Debunking the Partisan Myth of the “Southern Surge”

Oklahoma’s Literacy Crisis is an Insider Bureaucracy Problem, Not Red vs. Blue

Guest Post by Dr. Rebecca Pellam, Academic Consultant and Literacy Researcher

This Sunday morning, as I sipped my coffee and scrolled through the latest headlines, I stumbled across yet another piece framing the “Southern Surge”—the remarkable literacy gains in states like Mississippi and Louisiana—as a red-state triumph over blue-state failures.

As a conservative educator with a passion for teaching kids to read, I’d love to cheer for a partisan win. But let’s be honest: this red-versus-blue narrative is a lazy oversimplification that muddies the real story. It lets Oklahoma off the hook for a literacy crisis that’s left 73% of our third-graders non-proficient in reading (Oklahoma State Department of Education [OSDE], 2023a; National Assessment of Educational Progress, 2022). This isn’t about politics. It’s about an entrenched bureaucracy that’s squandered $150–250 million over the past decade on outdated, ineffective programs, leaving our kids to struggle while other states soar. Let’s celebrate the Southern Surge’s success by crediting its true drivers—explicit, systematic instruction over politics—and demand Oklahoma learn from it.

What the Science of Reading Really Is—And Why Balanced Literacy Fails

To understand the Southern Surge, let’s clarify the terms. The Science of Reading (SoR) is a body of research showing how the brain learns to read: Through explicit, systematic phonics—teaching letter-sound relationships in a structured sequence—kids build orthographic mapping, turning sounds into automatic word recognition (Kilpatrick, 2015). This contrasts with whole word methods, which treat words as visual logos to memorize (e.g., flash cards without breaking down sounds), and Balanced Literacy, a hybrid that dilutes phonics with cueing strategies—guessing from context, pictures, or syntax. The whole word method fails because the brain isn’t wired for rote memorization of thousands of words; balanced literacy methods add confusion by encouraging skipping sounds for “meaning,” leading to 0.1–0.3 effect sizes in gains versus SoR’s 0.5–1.0 (National Reading Panel, 2000; What Works Clearinghouse, 2019).

The Southern Surge states succeeded by replacing Balanced Literacy programs like Reading Recovery, Units of Study, and Guided Reading with a leadership-driven SoR approach: explicit phonics, aligned curricula, ongoing teacher coaching, universal K-3 screening, and strict accountability. Bipartisan support enabled these reforms, but strong leadership—prioritizing evidence over bureaucracy—was the driver. Oklahoma’s red politics didn’t save us; insiders chose Balanced Literacy complacency, wasting hundreds of millions and sticking with outdated teacher training, stalling our kids for a decade (Oklahoma Policy Institute, 2022; NCTQ, 2023a).

Oklahoma’s Bureaucratic Betrayal: The 2016 OAS Failure

Oklahoma adopted Common Core in 2010 under Republican Governor Mary Fallin but repealed it in 2014 via HB 3399, demanding rigorous, locally controlled standards (70 O.S. § 11-103.6a). Yet, the 2016 OAS ELA rewrite betrayed that promise. The OSDE’s ~18-member committee, skewed 60% toward secondary grades (6–12) with only four on PK-4 reading foundations, leaned toward Balanced Literacy, mixing phonics with cueing instead of mandating SoR’s explicit instruction, despite decades of brain-based reading research (OSDE, 2015b; National Reading Panel, 2000). The result? Vague standards like RF.K.3, allowing “context clues” alongside optional phonics, enabling a justification trap where educators misuse SoR’s Reading Rope to excuse guessing (Kilpatrick, 2015).

The drafting process, starting in summer 2015, involved five revisions with public input periods, but calls for a full rewrite were systematically ignored (Reclaim Oklahoma Parent Empowerment, 2016c; OSDE, 2015b). State-hired expert Sandra Stotsky warned the standards “cannot lead to strong academic outcomes for the state’s K-12 students, no matter what other educational goals Oklahoma is seeking. They are not worth following” (DuPre, 2016). Dr. Lawrence Gray called for “extensive rewriting,” citing insufficient guidance for instruction (DuPre, 2016). Parent advocate Jenni White, co-founder of Reclaim Oklahoma Parent Empowerment, decried the process, stating, “Repealing Common Core means nothing if Oklahoma’s new academic standards are not better than Common Core” (Reclaim Oklahoma Parent Empowerment, 2016a). Prof. Andrew Spiropoulos blasted the standards as “not that different than the Common Core version the legislators ordered it to reject” (DuPre, 2016). Educators at a March 15, 2016, Capitol forum demanded a public legislative review, citing weak phonics (DuPre, 2016).

