The Hard Part is How: Ohio's Chance to Lead the Nation in Reading Reform

By Annalies Corbin, PAST Foundation, Columbus, Ohio

*Graphic was created using Perplexity.

Executive Summary

Ohio has taken bold steps to reshape early literacy—banning three-cueing, mandating evidence-based curricula, and investing $169 million into professional development and materials. But as classroom realities emerge, one truth becomes clear: the hard part isn't knowing what to do—it's knowing how to do it well. Despite widespread reforms, two-thirds of students remain below grade-level in reading, and many teachers still rely on unapproved materials or report feeling unprepared to help struggling readers. Recent audit results reveal that 15 of Ohio's 48 teacher preparation programs are not yet fully aligned with the science of reading standards, underscoring the urgency of this implementation challenge. What's missing is not motivation or mandate, but execution. This commentary asserts that implementation fidelity—grounded in research-based practice and adaptive support—is the critical next frontier in reading reform. Ohio must now lead not just with legislation, but with infrastructure: embedded coaching, targeted intervention systems, real-time data tools, and leadership development across both K-12 schools and higher education institutions. If done right, Ohio's literacy reform can serve as a national blueprint for how to make the science of reading succeed—not just in theory, but in every classroom, every day.

From Policy to Practice:  The Implementation Gap

Ohio's experience demonstrates that legislation alone cannot fix literacy outcomes. Even though laws have mandated evidence-based curricula and extensive professional development, the gap between mandated policy and classroom reality remains wide. For instance, while 86% of teachers have received training in the science of reading—a commendable investment averaging 26 hours per educator—only 70% consistently use state-approved materials, with nearly two-thirds supplementing instruction with resources of often questionable quality (Kraft, Blazar, & Hogan, 2018). This discrepancy highlights a recurring breakdown in the policy implementation chain: adoption of new standards does not guarantee faithful or effective classroom delivery.

The December 2025 release of audit results from The Meadows Center for Preventing Educational Risk at the University of Texas adds another layer to this implementation challenge. Of 48 Ohio colleges and universities offering teacher preparation programs, only 33 achieved complete alignment with the science of reading standards by the January 1, 2025, deadline. Five institutions received partial alignment ratings, while 10—including major state universities such as The Ohio State University, Ohio University, Bowling Green State University, and Wright State University—were found not in alignment. Most troubling, these 10 non-compliant institutions were still using "banned training" practices in their teaching materials, meaning future teachers are being prepared with methods explicitly prohibited by state law (State News, 2025).

Governor Mike DeWine's response to these findings was unequivocal: "It is incumbent upon us to give them the best tools. The best way is sounding words out, going through the structure. And to use any other method is just morally wrong. It's wrong" (State News, 2025). The Governor announced that non-compliant institutions have one year to achieve complete alignment or risk having the Chancellor of Higher Education revoke approval of their literacy educator programs—a consequence that would fundamentally reshape teacher preparation in Ohio.

This dual implementation gap—in both K-12 classrooms and higher education institutions—reveals the systemic nature of the challenge. The reasons are deeply practical. Teachers regularly report confusion and uncertainty when students do not respond to explicitly taught phonics, underscoring that theoretical knowledge gained from workshops rarely equips educators with real-time solutions to classroom challenges (Lexia, n.d.). A survey respondent captured this sentiment, stating, "I know the theory, but when a student doesn't respond to phonics, I'm lost." This reflects a widespread need for job-embedded coaching—support that goes beyond compliance checks to model lessons, guide data meetings, and troubleshoot on the ground.

Furthermore, classroom realities reveal that without robust systems for feedback, differentiation, and data-driven interventions, even well-prepared teachers can struggle to meet diverse student needs. The science of reading must be implemented with the same rigor as it was constructed. That means building infrastructure for ongoing instructional coaching, mandating regular fidelity audits, establishing tiered intervention frameworks for struggling readers, and leveraging smart technology to provide both teachers and students with real-time, personalized support (The Reading League, 2022; TNTP, n.d.).

