The Reading Crisis: Why Illiteracy Threatens California’s Future and What We Can Do Now

The 2024 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) results for Grade 12 reading are out — and the numbers are grim. Only a staggering 35 percent of high school seniors nationwide were proficient in reading. Nearly one in three graduates struggles to draw basic conclusions from a text, a skill essential for everything from voting to signing a lease. These results aren’t just numbers; they signal a crisis that will ripple through our communities, economy, and civic life for decades.

While the NAEP scores capture a snapshot of a few California schools included in the assessment, the state’s own Smarter Balance scores test all students — and the results are not much better. Statewide, 44 percent of 11th grade students (seniors are not tested) failed to meet reading standards, meaning that close to half of our juniors lack basic reading proficiency. The results for minority students are significantly worse, with 61.5 percent of Black juniors and 52.8 percent of Latino juniors not meeting the standards.

California’s leaders seem to have no discernable strategy to improve student outcomes. We have a grave literacy problem, and it’s time to act before another generation is consigned to intellectual poverty.

Let’s start with what’s at stake. Reading isn’t just about books; it’s the gateway to critical thinking, problem-solving and self-reliance. When 65 percent of the nation’s high school seniors can’t read at a competent level, we’re sending young adults into the world unprepared for the demands of modern life. In local communities, low literacy rates mean voters are less equipped to parse complex policies and issues that will shape California’s future. An electorate that can’t read critically is vulnerable to manipulation, undermining the informed consent that democracy requires.

California’s workforce takes a hit, too. The Golden State’s economy thrives on innovation, from Silicon Valley to agriculture. Yet employers in manufacturing, energy, and tech increasingly report that new hires lack the reading skills to follow technical manuals, safety protocols, or even emails. These assessments are warnings to our industries as they struggle to find competent workers who can keep up. In medicine, where precision is the difference between life and death, doctors and nurses must interpret complex information, prescriptions, and research. Illiteracy in these fields risks errors that could cost lives.

Public safety is no different: police officers and firefighters need to understand the complexity of modern law, articulate citizen rights, draft reports that are fundamental to legal proceedings, and communicate clearly with the public. If they can’t perform these duties because of poor reading comprehension, our communities will suffer.

California’s high-cost-of-living crisis is deeply tied to housing and energy policy, and addressing these critical issues also depends on a literate workforce. Planners, engineers, and policymakers must navigate dense regulations and technical documents. If our graduates can’t read at a basic level, who will design the homes we need or innovate solutions to our energy grid’s challenges? The elderly, who rely on clear communication for health care and retirement services, face neglect when caregivers can’t read instructions or medical records. Even military readiness is at stake. The Department of Defense has long flagged declining literacy as a barrier to recruiting capable service members who can handle sophisticated equipment and strategic briefings.

Colleges and trade schools are also feeling the pinch. Admissions offices report more students needing remedial reading courses, delaying degree completion and clogging pipelines to skilled trades. Trade schools, vital for California’s construction and manufacturing sectors, struggle when students can’t read blueprints or safety manuals.

Then there’s the rise of artificial intelligence (AI). On one hand, AI promises to bridge gaps with voice assistants reading texts aloud or automating tasks for those who struggle with literacy. But this is a double-edged sword. Overreliance on AI risks distancing us from our neighbors as we trade human connection for algorithms. A society that can’t read its own history books or engage in nuanced debate loses touch with its past and the societal norms that bind us. As our children become digital natives and lose some of the social touch, ignorance of what roots us in shared stories, values, and traditions could erode the social fabric that holds California together.

So, what’s the fix? Throwing more money at administrative bureaucracies won’t cut it. California already spends over $25,000 on average per student annually, yet reading scores keep sliding. The problem isn’t funding; it’s how we use it.

Bloated district offices, layered with consultants and compliance officers, siphon resources from classrooms. Streamlining administration and empowering teachers with evidence-based curricula, like phonics-based reading programs, yields results. Schools must prioritize foundational skills over trendy initiatives. States like Mississippi, which boosted reading scores through intentional science of reading reforms in K-12 schools and teachers’ colleges, serve as evidence of the efficacy of proven reading methods. When teachers have good curriculum, political support and superior training, kids learn to read faster and better.

The California legislature recently passed AB 1454 (Rivas, Salinas) — a bill aimed at strengthening reading instruction. The legislation is now on Governor Newsom’s desk waiting for his signature or veto. The bill offers a potential step toward mitigating the literacy crisis, if implemented correctly. It requires the Commission on Teacher Credentialing to update standards for Reading and Literacy Leadership Specialists by 2028. It also mandates new K-8 reading instructional materials by 2027, requires explicit foundational reading skills instruction, and builds on $200 million allocated by previous legislation for professional development.

However, the bill’s effectiveness is threatened by the wide latitude school districts have to interpret “effective means of teaching literacy,” and to self-certify that their non-State Board approved materials align with standards. This can be difficult to monitor because the bill lacks a verification mechanism to enforce the requirements, as well as penalties for districts that fail to comply. Nevertheless, if state leaders and the State Board of Education get serious about literacy, AB 1454 can serve as a step in the right direction.

This crisis demands urgency. We can’t wait a decade for much-needed changes to trickle down from a state board of education in California that often slow-walks essential reading reforms, filtering them through bureaucratic inertia or watered down by the teachers’ unions. Community leaders, parents, churches, businesses, and local leaders must rally now to strengthen reading instruction, rather than hoping some mysterious expert will show up and magically fix everything.

Parents have a vital role to play in building an active culture of reading at home. It can be as simple as bedtime stories or reading the news together. Addressing the literacy crisis may also require more choice in education, through charters, education savings accounts or access to tax credits distributed by scholarship granting organizations so parents can seek schools that prioritize effective reading instruction.

The NAEP results are a wake-up call, but they’re also an opportunity. California’s spirit of innovation can tackle this crisis if we act decisively. Let’s invest in our kids, not bureaucracies. Let’s teach them to read, not rely on AI to do it for them. Our civic life, economy, and moral fabric depend on it. Together, we can ensure our children inherit a future where they’re not just literate, but empowered to build a thriving California.

Lance Christensen is Vice President of Government Affairs & Education Policy, and Sheridan Karras is Research Manager, at California Policy Center. 

Originally published September 16th, 2025 and updated September 26th, 2025.