Superintendent Joy Hofmeister admitted in 2016, “We chose stability to unify educators,” ignoring these calls until the legislative deadline lapsed (The Oklahoman, 2016). The legislative circus culminated with HJR 1070, the resolution to approve the OAS. Amid opposition, only 10 senators voted against adjourning debate on March 28, 2016, allowing the standards to take effect when HB 3399’s timeline ran out. Republican Senator Mike Mazzei—then Senate Finance Chair and current 2026 gubernatorial candidate—warned during the debate that “vague standards will fail to deliver measurable outcomes, wasting resources on unproven methods,” a stark prediction of the fiscal cost of complacency we’ve paid ever since (The Oklahoman, 2016; DuPre, 2016). That choice—favoring insider unity over evidence—stagnated proficiency at 23–27% for a decade.

Insider Failures: Standards, Spending, and Training

Oklahoma’s insiders—11 of the 18 OAS committee members still active in education—locked in failure through vague standards, wasteful spending, and weak teacher training. For instance, Dr. Brook Meiller’s 2015 dissertation shaped English standards like RF.K.3 to enable a range of instructional approaches, including cueing and choice-based methods, rather than mandating systematic phonics, undermining evidence-based reading instruction (Meiller, 2015; National Reading Panel, 2000). Her Norman district spent $150,000 on Fountas & Pinnell’s ineffective leveled books (Norman Public Schools, 2016).

Melissa Ahlgrim’s Putnam City allocated $80,000 to Reading Recovery (Putnam City Schools, 2016). From 2016–2022, Oklahoma wasted $150–250 million (15–20% of $1.2 billion literacy funding) on vendors like Heinemann ($2M PD) and Fountas & Pinnell ($40M libraries), with no gains (OSDE, 2018; U.S. Department of Education, 2022; Oklahoma Policy Institute, 2022). The Reading Sufficiency Act spent $4.5M on Reading Recovery, used in 40% of districts, despite null impact (OSDE, 2020; What Works Clearinghouse, 2019). Joy Hofmeister’s 2017 claim, “We’re building comprehensive literacy,” dodged instilling explicit phonics mandates (OSDE, 2018).

This bureaucracy persists in teacher preparation and leadership today. The 2023 NCTQ report found only 37% of U.S. teacher programs teach SoR foundations, with 25% prioritizing explicit phonics over Balanced Literacy hybrids (NCTQ, 2023a). Oklahoma fares poorly in their report: While Langston, Cameron, and OU score B for reading foundations, UCO (F), OSU (D undergraduate, F graduate), OPSU (F), and SWOSU (D) blend phonics with cueing or teach Reading Recovery (NCTQ, 2023b, 2023c).

These programs produce 500+ elementary teachers yearly, feeding a teacher pipeline producing Oklahoma’s 23% fourth-grade proficiency and 50% college remediation rate (Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education, 2022). Many 2016 OAS committee members, like Meiller (Deputy Superintendent) and Ahlgrim (OSDE Literacy Director), claim a SoR conversion, advocating explicit phonics for dyslexia in the 2023 Dyslexia Handbook and LETRS training (OSDE, 2023; The Reading League, 2023). Yet, Meiller’s responsive instruction framework and Ahlgrim’s Tier 1 guidance retain Balanced Literacy’s core—cueing and choice-based instruction—with systematic phonics limited to RTI for struggling students, ignoring evidence that explicit phonics benefits all (Meiller, 2015; National Reading Panel, 2000).