The challenge facing Ohio—and indeed, the nation—is not rooted in a lack of ambition. To close the gap between law and literacy, policymakers must treat the "how" of reform as the new frontier—supporting teachers with fundamental tools, actionable data, and professional systems that turn policy into daily practice and improve student outcomes. The higher education audit results make clear that this support must extend upstream to the institutions preparing tomorrow's teachers.

Implementation: The Science Ohio Must Master 

*Graphic was created using Perplexity.

Although legislation has banned outdated curricula and invested heavily in teacher professional development, two-thirds of students remain below grade level in reading, and many educators still resort to unapproved materials. Yet, as the Johns Hopkins study has revealed, despite intensive training (an average of 26 hours per teacher, 86% trained in the science of reading), only 70% of Ohio educators use state-approved curricula consistently. Even more telling, 63% rely on supplemental materials—whose quality is often questionable. When push comes to shove, even the best training rarely equips teachers with real solutions for real kids. The chain breaks between adoption, fidelity, and student outcomes.

The recent higher education audit compounds this challenge by revealing that the pipeline itself is compromised. When 31% of teacher preparation programs are not yet fully aligned with the science of reading principles—and some continue teaching explicitly banned methods—the system is essentially working against itself. Future teachers entering classrooms in 2026 and beyond may be unprepared to implement the very reforms the state has mandated, creating a cycle of implementation failure that could persist for years.

The resolution is neither a matter of motivation nor mandate, but rather the refinement of execution—treating implementation itself as a science demanding data-driven, job-embedded, and sustained support at every level (state, district, school, and higher education). Success means rigorously focusing on fidelity, differentiated intervention, technology-enhanced support, robust accountability, and lasting political commitment. If Ohio gets this right, its model can become the nation's blueprint for turning policy ambitions into classroom reality.

Implementation Science

To embark on this transformation, Ohio must move beyond broad aspirations and focus on specific, actionable steps that anchor reform efforts in everyday practice. The following five priorities offer a concrete roadmap for closing the implementation gap and ensuring every classroom benefits from the promise of science-based reading instruction.

State Coaching Infrastructure: Job-Embedded, Not Workshop-Driven

State lever: Fund and oversee regional Science of Reading Implementation Hubs; set requirements for coaching reach and quality.

District lever: Strategically schedule and embed coaching cycles; align teacher release, timelines, and evaluation.

School lever: Create site-based coaching teams, ensure every teacher receives ongoing, actionable feedback.

Higher Education lever: Colleges of education must establish clinical coaching models where faculty demonstrate science of reading principles in authentic teaching contexts, not just lecture about them.

Research on North Carolina’s LETRS rollout and meta-analyses by Matthew Kraft show authentic coaching—not one-off PD—drives sustained instructional improvement. State investments should double coaching support and rapidly expand it beyond the lowest-performing campuses. Coaches aren’t delivering “compliance checks,” but authentic skill-building: modeling lessons, guiding data meetings, and helping teachers apply the science in messy reality (Kraft et al., 2018). 

The audit results make clear that this coaching infrastructure must extend to higher education. The 15 institutions that are not fully aligned need intensive support, not just punitive consequences. This means funding faculty development, creating communities of practice among education schools, and providing ongoing technical assistance as programs restructure curricula and pedagogy.

Accountability for Fidelity—Not Just Compliance

State lever: Require quarterly implementation reviews using validated walkthrough protocols. Publish annual Implementation Report Cards with both practice and outcome benchmarks. Continue rigorous auditing of higher education programs beyond the initial compliance deadline.

District lever: Analyze fidelity data, support struggling sites proactively, and ensure principal and teacher portfolios reflect actual practice change.

School lever: Regular PLCs to review observation data, troubleshoot real delivery roadblocks, and set tangible next-step goals.

Higher Education lever: Education schools must demonstrate not just curriculum alignment but pedagogical fidelity—showing how the science of reading is actually taught, practiced, and assessed in teacher preparation courses.

