In Georgia’s quest to bolster student reading, we ought to remember the state’s botched attempt to revolutionize math instruction. The hurdles in improving reading are the same faced in math 18 years ago — asking teachers to teach something they weren’t taught.
What doomed Georgia’s 2005 decision to replace traditional math instruction with the integrated approach used in Japan was little to no teacher training, curriculum resources or partnerships with colleges and universities. Colleges of education were preparing teachers in a traditional math model even as the state was moving away from it.
At the time, I asked Richard Elmore, the legendary Harvard scholar on educational practice, whether it made sense to expect that Georgia teachers already in the classroom, delivered a new standard, could just adapt and perform to it. His answer was a swift no. “We’re asking teachers to teach in ways most of them have never done before,” said Elmore, who died in 2021.
That point was reinforced last week with the release of a sobering critique by the National Council on Teacher Quality on how few teacher preparation programs fully incorporate the science of reading, broadly defined as a classroom approach that entails drilling down on foundational skills in K-2, explicit phonemic awareness, which is identifying and manipulating individual sounds within words, word recognition, spelling, and syntax at the sentence and paragraph levels.
The Georgia General Assembly approved a law this year that requires all school systems to adopt teaching materials that emphasize the science of reading. While House Bill 538 lacks explicit or comprehensive preparation standards, it does require, as of July 2025, the Georgia Department of Education “shall require teachers in all programs licensed or commissioned by the department to receive training on developmentally appropriate evidence-based literacy instruction.”
That won’t be easy.
The National Council on Teacher Quality evaluation of nearly 700 teacher prep programs awarded one of 23 Georgia programs an A+ for fidelity to the core components of scientifically based reading instruction, Georgia College & State University. Four undergraduate programs and one grad program received an A. Seven undergraduate programs earned an F for how well they incorporate science of reading principles. (Most private colleges in Georgia declined to provide necessary data to the National Council on Teacher Quality, so they’re not rated.)
Only a quarter of programs nationwide adequately addressed all core components of reading instruction with phonemic awareness earning the least attention, according to the review. About a third didn’t provide any opportunities for teachers-in-training to practice the techniques they learned.
“We’re in the midst of a long-overdue revolution on the science of reading, but teacher prep programs haven’t fully caught up,” said Heather Peske, council president.
Many states are reevaluating how they teach children reading in response to alarm over America’s literacy level. The 2022 National Assessment of Educational Progress showed 37% of U.S. fourth graders did not meet basic benchmarks in reading. In Georgia, 39% of fourth graders scored below basic. Students below grade level in reading by fourth grade are four times more likely to drop out of high school.
While the Georgia Legislature has prioritized literacy, it has yet to commit the funding that will be required to train teachers. Peske cautioned that effective training entails “more than one day of professional development and a free breakfast.”
In an interview, Peske held up the reading gains in Mississippi, where literacy coaches were deployed to schools to collaborate with teachers throughout the school year. “They saw results in instruction and in outcomes for kids,” said Peske. “There has to be a comprehensive plan for improving student literacy outcomes that looks at what kind of curriculum teachers are being required to teach and how teachers are being supported to use that curriculum.”
Georgia’s new literacy law abounds with mandates, including screening tests, tiered intervention plans, on-site teacher training and high-quality instructional materials. Left out were the literacy coaches that Mississippi deemed essential.
Also, as with the major shift in how math would be taught in 2005, the Georgia Legislature left out any significant new funding to underwrite all the new mandates that will cost tens of millions to put in place. For example, Ohio is considering a budget that would allot $174 million over the next two years to embrace the science of reading in its schools.
As Mississippi state education superintendent until her retirement last year, Carey Wright led the literacy upswing. Her advice to other states on a recent online seminar: “You have to have a laser-like focus on a statewide initiative around literacy. And it is more than just a focus. It’s got to be well funded. Our teacher prep programs need to be preparing teachers to know how to teach the science of reading.”
About the Author
