Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

While legislators have implemented many “science of reading” initiatives in the last 2 decades, the evidence on the impact of these reforms at scale is limited. In this pre-registered, quasi-experimental study, we examine California’s recent initiative to improve early literacy across the state’s lowest-performing schools. The Early Literacy Support Block Grant (ELSBG) provided teacher professional development grounded in the science of reading as well as aligned supports (e.g., assessments and interventions), new funding (about $1,000 per student), spending flexibility within specified guidelines, and expert facilitation and oversight of school-based planning. Our preferred specification finds that ELSBG generated significant (and cost-effective) improvements in English Language Arts (ELA) achievement in its first years of implementation (0.14 standard deviation) as well as smaller improvements in math.

Keywords

achievement economics of education educational policy educational reform literacy quasi-experimental analysis

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Arkhangelsky

Athey

Hirshberg

D. A.

Imbens

G. W.

Wager

(2021). Synthetic difference-in-differences. American Economic Review, 111(12), 4088–4118. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20190159

Black

Corrie

(2022). McKinley elementary: Early literacy support block grant annual report. McKinley Elementary. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AyFewzkTWyLFdk_U1xHZY_DIgfNdkljd/view

Bonilla

Dee

T. S.

(2020). The effects of school reform under NCLB waivers: Evidence from focus schools in Kentucky. Education Finance and Policy, 15(1), 75–103. https://doi.org/10.1162/edfp_a_00275

Bramble

(2024, March 28). AB 2222 (Oppose). California Teachers Association. https://epe.brightspotcdn.com/98/1d/74c809ed497c8ee32723761d181f/ab2222.pdf

Brodeur

Cook

Heyes

(2020). Methods matter: P-hacking and publication bias in causal analysis in economics. American Economic Review, 110(11), 3634–3660. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20190687

Byrne

(2005). Theories of learning to read. In Snowling

M. J.

Hulme

(Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 104–119). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470757642.ch6

Byrne

Fielding-Barnsley

(1990). Acquiring the alphabetic principle: A case for teaching recognition of phoneme identity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(4), 805–812. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.4.805

CAASPP Technical Reports and Studies. (2024, March 19). Educational testing service. https://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/ca/caaspprptstudies.asp

California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress. (2022). Online practice and training tests. https://www.caaspp.org/practice-and-training/

10.

California Department of Education. (2014, July 9). English language arts/English language development framework. https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/rl/cf/documents/elaeldfwchapter3.pdf

11.

California Reading Coalition. (2022). The California reading curriculum report. https://www.careads.org/curric-report-viewer

12.

Carr

(2022, December 27). NAACP targets a new civil rights issue—Reading (The Hechinger report). http://hechingerreport.org/naacp-targets-a-new-civil-rights-issue-reading/

13.

Castles

Rastle

Nation

(2018). Ending the reading wars: Reading acquisition from novice to expert. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 19(1), 5–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100618772271

14.

Clarke

Pailañir

Athey

Imbens

(2023). Synthetic difference in differences estimation (arXiv:2301.11859). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2301.11859

15.

Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers. Grade 3 operations & algebraic thinking.

16.

Dee

T. S.

Dizon-Ross

(2019). School performance, accountability, and waiver reforms: Evidence from Louisiana. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 41(3), 316–349. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373719849944

17.

D’Souza

(2022, November 2). How badly did the pandemic deepen California’s early reading crisis? EdSource. https://edsource.org/2022/how-badly-did-the-pandemic-deepen-californias-early-reading-crisis/680490

18.

D’Souza

Vasquez

(2022, April 28). An unmet promise: Early literacy for all in California [Roundtable]. https://edsource.org/broadcasts/early-literacy-for-all-in-california

19.

Ed-Data. (2021). California general fund expenditures, school districts, 2020-21. https://www.ed-data.org/ShareData/Html/119580

20.

Ehri

L. C.

(2005). Learning to read words: Theory, findings, and issues. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9(2), 167–188. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr0902_4

21.

Ehri

L. C.

Wilce

L. S.

(1985). Movement into reading: Is the first stage of printed word learning visual or phonetic? On JSTOR. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(2), 163–179.

22.

