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.
The “science of reading” has become the latest buzz in literacy reform, the top priority of state legislators and policymakers who have been further emboldened by recent news of dramatically declining NAEP scores. These relationship between “SoR” and has been hotly debated in every major newspaper in recent weeks; most anyone with skin in the game has weighed in on what policymakers and practitioners should do to improve literacy results.
Multiple studies have highlighted significant progress in four southern states, a trend often referred to as “the southern surge.” As many look to Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, and Tennessee for answers, three critical questions keep popping up for me:
- How did the components of policy drive comprehensive change?
- Who ensures that strong policy translates statewide implementation into classroom practice?
- How has the state created a long term and systematic focus on student outcomes?
Much attention has been paid in recent years to instructional materials. This is an enormously welcome shift, for curriculum has been, historically, left out of such debates. It drives what happens in the classroom—and I have long been one of the most vocal proponents of its critical importance in driving instructional change.
When I was chief academic officer in the state of Tennessee, I oversaw the work to get “the list” of quality curriculum being used in our districts right (and, for the most part, we succeeded with 139 of 147 districts not only adopted materials from the list, but also purchasing materials to be used in every teacher’s classroom). But the presence of a list alone did not change classroom practice. Statewide curricula adoption is not a stand-alone solution. High quality curricula is a critical component and it must be paired with much more—with training, screening, and educator support.
Many legislators have made science of reading training the centerpiece of their efforts to improve student outcomes. Yet “phonics-based” online training minimizes district and teacher investment and doesn’t truly cover the entirety of science of reading transformations needed. As a result, this narrow approach to training too often devolves into a compliance checklist with little impact on student learning. Or even worse, opt-in training allows districts and teacher preparation programs to create and choose your own adventure at what evidence-based instruction should look like. Ultimately, training alone, even strong training, cannot move the needle for kids.
Many states have also launched expensive and isolated coach initiatives where coaches get the training and are then supposed to be the catalyst that changes district practices. These individuals are expected to go back to their district, be the expert for systems change helping district leaders shape their vision and budget prioritization, define principal’s expectations of strong classroom practice, and support the daily instruction of hundreds of teachers. It’s an almost more impossible task that the one we laid on teachers of writing and delivering curriculum!
Literacy screeners are another oft-mentioned silver bullet. And, don’t get me wrong, they’re an important part of the formula. But, as we well know, testing for testing’s sake doesn’t change behavior. (Cholesterol screenings anyone?) Training and understanding how to use data, developing communication tools to share solutions with families, and laser like interventions must be included in screening or it becomes “just another test.”
In other words, there are no quick fixes or singular solution policies that will change student outcomes.
As I look back at my experiences in Tennessee, we had several waves of fragmented efforts. It really wasn’t until our state passed the Tennessee Literacy Success Act and the Tennessee Learning Loss Remediation and Student Acceleration Act, spearheaded by Commissioner Penny Schwinn, that we were able to outline a comprehensive implementation initiative and included deep accountability measures at the district, teacher, and student level.
Tennessee did not take an opt-in or online approach. Tennessee’s training married professional learning in the science of reading with curriculum-specific support. It was delivered through an in-person, cohort-based based model that allowed teacher preparation, school leaders, and teachers to learn and apply what they’d learned together. Additionally, training completion was required for educators to renew their licenses; and thus, this strong implementation model was paired with accountability.
Who ensures that strong policy translates statewide implementation into classroom practice? State education chiefs and their teams usually hold the authority to translate policy into practice, and therefore, they must serve as the key drivers of success. State teams can look to the southern surge states and to models of strong implementation design that include the comprehensive screening approaches, embedded curricula, and training that includes support for school leaders and teacher preparation providers so that they can apply systematic implementation design to their own state context.
And because change is hard, accountability must be effectively paired with implementation. In other words, “high support, high expectations.”
In Tennessee, systematic accountability required districts to post transparent literacy plans published on state and local websites, transparent screening and intervention requirements for K–8 students, educator licensure tied to successful completion of coursework, and ultimately, a third grade retention law. Third grade retention can also not be a stand-alone accountability measure. A comprehensive approach to accountability creates transparency at every level of the educational system.
In Mississippi, Carey Wright, one of the first state chiefs to launch the Literacy-Based Promotion Act in 2013, launched one of the earliest and strongest “science of reading” approaches to transform reading instruction. Mississippi’s ongoing NAEP success can be traced to the sustainable focus of deep implementation and accountability that Carey created over a decade ago.
In Louisiana, John White initiated major literacy reforms in 2012 through the Louisiana Believes initiative that include comprehensive science of reading reforms, and Cade Brumley later reinforced and expanded that work through enacting accountability legislation in 2021 and 2023—creating more than a decade of coherent, continuous focus on improving student outcomes.
In Alabama, State Superintendent Eric Mackey and his academic team have led comprehensive literacy and math reforms since 2018, pairing increased standards with strong statewide intervention programs. Their work resulted in largest jumps in fourth grade math in the country and notable literacy progress.
These state chiefs have demonstrated the challenging leadership required to develop deep and sustainable change in reading instruction. These states have created a reading revolution that has transferred from state policy to teacher leadership that is changing classroom practice for every child. They leveraged comprehensive accountability that ensured families had accurate information, ensured schools had implementation levers to change practice, and empowered teachers to actually use science of reading to focus on student learning.
Penny Schwinn, John White, Carey Wright, and Eric Mackey all embraced a comprehensive strategy in their states. My answer to the question of what’s next for the science of reading movement all comes down to the leadership:
- Who’s going to create a statewide movement and how will a strong and comprehensive implementation drive change in the classroom?
- Who’s will track its progress and hold the system accountable to sustainable change?
- Who’s going to spark a revolution that empowers teacher to use a comprehensive science of reading approach to change student outcomes?
