their voters
Maresa Strano, Tribune News Service Once again, politicians are trying to choose their voters to guarantee their own victories before the first ballot is cast. In the latest round of redistricting wars, Texas Republicans are attempting a rare mid-decade redistricting to boost their advantage ahead of the 2026 midterms, and Democratic governors in California and New York are signaling they're ready to 'fight fire with fire' with their own partisan gerrymanders. It's a tempting strategy. But gerrymanders for a good short-term cause are still unfair to voters, and this tit-for-tat constitutional hardball is just another stop on the longer road to democratic collapse. If party leaders insist on running from competition, then it's time for voters to run toward it. And in many states, the best tool available to do that is the citizen-led ballot initiative — a way for ordinary people to demand fair representation when legislators won't deliver it. Ballot initiatives allow voters to bypass gridlocked and unresponsive legislatures and change the rules of the game directly. In states that allow them, citizens have enacted reforms that legislators refused to touch: Michigan's citizen-led independent redistricting commission cleaned up partisan gerrymandering; Maine's switch to ranked-choice voting elevated and protected moderates like Rep. Jared Golden and Sen. Susan Collins; Arizona's public campaign financing system increased competitiveness. These reforms didn't come from the top down; they were bottom-up demands for a democracy that works. Initiatives work. They help realign public policy with the public interest where the gaps are largest and make elected officials more accountable. And when they're used to fix the deeper structural problems — like single-member districts, winner-takes-all elections — they can even make themselves less necessary over time. That's why we need them now. So we won't need them as much in the future. Unfortunately, not everyone has access to statewide ballot initiatives. Only about half of the US states allow citizens to place new laws on the ballot. The rest — including Texas — leave voters in a Catch-22: They need structural reform to make government responsive, but can't get reform because government isn't responsive. Right now, voters in states that have a statewide initiative process but haven't yet adopted independent redistricting commissions should start organising for that — or, even better, for multi-member state legislative districts elected via proportional representation, which would make gerrymandering obsolete. Voters in places like Nevada, Missouri, and Florida don't need to wait for their state legislatures, the courts, or Congress to upgrade their systems. By contrast, Texas's roughly 19 million registered voters currently have no pathway to change that that doesn't begin inside the statehouse. And polling suggests Texans aren't thrilled with the status quo. A recent survey found that 63 percent of Texas voters view the redistricting push as unnecessary. Another Texas poll from 2010 found 68% support for adopting a statewide initiative process. Several bills to create one in Texas have been introduced in recent years. For now, though, the people's hands are tied. Creating a new ballot initiative process is no easy task. It bumps into the Catch-22 as before. In every state without ballot initiatives, creating a process for them requires a constitutional amendment, which, absent a constitutional convention, must be initiated by the legislature. However, there's a difference between political reform groups asking lawmakers to vote to create an independent commission and a large, broad-based coalition asking them to give the public a new way to propose ideas in the future. That second ask — about democratic process, not specific policy outcomes — might be harder to reject without political consequences. We've been here before. Between 1898 and 1920, amid corruption, inequality, and political capture, 21 states enshrined initiative systems into their constitutions. Many lawmakers supported the change not out of principle, but because they saw the writing on the wall. Ballot initiatives aren't perfect. They can be expensive, distorted by special interests, or weaponized to harm vulnerable communities. But in moments of democratic backsliding, they're one of the only tools voters have to rebalance the system and reclaim their power. Let's use and expand their use now — strategically and responsibly — so we can build a democracy that no longer needs them.