Ella T. v. State of California. (2020, February 20). Settlement implementation agreement. Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. https://assets.contentstack.io/v3/assets/blt5775cc69c999c255/blt2c7f1f36a0132938/200220-literacy-ca-ella-t-settlement-agreement.pdf

23.

ELSB Grant Eligible Schools. (2020). California department of education. https://www.cde.ca.gov/pd/ps/elsbeligibility.asp

24.

Fensterwald

(2025, April 30). Legislative deal on reading instruction reached in the nick of time. EdSource. https://edsource.org/2025/legislative-deal-on-reading-instruction-reached-in-the-nick-of-time/731682

25.

Gamse

B. C.

Jacob

R. T.

Horst

Boulay

Unlu

Bozzi

Caswell

Rodger

Smith

W. C.

Brigham

Rosenblum

(2008). Reading first impact study. Institute of Education Sciences. https://ies.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=NCEE20094038

26.

Hemelt

S. W.

Jacob

(2017). Differentiated accountability and education production: Evidence from NCLB waivers (Working Paper No. 23461). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w23461

27.

Hill

C. J.

Bloom

H. S.

Black

A. R.

Lipsey

M. W.

(2008). Empirical benchmarks for interpreting effect sizes in research. Child Development Perspectives, 2(3), 172–177. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2008.00061.x

28.

A. D.

(2008). The problem with “proficiency”: Limitations of statistics and policy under no child left behind. Educational Researcher, 37(6), 351–360.

29.

Holland

P. W.

(2002). Two measures of change in the gaps between the CDFs of test-score distributions. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 27(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986027001003

30.

Hoover

W. A.

Gough

P. B.

(1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing, 2(2), 127–160. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00401799

31.

Huerta-Price

Sanchez

(2022). CUSD ELSB grant annual report Y1. Calexico Unified School District. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WI6EZrqyk3CaEoG3VczcIQ_lTYsBLGrJ/edit

32.

Jackson

C. K.

Mackevicius

(2021). The distribution of school spending impacts. National Bureau of Economic Research. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w28517/w28517.pdf

33.

Joyce

K. E.

Cartwright

(2020). Bridging the gap between research and practice: Predicting what will work locally. American Educational Research Journal, 57(3), 1045–1082. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831219866687

34.

Klappenback

Marsh

(2022). Calabasas elementary: Early literacy support block grant annual report. Calabasas Elementary. https://www.pvusd.net/documents/Calabasas-ELSB-Grant-Annual-Report-Y1-21-22.pdf

35.

Kraft

M. A.

(2023). The effect-size benchmark that matters most: Education interventions often fail. Educational Researcher, 52(3), 183–187. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X231155154

36.

Kristof

(2023, May 31). Opinion | Mississippi is offering lessons for America on education. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/31/opinion/mississippi-education-poverty.html

37.

Krueger

A. B.

(1999). Experimental estimates of education production functions. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(2), 497–532.

38.

Kuhfeld

Soland

Lewis

(2022). Test score patterns across three COVID-19-impacted school years. Educational Researcher, 51(7), 500–506. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X221109178

39.

Kurtz

Lloyd

Harwin

Chen

Furuya

(2020). Early reading instruction: Results from a National Survey. EdWeek Research Center. https://epe.brightspotcdn.com/1b/80/706eba6246599174b0199ac1f3b5/ed-week-reading-instruction-survey-report-final-1.24.20.pdf

40.

Lambert

Tadayon

Sequeira

D’Souza

(2022, October 6). The youngest readers tackle sounds, words and the science of reading. EdSource. https://edsource.org/2022/the-youngest-readers-tackle-sounds-words-and-the-science-of-reading/679248

41.

Langreo

(2024, April 17). For now, California won’t mandate “Science of Reading.” Here’s what happened. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/for-now-california-wont-mandate-science-of-reading-heres-what-happened/2024/04

42.

Liu

Wang

(2024). A practical guide to counterfactual estimators for causal inference with time-series cross-sectional data. American Journal of Political Science. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12723

43.

May

Blakeney

Shrestha

Mazal

Kennedy

(2022, April 23). Long-term impacts of reading recovery through third and fourth grade: A regression discontinuity study from 2011-12 through 2016-17. American Education Research Association.

