Whitmer makes ‘science of reading’ training mandatory for Michigan teachers 28%

By Isabel Lohman17%

7/21/2026, 12:05:33 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 14 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Halo Effect, and Availability Heuristic, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 8.2% saturation with 62 hits. Analysis detected 507 faulty-reasoning hits from 755 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 38.7% and a BS Rank of 28% (15,909 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 72.70% of the article peer group.

Michigan elementary teachers will be required to take ‘science of reading’ training 
The state is putting an additional $75 million toward a specific training called LETRS in the next education budget 
Gov. 
Whitmer says seeing results from this change will take time 
Michigan elementary school teachers will be required to take literacy training by the 2031-2032 school year, under a new law signed by Gov. 
Gretchen Whitmer Tuesday. 
The law requires K-5 instructors who teach reading or language arts to receive training and requires the state Department of Education to select at least two vendors each year to provide the training. 
“We all want results for our kids,” Whitmer said at an event in Southfield promoting the new education budget. 
“And none of us is patient about it, nor should we be. 
We want those results fast. 
But here’s what we know: literacy is a marathon, it’s not a miracle. 
The steps we’re taking now are the first steps down a road ahead. 
It will take time, but if we give every child a strong early start, using proven methods, offering extra help, we can ensure that every child can read.” 
The ‘science of reading’ refers to research about how the brain learns to read. 
Sometimes the term is used as a shorthand for an emphasis on phonics, which is one aspect of learning to read. 
Whitmer has said literacy is her number one priority in her last term , and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have called for changes to how Michigan handles literacy. 
Just 38.9% of Michigan third graders are proficient in reading , according to state tests, and the state ranks 44th for fourth grade reading on national assessments. 
Districts were already required to teach in “evidence-based” ways and screen students for traits of dyslexia beginning with the 2027-28 school year, under laws passed in 2024. 
Districts must also affirm that teachers have received information about evidence-based literacy practices and related topics. 
But the law signed Tuesday takes the requirements a step further by prescribing what type of training is required of K-5 teachers. 
The law does not name an education vendor to provide the training, but lawmakers, state superintendent Glenn Maleyko, Whitmer and House Speaker Matt Hall have named LETRS , offered by vendor Lexia, in public appearances or news releases. 
“The budget guarantees that not some, not most, but all reading teachers in Michigan complete training to teach students the science of reading methods like phonics,” said Whitmer. 
Whitmer also signed House Bill 5646 , which requires the state superintendent to only approve teacher preparation programs and grant teacher certificates when certain literacy requirements have been met. 
Michigan also provides funding for literacy coaches , vetted curricula and for support material for students who are struggling in class. 
The state has also expanded pre-K access , which has prompted some public school districts to expand classrooms or renovating buildings to accommodate more 4-year-olds. 
First grade teacher Brittany Floyd leads students in literacy exercises at Emma L. 
Smith Elementary School in Stockbridge, Ingham County, on Monday, April 25, 2025. 
Stockbridge and other districts are investing in teacher training on literacy best practices. 
(Annie Barker for Bridge Michigan) 
How long will this training take? 
The state has already provided $44 million toward LETRS training for those who want to take it. 
Other states have encouraged or mandated LETRS training, and the majority have made changes to reading policies. 
“Today, we celebrate for the students of Michigan!” 
said state Rep. 
Nancy DeBoer, R-Holland in a statement. 
DeBoer sponsored the training requirement legislation. 
“Learning to Read will unlock their futures,” she said. 
“We have come together to support our families, our dedicated educators, and our innovative business community. 
Michigan is worth it!” 
The law requires teachers to receive the training but only if the Legislature provides “sufficient” funding. 
Although the law will require that the state name two vendors, the new education budget includes another $75 million specifically for LETRS training. 
Many teachers across the state have already taken LETRS training. 
As of July 1, 5,684 educators are in training and 7,460 have completed the training, according to the Michigan Department of Education. 
But the training typically takes two years. 
Some schools offer stipends for teachers to take the training or time during the day for the teacher to train while a substitute teacher watches their classroom. 
