At first glance, one would wonder why the second priority on Gov. Kathy Hochul’s State of the State tour is reading instruction.

That should be the purview of the state Education Department and the state Board of Regents.

But, earlier this week, there was Hochul in Watervliet touting her support of legislation introduced last year by Assemblyman Robert Carroll and Sen. Brad Hoylman to require school districts to use the Science of Reading approach to instruction – essentially a return to the phonics-based methods used through the 1990s.

“That’s what we’re doing,” Hochul said this week. “It doesn’t sound like a big deal maybe to you sitting in the front row, but it is. It is, okay? This is a very big deal because for a long time, people realized what was going on was not working, but nobody stood up and said it needs to change. And sometimes it takes a little bit of will and ambition and a bold idea for what our state can be.”

We voiced support for Carroll’s legislation last year in this space, so we agree with Hochul’s decision to focus on reading as part of her State of the State address. Our only quibble is we’re not sure Hochul is going far enough.

The state Education Department could have made the decision any time it wanted over the past two decades to return to phonics-driven instruction. No legislation was needed as study after study pointed out the Lucy Calkins method of reading used for the past two decades doesn’t work as well as phonics-driven instruction. Decades of test results have shown students are struggling to read at appropriate grade levels, yet the state Education Department spent more time changing cut scores and test questions and rubrics only to find proficiency rates remain poor. No one thought to ask the obvious question – is the way the state teaches reading the reason so many of its students can’t read?

Good for Hochul and legislators like Carroll and Hoylman for stepping to the plate.

The fact they had to do so, though, makes us wonder again if the state Education Department and state Board of Regents are capable enough to devise new graduation standards. Parents are being asked to trust new graduation requirements devised by the very same people who have stood by reading instruction methods that don’t work. The need for Hochul’s “Back To Basics” reading plan should have everyone paying more attention to the new graduation standards as they are developed.

In our opinion, Hochul and state legislators should ask another tough question – is it time for wholesale changes at the state Education Department? Given their repudiation of the state Education Department’s chosen methods of teaching reading, the answer, in our opinion, is yes.