44.

Melby-Lervåg

Lyster

S.-A. H.

Hulme

(2012). Phonological skills and their role in learning to read: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 138(2), 322–352. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026744

45.

National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED444126

46.

Nosek

B. A.

Ebersole

C. R.

DeHaven

A. C.

Mellor

D. T.

(2018). The preregistration revolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(11), 2600–2606. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1708274114

47.

Perfetti

Stafura

(2014). Word knowledge in a theory of reading comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(1), 22–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2013.827687

48.

Preston

(2022, May). A chronicle of Kappan’s coverage of the reading wars. Kappan, 103(8), 5–7.

49.

Public Counsel, Morrison, & Foerster LLP. (2017, December 5). Ella T. v. State of California: Complaint. Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. https://media2.mofo.com/documents/171205-ellla-t-v-california-complaint.pdf

50.

Rayner

Foorman

B. R.

Perfetti

C. A.

Pesetsky

Seidenberg

M. S.

(2001). How psychological science informs the teaching of reading. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 2(2), 31–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/1529-1006.00004

51.

Schwartz

(2022, April 21). The “Science of Reading” and English-Language Learners: What the research says. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/the-science-of-reading-and-english-language-learners-what-the-research-says/2022/04

52.

Schwartz

(2023, August 31). To move past the reading wars, we must understand where they started. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/to-move-past-the-reading-wars-we-must-understand-where-they-started/2023/08

53.

Schwartz

(2024, April 29). Which states have passed “science of reading” laws? What’s in them? Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/which-states-have-passed-science-of-reading-laws-whats-in-them/2022/07

54.

Spencer

(2024). Comprehensive early literacy policy and the “Mississippi Miracle.” Economics of Education Review, 103, 102598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2024.102598

55.

St. Andre

. (2020, November 17). Early literacy support block grant local educational agency funding and next steps. California Department of Education, Educator Excellence and Equity Division. https://www.cde.ca.gov/pd/ps/documents/elsbleawebinar.pdf

56.

State of California, Legislature. Senate Bill 98. (2020). SB 98 authorization of the ELSB grant. https://www.cde.ca.gov/pd/ps/elsbgrantsb98.asp

57.

Strunk

Wright

Kilbride

Zhu

Cummings

West

Turner

De Voto

(2021). Michigan’s read by grade three law: Year one report. Education Policy Innovation Collaborative at Michigan State University. https://epicedpolicy.org/rbg3-year-one-report/

58.

Sullivan

(2020). ELSBG year 1 PL sessions. Sacramento County Office of Education.

59.

Sullivan

(2022, May). Early literacy support block grant, expert lead in literacy annual report year 2: 2021-22. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cu3zRCNsNHSAMWMG24gdOVlHyVet7NRx/view

60.

Tadayon

(2022, October 11). Coalition says “science of reading-aligned” core curricula barely used in California. EdSource. https://edsource.org/2022/coalition-says-science-of-reading-aligned-core-curricula-barely-used-in-california/679596

61.

The Nation’s Report Card. (2019). NAEP reading 2019 highlights. National Assessment of Educ-ation Progress. https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/highlights/reading/2019/

62.

The Nation’s Report Card. (2013). National Assessment of Student Progress (NAEP) 2013 and 2022 reading assessments. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/ndecore/xplore/NDE

63.

The Nation’s Report Card. (2022). NAEP reading: National achievement-level results. National Assessment of Education Progress. https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading/nation/achievement/?grade=4

64.

Tierney

R. J.

Pearson

P. D.

(2024). Fact-checking the science of reading: Opening up the conversation. Literacy Research Commons.

65.

Volante

(2004). Teaching to the test: What every educator and policy-maker should know. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 35(1), 1–6. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ848235

66.

Westall

Cummings

(2023). The effects of early literacy policies on student achievement (EdWorking Papers 23-788). https://edworkingpapers.com/ai23-788

67.

Whitehurst

G. J.

(2009, October 14). Don’t forget curriculum. Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/dont-forget-curriculum/

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

1.59 MB

The Achievement Effects of Scaling Early Literacy Reforms

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material