Michigan teachers with an interim teaching certificate would not be required to take the training. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 8.1%Isabel Lohman: 2.2%Bridge: 3.0%Confirmation Bias8.1%This article: 0.0%Isabel Lohman: 0.4%Bridge: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 6.5%Isabel Lohman: 2.6%Bridge: 3.0%Availability Heuristic6.5%This article: 0.0%Isabel Lohman: 0.4%Bridge: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Isabel Lohman: 0.0%Bridge: 0.2%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Isabel Lohman: 2.5%Bridge: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 8.2%Isabel Lohman: 3.4%Bridge: 6.8%Framing Effect8.2%This article: 0.0%Isabel Lohman: 0.0%Bridge: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Isabel Lohman: 0.7%Bridge: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 2.3%Isabel Lohman: 0.9%Bridge: 0.4%Sunk Cost Effect2.3%This article: 4.9%Isabel Lohman: 5.4%Bridge: 2.3%Optimism Bias4.9%This article: 0.0%Isabel Lohman: 0.1%Bridge: 1.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 3.6%Isabel Lohman: 1.2%Bridge: 7.0%Negativity Bias3.6%This article: 0.0%Isabel Lohman: 0.5%Bridge: 2.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Isabel Lohman: 0.0%Bridge: 1.0%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Isabel Lohman: 0.0%Bridge: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 2.1%Isabel Lohman: 0.8%Bridge: 1.6%In-Group Bias2.1%This article: 0.0%Isabel Lohman: 0.0%Bridge: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 7.7%Isabel Lohman: 2.1%Bridge: 1.9%Halo Effect7.7%This article: 0.0%Isabel Lohman: 0.0%Bridge: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Isabel Lohman: 0.0%Bridge: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Isabel Lohman: 0.5%Bridge: 1.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Isabel Lohman: 0.0%Bridge: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Isabel Lohman: 0.0%Bridge: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Isabel Lohman: 0.0%Bridge: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Isabel Lohman: 0.0%Bridge: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 5.0%Isabel Lohman: 4.9%Bridge: 3.4%Appeal to Authority5.0%This article: 1.7%Isabel Lohman: 0.3%Bridge: 1.0%False Dilemma1.7%This article: 0.0%Isabel Lohman: 0.0%Bridge: 1.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Isabel Lohman: 0.0%Bridge: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 4.9%Isabel Lohman: 1.7%Bridge: 4.1%Hasty Generalization4.9%This article: 0.0%Isabel Lohman: 0.0%Bridge: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 6.4%Isabel Lohman: 2.1%Bridge: 0.9%Bandwagon6.4%This article: 4.1%Isabel Lohman: 3.7%Bridge: 5.6%Appeal to Emotion4.1%This article: 0.0%Isabel Lohman: 0.6%Bridge: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Isabel Lohman: 0.4%Bridge: 1.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Isabel Lohman: 0.0%Bridge: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Isabel Lohman: 0.0%Bridge: 1.0%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Isabel Lohman: 0.0%Bridge: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Isabel Lohman: 0.0%Bridge: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 1.7%Isabel Lohman: 0.6%Bridge: 1.3%Anecdotal1.7%This article: 0.0%Isabel Lohman: 0.0%Bridge: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Isabel Lohman: 1.1%Bridge: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Isabel Lohman: 0.0%Bridge: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Isabel Lohman: 0.0%Bridge: 0.3%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Isabel Lohman: 0.0%Bridge: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Isabel Lohman: 0.0%Bridge: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Isabel Lohman: 0.0%Bridge: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Isabel Lohman: 1.0%Bridge: 0.9%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Isabel Lohman: 0.2%Bridge: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Isabel Lohman: 1.4%Bridge: 3.2%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Isabel Lohman: 0.6%Bridge: 1.7%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Isabel Lohman: 0.5%Bridge: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Isabel Lohman: 0.0%Bridge: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Isabel Lohman: 0.0%Bridge: 0.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

755 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers21%attributed speech600writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageGretchen Whitmer • 19 words • 0.0% coverageGretchen Whitmer • 12 words • 0.0% coverageGretchen Whitmer • 5 words • 0.0% coverageGretchen Whitmer • 13 words • 0.0% coverageGretchen Whitmer • 13 words • 0.0% coverageGretchen Whitmer • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageGretchen Whitmer • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageNancy DeBoer • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageNancy DeBoer • 9 words • 0.0% coverageNancy DeBoer • 16 words • 0.0% coverageNancy DeBoer • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Nancy DeBoer

100%flagged-word coverage
37 attributed words24% of attributed speech45% writer coverage

No manipulation-pattern hits were found in this speaker's attributed words or the writer's voice.

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.