Requires school districts to provide instructional programming and services in reading and literacy which are evidence based and aligned with state standards; requires teachers in grades pre-K through five to attend professional development courses in reading education.
This bill, titled the “Right to Read Act,” would add a new section to the Education Law requiring New York school districts to provide evidence-based early literacy instruction for students in pre-kindergarten through grade 5. The bill defines key reading-instruction terms such as phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary development, reading fluency, reading comprehension, and three-cueing, and it directs districts to use instructional programming that is scientifically based, explicit, systematic, and aligned with the state’s culturally responsive sustaining education (CRSE) framework. It also requires that literacy programming be organized into a coherent plan intended to improve reading outcomes across the early grades.
The bill would also require teachers in pre-K through grade 5 to demonstrate competence in evidence-based literacy instruction. Existing teachers could satisfy this through prior professional learning or preparation, while new teachers would need at least 35 hours of approved training. The State Education Department would be tasked with creating approved lists of curricula and professional development programs, excluding materials that use three-cueing/MSV, and with developing grant programs to help districts replace non-evidence-based curricula and hire literacy coaches, especially in high-need districts with low reading proficiency.
In addition, the bill would expand reporting and parent-notification requirements. Districts would have to provide parents or guardians with literacy progress reports at least three times per year, including assessment results, information about the curriculum and services being used, and home/community resources to support reading development. The department would also create a template for these reports and publish annual statewide and district-level data on student literacy growth, teacher training completion, and the curricula and professional development programs being used.
The bill would further change teacher certification and preparation requirements. Beginning September 2, 2026, new applicants for early childhood or elementary teaching certification would need coursework or training in evidence-based literacy instruction, and teacher preparation programs would have to include that content starting in the 2026-2027 academic year. The act would take effect immediately, but many operational requirements would begin only after the department publishes the required approved-program lists.
Overall, the bill appears aimed at shifting early reading instruction statewide toward the science of reading and away from three-cueing-based approaches. Because no committee transcript or vote history was provided, there is no recorded legislative debate or vote sentiment in the materials supplied. Based on the bill text alone, the measure is likely to be viewed as a major literacy reform with strong support from advocates of evidence-based reading instruction, while potentially drawing concern from those worried about implementation costs, state oversight, curriculum restrictions, or the interaction with CRSE-aligned instruction.
The bill would amend the Education Law by creating a new section 819 on early literacy education and by adding new certification requirements in section 3004. It would impose statewide obligations on school districts, the State Education Department, teacher preparation programs, and teacher certification applicants, while also authorizing grants for curriculum replacement and literacy coaching. It would affect pre-K through grade 5 instruction, teacher professional development, parent reporting, and public disclosure of literacy performance and instructional materials.
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of legislative debate, amendments discussed in committee, or formal support/opposition in the supplied materials. From the bill text, the policy direction is clearly pro-literacy-reform and pro-evidence-based instruction, suggesting likely support from reading reform advocates and education accountability proponents. At the same time, the bill’s detailed mandates imply that some stakeholders may have concerns about cost, compliance burden, and curriculum control.
The main likely point of contention is the bill’s explicit rejection of three-cueing/MSV and its requirement that districts use approved evidence-based curricula and professional development. Supporters of the science of reading would likely favor these restrictions, while educators or organizations invested in existing balanced-literacy or CRSE-centered approaches may object to the prescriptive nature of the mandate. Other possible concerns include the cost of retraining teachers, replacing curricula, hiring literacy coaches, and the administrative burden of new reporting and data-publication requirements.