Editor’s note: This essay is an entry in Fordham’s 2025 Wonkathon, which asked contributors to answer this question: “What needs to happen next—at the state, district, and school levels—for the science of reading revolution to fulfill its promise and ensure that far more children learn to read well?” Learn more.
Curriculum—even great curriculum—generally doesn’t teach itself. States can mandate the best reading programs available and still fail if teachers aren’t ready (or willing) to use it.
I work with classroom teachers every day. And I believe that, right now, the science of reading (SoR) revolution is in danger of failing. Because across the country I hear teachers asking for help.
Go on Facebook or browse X and you’ll hear a common refrain: “We want to change how we teach reading. We know we need to change, but we don’t know where to begin. We don’t know what to do in our classrooms.”
If we want the science of reading revolution to succeed, we need to start listening to these teachers.
You might think that help is already on the way. After all, most of the newly-passed SoR laws do support or mandate professional development for in-service teachers. In addition, many states are developing lists of approved curriculum for districts.
But here’s the thing: The mandated PD (usually LETRS) is focused on theory and research. It is NOT connected to the curriculum that teachers are being required to adopt. It does NOT even directly relate to day-to-day instruction. In other words, what states are offering is NOT what most teachers are asking for. It is NOT what most teachers need. Knowing the theory and research is valuable (and it’s certainly interesting), but there’s minimal evidence that it changes teacher practice.
And if teachers don’t change their instruction, then the science of reading revolution IS going to fail. You cannot make progress without teachers.
So HOW can we help teachers? If you listen to them, they are already telling you. They need a good curriculum. They need connected, practical professional development that shows them how to use it. And these things—curriculum adoption and connected professional development—must happen at the same time.
In this piece, I will get into the weeds of how to ensure that these curriculum mandates succeed through excellent professional development—and then consider what states, districts, and schools can do to support this work. A lot of these insights are derived from what we’ve learned developing our own professional development framework, Teachers Teach Teachers.
Here’s what it takes:
PD must be actionable. Teachers need to walk away from PD with at least one new routine, approach, or adjustment that they can take back to their classrooms the next day. If teachers don’t leave with something actionable, then the PD is a failure.
PD must be real—ideally with video. Teachers need to see these routines and their new curriculum in action. The best way to do this is with video from real classrooms to demonstrate what strong instruction looks like. If we are going to expect teachers to change their practice, then they need models to analyze and imitate. Live demonstrations, lesson plans, scripts, and student work samples are useful tools too, but they are not sufficient.
PD must connect to curriculum. If your PD is not aligned to curriculum (the thing you’re asking your teachers to implement every day) then you’re wasting their time. Today, most PD is not aligned.
PD must be teacher-driven. Whenever possible, teachers should lead PD. They are the ones who are doing this work every day. They are ones who know how the routines and curriculum work in real classrooms with real students. It’s tempting for district or building leaders and coaches to take charge here, but if you want to maximize the impact, let the teachers lead! Our PD mantra is: When teachers teach teachers, teachers learn!
PD must be ongoing. Teachers need regular, dedicated time for this work. It is not enough to learn about a new routine or practice once and then move on to a new topic. Teachers need to come together regularly to learn new routines, practice implementing them in their classrooms, and come back together to debrief, refine, and learn more routines. Then, the cycle repeats.
So where do states, districts, and schools fit into this theory of PD?
States must: drop the obsession with LETRS training. For a long time, LETRS was the only game in town—and it has great PR. But it also takes two years to complete, is extremely expensive, and most importantly does not improve student outcomes.
Instead, states should invest in things that make teachers’ day-to-day jobs easier. This might look like training and deploying a fleet of coaches, like Mississippi did, to help teachers on the ground. This could entail creating usable, free, and high-quality curricula, like Louisiana has done. It also means understanding the problems with EdReports and developing better curriculum lists. I’ve chosen not to write about this topic here (I hope another Wonkathon entry takes it up!), but states must stop automatically putting every curriculum green-lit by EdReports on their lists.
Districts must: support this work by helping school leadership to develop PD cycles around curriculum and instructional practice. They should incentivize school leadership to normalize filming classroom instruction. District leadership can also help by combing through data and identifying teachers who are having early success with new materials and methods. These are the teachers we want leading this kind of professional development.
Right now, I’m working with a district in New England that is rebuilding its PD from scratch. District leaders are intentionally including teachers, who are jumping at the opportunity to share their practice and build relevant PD.
Schools must: prioritize building school culture around cycles of inquiry and normalize the idea of “game tape.” In other words, get teachers comfortable with filming themselves, sharing it with their colleagues, and talking about it. Leadership can also devote PLC time and staff days to focusing on instructional practice. Teachers need time to do this work and learning.
Hopefully, it goes without saying that there is no silver bullet in the science of reading revolution. If we want it to succeed, we need to do lots of different things at once (including many things I haven’t even touched on here). There is no doubt that success will require a great deal of hard work (especially for teachers), experimentation, patience, and a bit of luck.
But one thing is certain. If the science of reading revolution is going to succeed, we need teachers to change how they teach reading. And for that to happen at any kind scale, those teachers need good curriculum, continuously supported by practical and relevant professional development.
