Hidden hope for pandemic learning loss emerges from California classrooms

A new study offers hope that schools can make meaningful progress in addressing pandemic learning loss, especially in foundational skills like reading. The research examined a California program that invested around $1,000 per student annually to train teachers in the science of reading – the study found positive impacts on third graders’ test scores in 70 high-poverty schools. While the full implications remain unclear, the approach of collaborating with educators instead of dictating reforms may be a key insight for policymakers.

The study compared the 70 California schools participating in the Early Literacy Support Block Grant program to a set of similar schools not in the program. Students in the program schools made gains equivalent to an extra 3 months of learning in English and 12% of a year in math – substantial improvements that could compound over time. The program trained teachers and administrators in reading research and used data to guide instructional changes but did not require specific curriculums. This suggests that science-of-reading principles can boost outcomes without controversial policies like holding back struggling third graders.  

The results are deemed "encouraging" by the study's authors, who nevertheless advise caution until more comprehensive data are available. Expert Timothy Shanahan says lasting effects depend on whether schools can sustain growth in later grades. The program targeted K-3 students who likely struggled the most with remote learning yet have years of schooling ahead. Still, a 12% math gain hints at broader benefits beyond reading skills. Demonstrating success across diverse contexts will be critical as policymakers aim to scale effective solutions.

The literacy grant program emerged from a lawsuit claiming California failed to provide “adequate access to literacy” for all students, violating its constitution. While the plaintiffs aged out of early elementary school, the $53 million legal settlement funded training and materials aligned to cognitive science research. 

Researcher Susan Neuman argues the study’s test score impacts seem modest given the lack of details on specific changes that proved effective. However, Professor Becky Sullivan, who led the grant program’s design, will soon expand training to 800 more schools. She aims to influence teacher preparation at the college level and fundamentally improve literacy instruction statewide.

Sullivan emphasized that collaborative discussion to address understandable concerns made all the difference in schools seeing positive results. Imposing narrow reforms often fuels resistance and backfires despite the best intentions. Though urgent action is needed, engaging educators to adapt evidence-based strategies to their contexts may be the smartest path forward.

The study arrives at a pivotal moment of reassessing how best to help students recover from the pandemic, especially those from low-income families most impacted by school closures. Intensive tutoring programs can produce substantial learning gains but cost thousands per student, which limits scalability. In contrast, the California reading program kept expenses reasonable while lifting outcomes for entire schools.

Moving forward, policymakers face difficult tradeoffs between investing limited budgets in targeted interventions versus systemwide improvements. While more costly on a per-student basis, well-designed tutoring offers a clearer roadmap to translate research into student progress. On the other hand, revamping foundational instruction could elevate performance more broadly if implemented effectively.  

Unfortunately, education research often fails to provide definitive answers to guide policy. However, the California study offers encouraging signs that literacy skills can improve across high-poverty schools without devising brand-new solutions.