Gulf Today
2 days ago
- Gulf Today
Lawfully present immigrants help stabilise ACA plans
Bernard J. Wolfson, Tribune News Service If you want to create a perfect storm at Covered California and other Affordable Care Act marketplaces, all you have to do is make enrolment more time-consuming, ratchet up the toll on consumers' pocketbooks, and terminate financial aid for some of the youngest and healthiest enrollees. And presto: You've got people dropping coverage; rising costs; and a smaller, sicker group of enrollees, which translates to higher premiums. The Trump administration and congressional Republicans have just checked that achievement off their list. They have done it with the sprawling tax and spending law President Donald Trump signed on July 4 and a related set of new regulations released by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services that will govern how the ACA marketplaces are run. Among the many provisions, there's this: Large numbers of lawfully present immigrants currently enrolled in Obamacare health plans will lose their subsidies and be forced to pay full fare or drop their coverage. Wait. What? I understand that proponents of the new policies think the government spends too much on taxpayer subsidies, especially those who believe the ACA marketplaces are rife with fraud. It makes sense that they would support toughening enrolment and eligibility procedures and even slashing subsidies. But taking coverage away from people who live here legally is not health care policy. It's an echo of the federal immigration raids in Los Angeles and elsewhere. 'It's creating a very hostile environment for them, especially after having to leave their countries because of some very traumatic experiences,' says Arturo Vargas Bustamante, a professor of health policy and management at UCLA's Fielding School of Public Health. 'For those who believe health care is a human right, this is like excluding that population from something that should be a given.' In Covered California, 112,600 immigrants, or nearly 6% of total enrollees, stand to lose their federal tax subsidies when the policy takes effect in 2027, according to data provided by the exchange. In the Massachusetts and Maryland marketplaces, the figure is closer to 14%, according to their directors, Audrey Morse Gasteier and Michele Eberle, respectively. It's not clear exactly how much financial aid those immigrants currently receive in ACA marketplaces. But in Covered California, for example, the average for all subsidised enrollees is $561 per month, which covers 80% of the $698 average monthly premium per person. And immigrants, who tend to have lower-than-average incomes, are likely to get more of a subsidy. The immigrants who will lose their subsidies include victims of human trafficking and domestic violence, as well as refugees with asylum or with some temporary protected status. And 'Dreamers' will no longer be eligible for ACA marketplace health plans because they will not be considered lawfully present. Immigrants who are not in the country legally cannot get coverage through Covered California or most other ACA marketplaces. The nearly 540,000 Dreamers in the United States arrived in the US as kids without immigration papers and were granted temporary legal status by President Barack Obama in 2012. Of those, an estimated 11,000 have ACA health plans and would lose them, including 2,300 in Covered California. Supporters of the policy changes enshrined in the CMS rule and budget law think it's high time to rein in what they say are abuses in the system that started under the Biden administration with expanded tax credits and overly flexible enrollment policies. 'It's about making Obamacare lawful and implementing it as drafted rather than what Biden turned it into, which was a fraud and a waste-infused programme,' says Brian Blase, president of Arlington, Virginia-based Paragon Health Institute, which produces policy papers with a free-market bent and influenced the Republican-driven policies. But Blase doesn't have much to say about the termination of Obamacare subsidies for lawfully present immigrants. He says Paragon has not focused much on that subject. Jessica Altman, executive director of Covered California, expects most immigrants who lose subsidies will discontinue their enrolment. 'If you look at where those populations fall on the income scale, the vast majority are not going to be able to afford the full cost of the premium to stay covered,' she says. Apart from the human hardship cited by Bustamante, the exodus of immigrants could compromise the financial stability of coverage for the rest of Covered California's 1.9 million enrollees. That's because immigrants tend to be younger than the average enrollee and use fewer medical resources, thus helping offset the costs of older and sicker people who are more expensive to cover. Covered California data shows that immigrant enrollees targeted by the new federal policies pose significantly lower medical risk than US citizens. And a significantly higher percentage of immigrants in the exchange are ages 26 to 44, while 55- to 64-year-olds make up a smaller percentage. Still, it would be manageable if immigrants were the only younger people to leave the exchange. But that is unlikely to be the case. More red tape and higher out-of-pocket costs — especially if enhanced tax credits disappear — could lead a lot of young people to think twice about health insurance. The covid-era enhanced tax credits, which have more than doubled ACA marketplace enrollment since their advent in 2021, are set to expire at the end of December without congressional action. And, so far, Republicans in Congress do not seem inclined to renew them. Ending them would reverse much of that enrollment gain by jacking up the amount consumers would have to spend on premiums out of their own pockets by an average of 66% at Covered California and more than 75% nationally. And an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office shows that a consequent exodus of younger, healthier people from the marketplaces would lead to even greater costs over time. Enhanced tax credits aside, consumers face additional hurdles: The annual enrolment period for Covered California and other marketplaces will be shorter than it is now. Special enrolment periods for people with the lowest incomes will be effectively eliminated. So will automatic renewals, which have greatly simplified the process for a majority of enrollees at Covered California and some other marketplaces. Enrollees will no longer be able to start subsidised coverage, as they can now, before all their information is fully verified. 'Who are the people who are going to decide to go through hours and hours of onerous paperwork?' says Morse Gasteier. 'They're people who have chronic conditions. They have health care issues they need to manage. The folks we would expect not to wade through all that red tape would be the younger, healthier folks.' California and 20 other states this month challenged some of that red tape in a federal lawsuit to stop provisions of the CMS rule that erect 'unreasonable barriers to coverage.' California Attorney General Rob Bonta said he and his fellow attorneys general hoped for a court ruling before the rule takes effect on Aug.25. 'The Trump administration claims that their final rule will prevent fraud,' Bonta said. 'It's obvious what this is really about. It's yet another political move to punish vulnerable communities by removing access to vital care and gutting the Affordable Care Act.'