By Dr. Ethan R. Van Norman
Pennsylvania finally did something it should have done years ago.
With Act 47 of 2025, the state is advancing towards stronger reading instruction by mandating evidence-based curricula, regular screening in early grades, improved educator training, and intervention plans for struggling students.
That is genuine progress. It also prompts an uncomfortable question: Why did it take so long?
The answer is hard to ignore. Pennsylvania struggles with reading, and Act 47 of 2025 partly admits this.
Too many students in this state are not meeting grade-level expectations in literacy. Too many families have had to wait too long for answers. For years, schools have not had the capacity to identify students at-risk for reading difficulties and provide support to prevent the onset of more serious concerns.
This is what makes this moment truly significant. Act 47 is not just another education bill; it is the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania recognizing that reading is a foundational skill that all students need to be successful. The ability to read and write is a civil rights issue, not another item on a crowded list of school priorities.
Reading shouldn’t be controversial. If students struggle with reading, everything else in school becomes more difficult. Writing, science, and math word problems all get harder. Confidence declines, frustration increases, and ultimately the likelihood of dropping out of school goes up. As students get older, performance gaps only increase.
I consider this issue from the perspective of someone who researches how schools identify students at risk of academic problems and how schools assess whether interventions are effective. Within school psychology and special education research, this involves universal screening, progress monitoring, and data-driven decision-making. These terms may sound technical, but the core idea is straightforward: schools need to identify struggling students early and have reliable methods to determine if the interventions they are providing are working.
This is where Pennsylvania has often fallen short.
For too long, reading instruction in this state has been inconsistent. Some schools and teachers have done excellent work, while others have used approaches that were incomplete, inconsistent, or not well aligned with research on how children learn to read. As a result, the outcomes are predictable: some students thrive, some just get by, and too many fall through the cracks.
Act 47 aims to bring more consistency in how we teach children to read, the methods we use to measure their performance, and the way educators are trained in literacy. By requiring evidence-based reading materials and practices in kindergarten through third grade, Pennsylvania is finally stating that reading instruction cannot be left entirely to local habits or preferences; decisions need to be driven by science.
By mandating screening three times a year in the early grades, the state emphasizes that special education is not the only way students can access additional support. By requiring professional development in structured literacy, it asserts that teachers deserve training that reflects the importance of their work.
All of this is good, but none of it is enough by itself.
The mistake now would be to act as if passing a law solves the problem. It does not. Laws create expectations, but they don’t teach children to read. People do.
Implementation is just as important as legislation. Schools will require strong resources, thoughtful training, and ongoing support. Teachers will need time to modify practices that may have been in place for years. Districts must resist the temptation to treat this as merely a compliance exercise. Parents will need clear communication about what screening involves, what interventions look like, and how progress will be assessed.
We also need to be realistic about what success will look like. Reading reform is important, but it is not magic. Some districts may show progress faster than others. Early results may be inconsistent. This is not a reason to lose confidence. It is a reason to stay committed. It is also a reason to stay disciplined.
Not every screening tool is equally effective. Not every intervention yields the same results. Not every quick decision is a wise one.
Researchers have spent decades identifying evidence-based literacy assessments and interventions. Prior to the near dismantling of the U.S. Department of Education, the Federal Government invested heavily in supporting cutting-edge research through the Institute of Education Sciences. But despite federal funding for literacy research being all but eliminated under the current administration—including two multi-state projects that I helmed directly related to the Science of Reading and effective assessment practice—the work continues.
Parents and educators can continue to find resources online from websites like the What Works Clearinghouse, the National Center on Intensive Intervention (which also provides reviews of literacy assessments and hosts educational resources around data-based decision), and even free literacy intervention materials to use at home from the Florida Center for Reading Research.
I see Act 47 of 2025 as both encouraging and overdue. At this juncture it is critical that the Pennsylvania Department of Education rigorously vet the assessments and interventions that they allow schools to use. State leadership would be wise to leverage the expertise of researchers in their community—people who have dedicated their lives to studying and understanding literacy assessment and intervention—as well as educators who have been using evidence-based practices before it was a legal requirement.
The point is particularly relevant because literacy curriculum and assessments are not immune from financial conflicts of interest. The Sold a Story podcast by Emily Hanford and colleagues delves into this, looking at what happens when dogma trumps science. The podcast provides more insight as to how the growth of non-evidence based practices, flawed teacher training programs, and ineffective assessments brought us to the point where effective literacy practices need to be legislated.
Many states have already carried out similar legislation. Unfortunately, cases in which assessments with next to no evidence-base for their use are being widely subsidized by taxpayer funds for schools are not uncommon. Pennsylvania is finally taking reading more seriously but leadership needs to act with intentionality. All of our children deserve to receive evidence-based education.
An example of successful evidence-based practice implementation was also discussed by Hanford on Morning Edition in 2019. In an episode titled “Why Millions of Kids Can’t Read and What Better Teaching Can Do About It,” she interviews Jack Silva from Bethlehem Area School District about the improvements BASD has seen in student literacy.
In 2015, BASD invested in the training and support necessary to help educators implement science-backed reading instruction. Three years later, kindergartners in the district were testing over 30 percent higher on year-end literacy benchmarking.
The Commonwealth is still behind, and catching up will require more than good intentions. It will require consistency, training, honest measurement, and the willingness to stay with this work long after the law is no longer new.
In the end, this is not about whether Pennsylvania can say it passed a literacy reform bill. It is about whether Pennsylvania children can actually read.
Ethan R. Van Norman, PhD, is a professor and program director of School Psychology at Lehigh University’s College of Education. His research focuses on universal screening and progress monitoring in schools. He frequently partners with schools and non-profits to help them evaluate the effectiveness of their literacy practices and to provide technical assistance around data-based decision making.