Despite these claims, insiders co-opt SoR terms like “phonemic awareness” to perpetuate Balanced Literacy’s flawed concepts. Meiller’s 2015 dissertation promotes responsive instruction, prioritizing Tier 1 choice-based methods and relegating systematic phonics to RTI, a stance reflected in OSDE’s flexible Tier 1 guidelines under Ahlgrim (Meiller, 2015; OSDE, 2023). Dr. Julie Collins at UCO sprinkles SoR terms into courses but retains leveled reading and cueing, undermining explicit instruction for all (UCO, 2023; NCTQ, 2023c). This justification trap—cloaking Balanced Literacy’s guesswork in SoR language—keeps Fountas & Pinnell materials in classrooms despite the 2024 Strong Readers Act cueing ban, stalling true reform (What Works Clearinghouse, 2019). Our kids remain trapped in a cycle of ineffective methods.

This partial shift highlights the need for accountability. The 2016 OAS’s vague standards cost a decade of progress, with proficiency flat at 23–27%. While dyslexia efforts are steps forward, true reform requires explicit SoR in all Tier 1 classrooms. As we approach the 2026 OAS reassessment, we must push for a committee free from these insiders, prioritizing evidence over legacy. Our kids can’t afford another decade of excuses—let’s break the cycle now.

Surge States Show It’s Not About Party

The Southern Surge states—Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Alabama—show what works: a leadership-driven Science of Reading (SoR) approach with explicit phonics, aligned curricula, sustained teacher coaching, universal K-3 screening, and strict accountability. Mississippi’s 2013 Literacy-Based Promotion Act mandated systematic phonics and third-grade retention, fueled by yearly coaching, slashing reading gaps (Vaites, 2023). Louisiana’s 2014 Early Childhood Act, launched under a Democratic governor, embedded screening and phonics training, with a cueing ban sealing its success (Vaites, 2023). Tennessee’s 2015 bipartisan standards paired explicit decoding with coaching, while Alabama’s 2019 READ Act enforced screening and phonics-focused professional development (PD), driving consistent gains (Vaites, 2023). These states invested in practical trainings—such as Mississippi’s 52-hour AIM Pathways course and Tennessee’s 60-hour Early Reading Training—replacing Reading Recovery, Units of Study, and Guided Reading with SoR-aligned materials, often through job-embedded coaching rather than lengthy standalone modules (Vaites, 2023; KGOU, 2023).

A review of Oklahoma’s timeline tells a different story: bureaucratic inertia over evidence. The 2014 HB 3399 repeal promised rigorous standards, but the 2016 OAS rewrite clung to Balanced Literacy’s guesswork, with vague standards like RF.K.3 allowing “context clues” over phonics (OSDE, 2016; Kilpatrick, 2015). While Southern Surge states audited vendors, Oklahoma spent millions on ineffective programs like Reading Recovery, yielding no gains (Oklahoma Policy Institute, 2022; What Works Clearinghouse, 2019). Southern Surge states retrained teachers through targeted, practical programs; our LETRS program, at upwards of 160 hours over two years, overwhelms educators without comparable job-embedded support (KGOU, 2023; NCTQ, 2023a). Bipartisan support enabled Southern Surge reforms, but leadership’s resolve—choosing science over entrenched interests—made the difference. Oklahoma’s failures scream bureaucracy, not politics. We must adopt their playbook: mandate phonics, audit vendors, retrain teachers, and hold leaders accountable.

This isn’t about red or blue—it’s about our kids’ futures. Southern Surge states have boosted proficiency by prioritizing evidence. Oklahoma can follow suit, but only if we reject insider excuses and demand what works.

Call to Action: Start an Honest Conversation

For 25 years, Science of Reading research has shown how kids read, yet Oklahoma’s bureaucratic insiders ignored it, wasting $150–250 million over a decade on failed programs like Reading Recovery, stranding our kids in a literacy crisis (National Reading Panel, 2000; Oklahoma Policy Institute, 2022).

Parents and school boards: Start an honest conversation with our teachers and school administration to secure our children’s futures. Check your kids’ spelling lists and homework—do they teach systematic phonics or cling to Balanced Literacy’s flawed guesswork?

Steer clear of partisan traps; focus on the evidence. Urge the 2025–2026 State Textbook Committee to adopt high-quality, SoR-aligned curricula like Core Knowledge over Fountas & Pinnell or Units of Study (OSDE, n.d.b).

Press legislators to appoint a 2026 OAS committee of Science of Reading experts, free from entrenched insiders. With the 2026 elections approaching, let’s choose candidates who understand these issues—leaders committed to our students’ futures, not perpetuating insider stagnation—and deliver the evidence-based education our kids deserve.