Oregon is doing it wrong. Or if you prefer, other states are doing it better.
Amid a flurry of depressing recent news reports about our nation's declining reading skills, two thoughts pop out:
- Classroom teachers are not best equipped to teach reading.
- Oregon is trying but missing the mark.
Regarding the first: While more than 40 states — including Oregon — have passed laws requiring schools to adapt evidence-based reading instruction, a significant percentage of early elementary teachers are pushing back. In a 2025 poll of more than 1,200 K-3 teachers, almost a third said they mix phonics instruction with cueing — an approach discredited by research. This despite the fact that 81% have had training in the science of reading.
These are huge concerns. Especially in Oregon, which ranks last in nationwide reading scores despite pouring more than $250 million into reading initiatives over the past quarter century.
A superior model
In Arkansas, Colorado, Louisiana, North Carolina, and Tennessee, the state funds high-dosage tutoring for struggling students by contracting with private tutors trained in structured literacy approaches. These tutors meet one-to-one or in small groups with students for 30-45 minutes three times a week. Several other states license AmeriCorps members as "Reading Corps" and "Math Corps" tutors, train them, and send them into schools.
Oregon, by contrast, has elected to train all of its elementary teachers in one research-based program — Orton-Gillingham™ — and require it to be used statewide. The decision caused Park Academy, a private Lake Oswego school catering to dyslexic learners, to ditch the O-G approved program it was using (Barton Reading & Spelling™) and retrain its staff entirely. This seems a waste of money, effort, and most crucially, time.
Not built to scale
A chief obstacle to implementing structured literacy in classrooms is difficulty scaling O-G programs that were designed for 1:1 tutoring. So let's quit trying to scale them. Research shows O-G based tutoring is most effective when delivered intensively in one-on-one or small-group settings.
Private reading tutoring has exploded over the past two decades. There are more tutors than ever earning certifications in O-G based programs — light years ahead of classroom teachers in the science of reading. Why not use them? Why not allow reading specialists to administer the programs the way they were intended — 1:1 and in small groups — on campus during the school day?
Schools routinely bring in specialists to teach music and art. Is reading less important?
Instead of seeking innovative ways to use trained specialists, Oregon is training already overloaded teachers from scratch. There is a potential army of experienced tutors who could come into schools and deliver O-G instruction. Oregon chose otherwise. It feels like a missed opportunity.