Methods

The Albert Shanker Institute Literacy Legislation dataset contains 438 bills as of September, 2025. We update the data periodically as new bills get enacted into law, code them accordingly, and indicate the date of the last update in all our materials and throughout our site. Our team is currently coding legislation introduced in 2025.

We used Quorum, a public affairs software program that tracks state and local legislation, to retrieve bills with search terms such as reading, literacy, science of reading, curriculum, and dyslexia. Occasionally, this search captures unrelated bills—for example, those on financial or media literacy—which are typically removed as they represent a different domain. At times, this search captures minor as well as budget bills. We include a field that allows us to include or exclude these bills in our analysis. We think it is important to cast a broad net so as not to miss any potentially important piece of legislation but we also include means to parse out the legislation depending on what we are analyzing.

To develop our coding scheme, we drew from current literature (see our first report for a description) and policy trends to create a codebook of more than 50 fields. Our team revises this codebook periodically by examining a sample of new bills each year to ensure that salient topics – e.g., artificial intelligence – are not overlooked. The research team then refines procedures, definitions, and related terms as necessary based on a sample from the latest round of legislation.

Several postgraduate research assistants have been trained in our coding system and have participated in coding bills over the years. To establish reliability, coders first practice-code several bills and then discuss their decision-making processes to develop a shared understanding. Each coder is then assigned two bills to code independently, after which inter-rater reliability using Cohen’s Kappa is calculated. We follow the conventional interpretation of Kappa values: slight (0.01–0.20), fair (0.21–0.40), moderate (0.41–0.60), substantial (0.61–0.80), and almost perfect (0.81–1.00). The research team aims for at least 0.61 or higher, indicating substantial agreement, before moving forward. Once this threshold is met, the remainder of the bills are divided among coders, with periodic reliability checks conducted to ensure reliability remains within the desired range. Across coding cycles, the team has consistently achieved 0.78 or higher, reflecting substantial to near-perfect agreement.

Because the level of detail with which legislation covers a given topic varies considerably across states, our coding distinguishes between bills that simply mention a topic (coded as 1) and those that include more detailed provisions on that topic (coded as 2). To illustrate how we make 1 vs. 2 decisions, we describe our coding decisions for leadership, professional development, tutoring, and family engagement below:

Leadership

We assigned a 2 in ”school leadership” when the bill discussed at least one of the following:

• Current school leaders receive training in scientifically based reading instruction.
• Leadership preparation programs provide training in scientifically based reading instruction.
• School leaders act as a support system for teachers regarding reading instruction.
• School leaders work with coaches or specialists to improve reading instruction.

All other mentions of school leadership (e.g., school leaders notify parents about reading-related topics such as grade retention, test scores) received a 1.

Professional Development

Mentions of professional development received a 1 unless the bill addressed one or more of the following, in which case the bill was assigned a 2:

• Detailed description of the reading PD content.
• Description of who would be receiving the reading PD.
• Description of when the PD would take place, its format and other details.
• Whether the PD is aligned to standards, curriculum or assessments.

Tutoring

Mentions of tutoring received a 1 unless the bill addressed one or more of the following, in which case the bill would be assigned a 2:

• Description of which students will receive reading tutoring.
• Requirements and qualifications for who can serve as a reading tutor.
• Description of the training that reading tutors will receive.
• Specific locations/times for tutoring are listed.

Family Engagement

Mentions of family engagement received a 1 unless the bill addressed one or more of the following, in which case the bill was assigned a 2:

• Description of specific reading strategies families can use with their child.
• The creation of family or home literacy plans to  support reading.
• The creation of family events or services to support reading.
• Specific training for families to support their child’s reading.
• Home visits to support family reading efforts.