Report: Many Maine schools not using evidence-based reading instruction methods
Maine’s Reading Curricula: A Patchwork Revealed by New Study
A recent report from Educate Maine has mapped out a wide and varied landscape of reading instruction across the state’s public schools, raising questions about consistency and effectiveness. The nonprofit’s analysis, which surveyed 93 of Maine’s 155 elementary‑school‑serving districts, found that 46 distinct curricula are in use—just 18% of districts rely exclusively on programs grounded in the “science of reading.”
The “science of reading” is an evidence‑based approach that emphasizes phonics, vocabulary, and comprehension. Only a little over half of the programs identified in the study claim alignment with this framework. Even among those that do, most districts use a mix of science‑based and other materials; 80% report employing more than one curriculum, with some districts juggling as many as five.
The findings arrive amid growing concern over Maine’s reading performance. Nationally, only 26% of fourth graders are deemed proficient in reading, while the state’s own standardized assessment shows 65% meeting expectations. “At best, more than one‑third of fourth graders are failing to meet grade‑level reading,” the report notes, framing literacy as a top priority for the state.
Educate Maine’s director of special projects, Kim Russell, said the sheer number of programs surprised her. “Forty‑six different programs across 93 districts is a lot,” she told reporters. The study, conducted from September 2025 through May 2026, was driven by the state’s declining test scores and a grant from the Esther A. & Joseph Klingenstein Fund.
Maine’s local‑control model, which gives districts the freedom to choose curricula, has historically resisted statewide mandates. The Department of Education’s “back‑to‑basics” plans for reading and math—launched last October—are optional resources rather than requirements. Beth Lambert, the state’s chief teaching and learning officer, explained that while the department provides guidance and professional development, school boards are not obligated to adopt any particular program.
The report’s recommendations include a push for all districts to adopt science‑of‑reading‑based materials. It also highlights a gap between Maine and the national trend: 43 of the 50 states require a science‑based curriculum, 44 mandate teacher training in the science of reading, and 28 require literacy coaches—none of which currently apply in Maine.
Rep. Kelly Murphy, House chair of the Education Committee, said she plans to meet with Russell to explore legislative options. “Statewide mandates can be an uphill battle,” she said. “But sometimes it’s worth it.” Murphy noted that such legislation would need two‑thirds support in the Legislature and potential state funding, and that it may face resistance from school boards accustomed to local autonomy.
Education Commissioner Pender Makin weighed in on the limitations of standardized tests. “Standardized assessment scores may not reflect the reality on the ground because of hyper‑local curriculum control,” she said. “There are wonderful and hard things about that arrangement.”
Beyond classroom outcomes, Russell points to workforce implications. With Maine’s birth rates falling and school enrollment shrinking, she argues, “We need each and every child to grow up to their fullest potential, because they need to be the next workers in the workforce.”
The report aims to give the incoming governor and education commissioner a roadmap for boosting reading proficiency, a key factor in both student success and the state’s future economic vitality. Whether Maine will move toward a unified, science‑based reading framework remains to be seen, but the data make a compelling case for closer scrutiny and stronger leadership in literacy.