Laws that mandate curriculum don’t ensure that it’s taught well, adapted for local needs, or persists under pressure. Implementation fidelity reviews (using tools akin to TNTP’s ‘Instructional Culture’ protocols) can spotlight where supports break down—whether “approved” materials are used, and crucially, how. Transparency and peer accountability (public dashboards, district progress celebrations, capacity-building for leaders) create real incentives for persistent change (TNTP, n.d.).

The state's decision to publicly release audit results and set clear consequences represents exactly this kind of accountability. However, the one-year timeline for non-compliant institutions is aggressive. Ohio must balance urgency with realism, providing intensive support to ensure institutions can genuinely transform rather than appear compliant.

Tiered Intervention and Differentiation for Struggling Readers

State lever: Fund district-based Struggling Reader Success Centers; resource a robust menu of approved, research-based intervention tools.

District lever: Organize regular diagnostic data cycles to identify students off track; ensure seamless coordination between interventionists, classroom teachers, and families.

School lever: Teachers and interventionists receive explicit training in protocol-based differentiation; schools allocate additional time for targeted support and family partnerships.

Higher Education lever: Pre-service teacher preparation must include extensive clinical practice in diagnosing reading difficulties and implementing differentiated interventions—not just theoretical coursework.

Two-thirds of Ohio students need more than whole-class phonics. They need precise, evidence-based interventions tailored to their actual gaps—phonological awareness, decoding, vocabulary, or comprehension. State policy should require every district to have an intervention playbook and enough expert staff to deliver it. Data must drive instruction; teachers need training not just on what the data means, but what to do next for each student.

This intervention imperative must begin in teacher preparation. Future teachers need supervised experience working with struggling readers using approved interventions before they enter their own classrooms. The audit revealed gaps in how institutions prepare teachers for this reality—a weakness that must be addressed systematically.

Smart Use of Technology—Amplify, Don’t Replace

State lever: Approve and subsidize high-impact tech tools (e.g., adaptive assessment dashboards, digital coaching feedback platforms). Support higher education institutions in accessing technology that enables them to deliver science of reading instruction at scale.

District lever: Pilot platforms in select schools with robust evaluation; build tech-support teams.

School lever: Use real-time, classroom-level data to adjust teaching; leverage digital practice to extend learning, especially for struggling students.

Higher Education lever: Integrate technology tools that allow pre-service teachers to receive immediate feedback on their literacy instruction during clinical placements.

Don’t let “personalized learning” devolve into isolated screen time. Instead, invest in tools that enhance real teaching: AI-driven teacher feedback, adaptive practice for students, family-facing data reports, and dashboards for leaders. Ohio should pilot and scale proven platforms (like Lexia and TeachFX), evaluating their real-world classroom impact and doubling down only where outcomes improve.

Technology can also help address the scale challenge in higher education. With thousands of pre-service teachers moving through preparation programs each year, digital tools can provide consistent, scalable feedback on the quality of literacy instruction while human coaches focus on complex cases.

Political and Financial Staying Power

State lever: Establish a bipartisan legislative task force and a Science of Reading Trust Fund with guaranteed multi-year appropriations. Maintain consistent accountability for both K-12 implementation and higher education compliance.

District lever: Build strategic plans that span administrations; partner with local higher ed for continuous R&D.

School lever: Celebrate “early win” stories and challenges with transparency; regularly communicate progress to families, not just test scores.

Higher Education lever: Create cross-institutional learning communities where education schools share effective practices and support each other through the transformation process.

Culture eats compliance for breakfast. The gravest risk to Ohio’s literacy revolution is the “implementation dip” that follows the headlines’ fade—when pressure rises, resources wobble, or leadership shifts. Policies must institutionalize stakeholder voice, public progress monitoring, and learning communities for teachers and leaders. The state must protect funding and momentum through cycles of doubt, keeping its eye on a seven-year horizon, not a seven-month one.

Governor DeWine's insistence on a one-year compliance timeline demonstrates political resolve, but sustained success will require consistent leadership across electoral cycles. Ohio must codify these reforms through bipartisan commitment, ensuring that changes in administration don't derail progress. The state has approximately 40 companies for its commitment to the science of reading among the strongest in the nation, but maintaining that distinction requires ongoing investment and accountability.

