Last week, I participated in a meeting with other policy wonks, debating (among other topics) whether all states should follow the lead of the Southern Surge rs and embrace a top-down approach to curriculum reform. We’ve tackled kindred questions before, but the discussion remains front of mind, in part because of the Fordham Institute’s new study on the implementation of the science of reading. Robert Pondiscio does a nice job of summarizing its findings, which come from a national survey of K–3 teachers:
In many ways, the survey shows significant movement in the right direction: Most teachers now favor phonics over cueing. Many report having received recent training aligned to the science of reading. Widely respected programs like UFLI and CKLA are gaining traction. Teachers themselves often describe recent shifts toward phonics and explicit instruction as overdue and beneficial. This is no small thing. Frankly, it would have been unimaginable just a few short years ago. (Thanks, Emily Hanford!)
But the report also finds that only half of teachers describe their approach as fully structured and explicit. One in three still report using a “balanced” approach that includes discredited and deleterious methods such as leveled texts and “cueing.” And nearly one in five say they take an “eclectic” or “immersive” approach not necessarily including phonics.
Robert connects the Fordham report to the “Mississippi Marathon,” the topic of a recent AEI webinar he hosted:
One detail from the webinar has stayed with me: Mississippi officials would regularly review lists of which districts were sending teachers to literacy training, and if a district wasn’t participating, they picked up the phone and called the superintendent. That may sound mundane, but it’s not. It’s what seriousness and accountability looks like in practice: Someone notices an issue and follows up. Behavior changes and outcomes follow. Contrast this with the way that too often we think about reform: pass a bill, announce an initiative and funding, hold a press conference, and assume the field will absorb it (or worse, assume the capacity already exists to execute), as if a school is a smartphone receiving a software update.
This, it seems to me, is the heart of the matter. If states actually expect to change classroom practice and boost student learning, they need to exert much more control over curriculum and instruction.
That’s hardly news to some analysts, especially on the center-left, people such as Morgan Polikoff, who has been beating the drum for years about the ways that local control impedes instructional reform and improved student achievement. Back in 2020, Morgan wrote:
Policymakers should not throw out the goal of improving teaching at scale. Therefore, they would be wise to retain the standards and assessments that are now in place. But if these leaders are serious about that goal, they will probably have to be much more aggressive.
What kinds of policies do I have in mind? First, these leaders could take curriculum more seriously than they have in the past. States could require the public schools to choose from among just a small number of curricular options. Teacher-education programs could train teachers in using those specific curricula, and the state could follow up by giving them ongoing training on those curricula. Teachers could be strongly discouraged, or even prevented, from cobbling together curricula from random, unregulated websites like Pinterest (or at the very least, states and districts could curate these kinds of materials)… The Wild West days of every teacher and every school with their own curricula must come to an end.
Morgan still thinks states should be “much more aggressive.” California, for example, should learn from the new Fordham report and make districts choose from a small list of vetted curriculum and professional development providers if it wants to implement the science of reading effectively, he now argues.
Or consider Andy Rotherham’s take on the Fordham study (making the Mississippi vs. California contrast explicit):
Today, lots of states are doing “science of reading” but they may not be doing science of reading. It’s more than phonics. It can’t be challenge by choice for schools or teachers. It requires a comprehensive set of supports and a commitment to knowledge-rich curriculum and teaching. What Mississippi did and what California now says it’s doing in the name of science of reading are not the same thing.
But not everyone is convinced that state “leadership” (a.k.a. micromanagement) on curriculum is smart. Terry Ryan makes the OG reform argument for “tight-loose” instead, using the Cold War terminology of “trust but verify.” In the context of Idaho’s efforts to improve instruction in U.S. history and civics, he writes:
In 2015, the state required students to pass a civics exam to graduate from high school. Over time, this assessment has become more rigorous, evolving beyond a basic naturalization test to include key constitutional principles and foundational documents.
This is a model worth building on: The state sets clear expectations and measures outcomes, but leaves the methods to educators. If we believe in limited government, local control, and accountability, we should apply those same principles to civics and history education policy.
The role of the state is not to dictate every lesson taught in every classroom. It is to set high standards, ensure transparency, and hold schools accountable for results. When schools meet those expectations, they should be trusted with the freedom to do their work….
Mandating curriculum from Boise—however well-intentioned—moves us in the opposite direction, toward centralized control and away from the local innovation that has long defined Idaho education.
We can achieve strong civics education without sacrificing local control. We can promote patriotism without prescribing pedagogy. And we can hold schools accountable without tying their hands.
Terry is speaking for a lot of reformers when pushing back against “mandates,” “centralized control,” and “tying [schools’] hands.”
Partly this is ideological, but it’s also based on a common-sense, real-world concern: What if states get it wrong?
What if, in their zeal to improve teaching and learning, they prescribe curricula and teaching methods that don’t work? After all, until very recently, the field was all gaga over “balanced literacy.” Had states taken an “aggressive” approach a few decades ago, some might have pushed bad practices onto unsuspecting schools and districts.
Nor is this concern entirely in the past. Karen Vaites, for one, has been sounding the alarm about states’ list of approved reading programs, which unfortunately include some bad ones while leaving out some of the best. Reviewing Fordham’s new report, she notes that UFLI is lauded as an effective, popular program—but one that has “faced many challenges getting onto state lists.” In addition: “Benchmark Advance, which is called out by Fordham for its ‘unscientific methods,’ is on numerous state lists, including Colorado, Virginia, and Ohio.”
It reminds me of Emily Hanford’s podcast episode on Steubenville, Ohio, which has gotten great results for decades with Success for All—only to see SFA excluded from the Buckeye State’s list of approved programs. (Ohio’s excellent state supe, Steve Dackin, quickly fixed the oversight.)
So that’s the rub. If states are going to push, prod, or outright command districts to adopt certain curricula, hire certain vendors, and adopt certain approaches, they’d better be right. And though we know a lot about “the science of reading,” we know a lot less than we might want to admit about which particular programs and people are good at getting those practices adopted effectively in real-world classrooms. And if that’s true for early literacy, it’s doubly so for math, civics, and everything else.
And that’s the debate. Should all states follow the lead of Louisiana, Tennessee, and Mississippi and exert greater control over teaching and learning? Or stick with their traditional role of setting standards, assessing student learning, and (let’s hope) holding schools and districts accountable, leaving the rest to local control?
Editor's note: This was first published on Mike's Substack, SCHOOLED.
