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.
In a report that I authored for the Learning Policy Institute, I examined the long, winding, and often perilous journey of state reading policies and found that even well-designed policies frequently fail to translate into meaningful classroom implementation. Teachers and principals emerged as critical links in the chain between the state capitol and the classroom. Yet I found that state strategies for teacher and principal improvement are often superficial, fragmented, underfunded, and overly reliant on external vendors who are not embedded in district operations.
That research led me to a deeper question: Why do most state policies for teacher development end when a teacher and principal are certified and inducted into the profession? This approach is no longer sufficient, given the challenges in implementing science of reading.
To ensure that all students benefit from high-quality reading instruction aligned with state standards, we must rethink the role of the state in supporting educators in every grade throughout their careers. This means building a coherent, long-term system of professional learning that spans the entire teaching lifecycle—from early career to veteran educators. It also means aligning professional development initiatives with state reading frameworks, leveraging research on what works, and creating the infrastructure to support continuous improvements at scale.
Every state has an entity responsible for certifying educators and approving post-secondary preparation programs. In ten states, this function is handled by an entity separate from the state department. However, once educators are certified and complete their induction, state involvement in their professional growth largely ends. This discontinuity leaves a critical gap in the career-long development of teachers and principals to teach reading.
To address this, state legislation should expand the mandate of these certification bodies—or create new ones—to support professional learning across the entire career continuum. A logical starting point would be to extend support for early-career teachers and gradually scale up to include experienced practitioners. Crucially, this expanded role must be tightly aligned with state reading curriculum content standards and frameworks, rather than left to the sole discretion of local districts.
Such a shift would bring coherence and vision to professional development efforts, reduce reliance on one-off initiatives, and replace scattered categorical programs with a more strategic, sustained approach. The Mississippi Department of Education offers a promising example through its state-led literacy initiatives, which demonstrate how coordinated, standards-aligned efforts can support educators more effectively. Mississippi relied heavily on coaches. A new state agency and plan should include incentives for teachers to upgrade their teaching skills including compensation for micro credentials.
I have often thought of directing classroom practice from the state capitol as trying to coax a turtle toward a goal. Too often, state policies often operate at the surface—affecting the turtle’s shell—while the complex, interdependent work of operating schools and teaching students happens beneath the shell. District leaders and administrators represent the turtle’s body, responding to state nudges while managing their own complex responsibilities. But the real movement comes from the turtle’s legs—school sites and classrooms—where policy must ultimately reach to influence teachers’ subject matter knowledge and pedagogy.
My experience in California showed that deferring too heavily to local districts for professional learning led to isolated pockets of success, but more often resulted in widespread superficial implementation.
Author’s note: This essay is based on longer commentary published by the Brookings Institution in June 2025.
