Back to basics or backwards? Trump's ‘Evidence-Based' literacy agenda fuels debate on science and equity

Time of India

28-05-2025

A new front has opened in the battle over American education, this time over how children learn to read. The Trump administration has thrust literacy instruction to the top of its education agenda, framing it as a national crisis and a moral imperative.
On May 20, the US Department of Education identified 'evidence-based literacy instruction' as a core funding priority, asserting that it's 'time for the United States to refocus its education investments on the most essential skills a student can acquire.'
For Education Secretary Linda McMahon, the issue is clear-cut: 'If you cannot read, you cannot learn,' she told lawmakers in the US, warning that declining literacy is at the heart of what she calls systemic school failure.
Yet behind the rhetoric lies a firestorm of ideological, scientific, and pedagogical tensions. While the initiative echoes long-standing research on phonics and foundational reading skills, it has also reignited concerns that the federal government's approach could repeat past mistakes, oversimplifying complex literacy science and sidelining culturally responsive teaching.
Is this a long-overdue return to cognitive fundamentals, or a politicised detour that risks flattening the diversity and nuance essential to equitable education?
History repeats or reforms?
While the federal role in literacy has fluctuated over the decades, echoes of the early 2000s are unmistakable.
The Bush-era 'Reading First' programme also championed scientifically grounded reading practices but became mired in controversy for financial mismanagement and narrow instructional focus. Though the current policy stops short of prescribing specific curricula, it revives the same fundamental assumptions, that student success begins with decoding, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension, taught in structured, explicit ways.
But critics argue that returning to these pillars without deeper context risks reducing literacy to a checklist. Research over the past two decades has shown that simply teaching phonics or focusing on foundational skills is not enough to sustain reading gains, particularly beyond the early grades. A myopic emphasis on basics may neglect the broader architecture of literacy development, especially for multilingual learners and students from historically underserved communities.
The politics beneath the policy
What complicates this push is its underlying ideological framing. The administration's messaging often contrasts its literacy-first approach with so-called 'divisive' classroom practices, suggesting that instruction rooted in cultural or social awareness distracts from core academic goals. In this view, education is seen less as a vehicle for civic or cultural engagement and more as a tool for restoring traditional academic rigour.
This binary, however, has unsettled many in the education field. Experts in reading science stress that literacy acquisition is not culturally neutral; students' linguistic backgrounds, identities, and lived experiences directly shape how they engage with reading material. Efforts to elevate evidence-based instruction without integrating cultural responsiveness risk creating classroom environments that are technically sound but emotionally disconnected and pedagogically incomplete.
Evidence, equity, and the missing infrastructure
Compounding these tensions is a simultaneous pullback in federal research funding. Despite the call for evidence-based practice, several research initiatives and practice guides, designed to translate findings into usable strategies, have faced budget cuts. The paradox is glaring: Schools are being asked to prioritise science-aligned literacy strategies while the infrastructure to support that science is being dismantled.
Moreover, without robust technical assistance, especially for schools in high-need districts, implementation of these evidence-backed methods could devolve into surface-level compliance rather than meaningful change. History has shown that top-down literacy mandates, when underfunded or poorly contextualized, can fragment instruction and widen learning gaps.
A narrow frame for a broad challenge
Reading is neither a purely cognitive nor purely cultural act—it sits at the intersection of language, identity, and knowledge.
Any federal strategy that aims to transform how students read must recognize this complexity. Elevating foundational skills without attending to the broader context in which reading occurs may deliver short-term gains but will fall short of ensuring deep, sustained literacy for all students.
The Trump administration's reading initiative opens a window for long-overdue national investment in literacy. But whether it leads to a genuine renaissance in reading or a retrenchment into dated, oversimplified methods will depend on how inclusively—and intelligently - the nation defines 'evidence' and 'excellence.'
Ready to empower your child for the AI era? Join our program now! Hurry, only a few seats left.