*Graphic was created using Perplexity.

The Stakes: From Crisis to Opportunity

Ohio's science of reading revolution stands at a critical juncture. The legislative framework is sound, the financial investment substantial, and the initial teacher response encouraging. Yet the difference between a promising start and lasting transformation lies in the unglamorous work of sustained implementation excellence. The December 2025 audit results serve as both a warning and an opportunity: a warning that the system has significant gaps that could undermine reform, and an opportunity to address those gaps with urgency and precision before they perpetuate another generation of reading failure.

Success requires abandoning the traditional reform playbook of broad mandates and generic professional development in favor of intensive, job-embedded support that meets teachers and students where they are. It demands accountability systems that prioritize implementation fidelity over mere compliance, and calls for the political courage to maintain direction even when progress is slow or obstacles arise. Most importantly, it requires recognizing that the teacher preparation pipeline is part of the implementation ecosystem—not separate from it.

The audit findings showing major universities still teaching banned literacy methods should be understood not as institutional failure but as a systems design problem. Higher education operates on different timelines, with various incentives and cultures distinct from those of K-12 schools. Successfully aligning these systems requires sustained collaboration, shared accountability, and genuine partnership—not just top-down mandates.

How Ohio Can Lead the Nation

The stakes could not be higher. Ohio's current reading data represents not just an educational challenge but a moral crisis that perpetuates inequality and limits human potential. The science of reading offers a proven path forward, but only if Ohio has the wisdom to implement it with the same rigor and intensity that went into developing the foundational research.

Governor DeWine's characterization of noncompliance as "morally wrong" appropriately captures the urgency. Every year that passes without adequate literacy instruction compromises the life trajectories of thousands of children. Every teacher preparation program that continues teaching discredited methods produces graduates who may unwittingly harm the students they're committed to helping.

But moral urgency must be paired with practical wisdom. The one-year deadline for higher education compliance is ambitious—perhaps too ambitious for genuine transformation. Ohio must balance accountability with support, consequences with capacity-building, urgency with sustainability. The goal is not performative compliance but authentic transformation that produces teachers who are genuinely prepared to implement the science of reading principles with diverse learners in complex classrooms.

If Ohio can turn evidence-based policy into lived classroom practice—by making implementation the "science" to master—it won't just solve its own literacy emergency. It will create the most robust test case in America for turning legislative promises into lasting student gains. The state has made significant investments, established clear standards, and demonstrated political will. Now comes the hard part: doing the daily, unglamorous work of supporting teachers, coaches, principals, district leaders, and university faculty as they transform rhetoric into reality.

Let's stop asking whether we know what works. We do. The real test is whether we are finally willing to do what it takes, in every classroom, every day, for every child, preparing every future teacher with the tools they need to succeed. If we do, Ohio won't just move the needle for its own students—it will sketch the blueprint for a nation.

References:

Kraft, M. A., Blazar, D., & Hogan, D. (2018). The effect of teacher coaching on instruction and achievement: A meta-analysis of the causal evidence. Review of Educational Research, 88(4), 547–588. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/mkraft/files/kraft_blazar_hogan_2018_teacher_coaching.pdf

Lexia. (n.d.). Lexia Core5: Adaptive blended learning for literacy development. https://www.lexia.com/resources/core5-adaptive-blended-learning-for-literacy-development/

State News. (2025, December 16). Fifteen Ohio higher ed institutions must align literacy programs with Science of Reading, or else. https://www.statenews.org/government-politics/2025-12-16/fifteen-ohio-higher-ed-institutions-must-align-literacy-programs-with-science-of-reading-or-else

The Reading League. (2022). Science of Reading: Defining guide. https://www.thereadingleague.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Science_of_Reading_Defining_Guide_eBook.pdf

TNTP. (n.d.). Insights Surveys. https://tntp.org/insights/surveys

*Graphics were created using Perplexity.