Opinion | Why I am so passionate about literacy

In December, I had the opportunity to serve on a literacy panel at the Michigan Charter School Symposium, a conference built for charter professionals that pushes the boundaries of innovation. The data we discussed was sobering. According to the most recent results from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), Michigan ranks 44th in the nation in fourth-grade reading proficiency. Only six states perform worse.

Later that same month, I attended the Governor’s Literacy Summit. The message there was consistent and urgent: Michigan has a reading crisis, but we also know what works. Other states have improved dramatically by aligning instruction to evidence, training teachers effectively, and holding systems accountable.

Alicia Urbain is vice president of government and legal affairs for the Michigan Association of Public School Academies (Courtesy photo)

Those policy conversations matter to me not just as a policymaker and advocate, but as a parent.

My oldest daughter practically taught herself to read. Reading came easily and early. My middle child did not love reading as much, but he still became a strong student. While their school had begun using some cueing strategies, a solid foundation of traditional phonics-based instruction remained.

My youngest daughter’s experience was very different.

By the time she entered school, her classroom relied heavily on picture cueing and balanced literacy approaches associated with Lucy Calkins’ curriculum. Explicit phonics instruction that had been foundational for her siblings was largely absent. She skipped many of the decoding rules her older siblings learned and was instead encouraged to rely on pictures and context clues.

She appeared to be reading. In kindergarten, she even made a YouTube video proudly explaining how she used pictures to figure out words. As a parent, I was proud too.

But by first grade, cracks began to appear.

At the end of that year, her DIBELS assessment, which measures early literacy skills, showed she was significantly below grade level on nonsense words, a key indicator of phonics and decoding ability. No one had raised concerns. When I asked, I was told not to worry. “Sometimes bright kids struggle with nonsense words.”

In second grade, she excelled in math but struggled more noticeably with reading. She received an Individual Reading Improvement Plan, required under Michigan law, but it was generic and failed to address her specific needs. I refused to sign it for weeks, but eventually gave in.

The pattern repeated. She would show small gains, intervention would stop and then she would fall behind again.

By fourth grade, I pushed for further evaluation. A reading specialist trained in the science of reading finally identified the issue: significant gaps in phonemic awareness that years of picture cueing had masked. When the pictures went away, she could not read.

Then COVID hit.

Because her standardized scores remained “average,” no further help was offered. On paper, she was fine. In reality, she was struggling, and reading had become something she hated.

We hired a tutor trained in phonics-based instruction. She worked with that tutor weekly, including summers, for four years. My daughter did not independently read a chapter book without audio support until the second semester of sixth grade.

We were fortunate. We knew what to look for, and we had the resources to intervene.

Most families do not.

This is why literacy policy matters.

Michigan has taken steps in the right direction. In 2016, the state passed the Read by Grade 3 law, which included early screening, parent notification, intervention, and retention for students not reading proficiently. Research consistently shows that early intervention is critical. But COVID disrupted implementation. When testing resumed, the Legislature repealed the law’s accountability and retention provisions. As one educator described it to me, the state removed the “gift of time” for students to receive the instruction they needed before moving on.

Other components of the law remain, but implementation is uneven. Too often, schools comply on paper with generic reading plans and minimal intervention rather than delivering targeted support.

In 2024, Michigan passed dyslexia-related legislation aimed at improving early identification and encouraging science-based instruction. Recent budgets have also funded free science of reading training for teachers who choose to pursue it.

These are meaningful steps. But they are not enough.

Michigan still lacks statewide accountability tied to reading outcomes and there is no requirement that elementary teachers be trained in the science of reading. While policy gaps remain, schools do not need to wait to do what is right for students.

Other states have shown what sustained commitment can accomplish. Mississippi, once ranked near the bottom in reading, spent more than a decade aligning curriculum, teacher training, and accountability. Its fourth-grade reading gains on NAEP now outpace most of the country.

Michigan is a politically divided state where education policy often shifts with elections. That makes discipline and consistency even more important. Reading improvement does not happen in one budget cycle or one administration. It takes time, evidence, and resolve.

In 2026, Michigan will mark 10 years since the passage of Read by Grade 3. Too many systems have not stayed the course.

The path forward is clear: train elementary teachers in the science of reading; adopt high-quality, evidence-aligned curriculum and supplement where it is weak; create real accountability for reading outcomes; and commit to consistency, even when leadership or politics change.

Every child can learn to read. Every child should be taught how. Literacy is not a privilege. It is a right.