California's shift to the science of reading has moved from law to logistics. Last October, Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 1454, a bill that passed the Legislature without a single no vote, committing the state to evidence-based early literacy instruction and new training standards for educators. The budget set aside $200 million to retrain elementary teachers. In September, the State Board of Education did something longtime observers told EdSource they couldn't remember it doing before: it approved a list of professional development programs, 31 of them, that districts can buy with that money. The California Department of Education (CDE) posted the list ahead of its September 30 deadline. If your child is in a California elementary school, the program your district picks from this list will shape how their teacher teaches reading for years.
What did the State Board approve?
According to EdSource's John Fensterwald, 37 providers were eligible after applying. The CDE hired WestEd, a nonprofit research organization, to run the review. A panel of 29 teachers and experts rated each program on 18 criteria using a three-point scale, for a maximum of 54 points. The board dropped the six lowest-ranked programs and approved the rest, which scored between 30 and 53. Approved programs, per the CDE's list, include offerings from the California Association for Bilingual Education (CABE), the Sacramento County Office of Education, the Los Angeles County Office of Education, The Reading League, CORE Learning, UFLI Foundations, and Lexia's LETRS. CABE and SchoolKit tied for the top score, EdSource reported, and Amplify ranked lowest among approved programs.
How does the $200 million reach teachers?
The CDE says the funds will be allocated to local educational agencies from 2026–27 through 2029–30, distributed equally per full-time equivalent certificated staff member teaching transitional kindergarten through fifth grade. Districts use the money for training through programs on the approved list. That design gives districts real choice, which is also the source of the controversy.
Because the money is divided per teacher, a large district gets a large allocation and a small rural district a small one, but every district chooses from the same list. The CDE has posted program memos and the evaluation rubric, so families, teachers, and school board members can see how reviewers judged a program before the district signs a contract. That transparency is unusual, and it's the best tool parents have in this process. Board meetings where training contracts are approved are public, and one question during public comment ("How did this program score in the state review?") puts quality on the record.
Why do some advocates say the list is too long?
A list of 31 is a menu, not a recommendation. Some advocates had urged the board to approve a shorter list of 17 to 19 programs, EdSource reported, and criticized a "come-one, come-all approach" that fails to signal quality. Evidence that a program actually improves student reading was an optional criterion, not a requirement, and some approved programs showed little evidence in critical areas. "Our educators, ultimately students, including ELs, deserve a list that prioritizes the highest-quality learning," said Yolie Flores of Families in Schools. Board President Linda Darling-Hammond cautioned against "micromanaging the list," and board member Haydee Rodriguez asked the CDE to give overwhelmed districts as much guidance as possible. The board directed the department to publish detailed, accessible information on each program. A 23-point spread in scores is a big difference. Districts that choose from the bottom of the list will still be spending state money appropriately; they just may not be getting the strongest training available.
Why does teacher training matter so much for dyslexic students?
California already screens every K–2 student for risk of reading difficulties, as we covered when universal screening went live. A screener only identifies risk. What happens next depends on whether the classroom teacher knows how to teach phonemic awareness, decoding, and spelling explicitly and systematically, and how to adjust when a child doesn't respond. Students with dyslexia need that instruction most and get the least out of guessing-based approaches. As we reported last month, researchers increasingly describe the problem as implementation, not knowledge: the science is clear, the classroom delivery is uneven. Training is the main lever the state has on delivery, which is why the quality of this list matters.
What should families and teachers ask?
- Ask which program your district chose. One email to the district's curriculum office: "Which State Board-approved literacy professional development program is the district using for TK–5 teachers, and when will training happen?"
- Look up its score. The CDE has posted program information and evaluation materials. Ask how the chosen program scored and why the district picked it.
- Ask about struggling readers. "How does this training prepare teachers to support students flagged by the reading screener, including students at risk for dyslexia?"
- Ask about evidence. "Does the program have studies showing student reading improved, not just that teachers liked it?" Evidence was optional in the review, so it's fair to ask directly.
- Teachers: ask for time, not just a login. Training squeezed into a few after-school hours rarely changes practice. Ask how coaching and follow-up are built in.
What should districts avoid?
- Choosing by convenience. Picking the cheapest or most familiar program without checking its score defeats the purpose of a reviewed list.
- Training without materials. Teachers trained in explicit phonics who go back to classrooms with guessing-based materials are set up to fail.
- Leaving out specialists. Intervention teachers and special educators work with the students who need the most expert instruction. Include them.
- Counting completion as success. The measure that matters is whether students read better, especially those flagged by the screener.
California's move fits a national pattern we've tracked in Michigan's retraining clock and elsewhere: once a state has screening, training becomes the bottleneck. Families who ask these questions early help make sure the money buys real change. For federal context, see what the House-passed Science of Reading Act would add.
Frequently asked questions
What is California's list of approved literacy training programs? In September 2026 the State Board of Education approved 31 early literacy professional development programs for TK–5 teachers, reviewed by WestEd on 18 criteria. Districts can use state funding from a $200 million allocation, distributed from 2026–27 through 2029–30, to train teachers through programs on the list.
Must every California teacher complete the training? The $200 million is distributed to districts per TK–5 teacher for training through approved programs, but the details of who is trained, when, and with which program are largely district decisions. Ask your district for its training plan and timeline; it should be able to answer in writing.
Does the training help students with dyslexia? It can. Approved programs focus on explicit, systematic reading instruction, which benefits students at risk for dyslexia. But programs vary in depth, and evidence of student results was optional in the review. Ask how your district's chosen program prepares teachers to respond to screening results and support struggling readers.
Source: "California OKs long list of options for training teachers in early literacy" (EdSource, Sep 22, 2026) · "Literacy Professional Development Programs" (California Department of Education, updated Sep 29, 2026) · "Governor Newsom Signs AB 1454" (Families In Schools, Oct 9, 2025)