It’s another Mike Petrilli solo episode of The Education Gadfly Show, and this week he’s tackling some big questions about state education mandates and local control. From recess requirements to curriculum and Science of Reading policies, when should states step in, and when does intervention go too far? Mike looks at how Mississippi and other Southern states have taken a more hands-on approach to improving student achievement and what the rest of the country can learn from their success.
Then, on the Research Minute, Amber Northern examines a new study from Texas finding that Science of Reading certification exams can help identify more effective reading teachers, but may also be shrinking the teacher pipeline.
Recommended content:
- Now states are mandating recess. Really? —Michael J. Petrilli, SCHOOLED
- Recess Is Disappearing. Parents Are Pushing to Bring It Back. —Chao Deng, The Wall Street Journal
- School Is Back in Session, and Recess Is Having a Moment —Emily Tate Sullivan, The 74
- Is state leadership at odds with local control? —Michael J. Petrilli, SCHOOLED
- Pondiscio v. Ryan on state-led curriculum reform —Michael J. Petrilli, SCHOOLED
- Mississippi’s School Transformation —Sarah Mervosh, The New York Times
- Why Tennessee Should Be the National Model for Literacy —Scott Langford, Curriculum Matters
- Louisiana Threads the Needle: Launching a Coherent Curriculum in a Local-Control State —Robert Pondiscio, Education Next
- Texas Has a Theory of Education —Robert Pondiscio, Thomas B. Fordham Institute
- Screen or Barrier? Science of Reading Certification Exams and Teacher Supply in Texas —Andrew Avitabile, EdWorkingPapers (2026)
Feedback Welcome: Have ideas for improving our show? We would love to hear them. Send them to [email protected]
Transcript
This transcript was generated with the assistance of AI and lightly edited for clarity and readability.
Ed Reform Update: State mandates and local control
Mike Petrilli
Hello, this is your host, Mike Petrilli of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, here at The Education Gadfly Show and online at FordhamInstitute.org.
It’s my monthly solo edition. And today we’re going to talk about state mandates.
When is it appropriate for states to take muscular action on education, and when does it amount to counterproductive micromanagement?
Let’s do it on Ed Reform Update.
A recurring question here on the Gadfly Show, in my SCHOOLED Substack, and in education policy writ large, comes down not to the what but to the who.
In other words, for any policy decision related to education, when is it appropriate for the feds, state government, local school districts, individual schools, or individual teachers to make the call?
We’ve surfaced that debate over the past year when it comes to cellphone bans, screen time limits, AI policy, school start times, state takeovers, grade inflation, and teacher compensation.
The latest entrant is recess.
Yes, recess.
As The Wall Street Journal’s Chao Deng reported over the summer:
“Mothers and fathers nationwide are alarmed by dwindling recess time and calling upon school administrators to restore it. In New Hampshire and Michigan, parents have had success increasing recess in some schools and are pushing for state laws mandating it. In New York, some parents say a bill backed by the statewide teachers union requiring up to 30 minutes of daily, unstructured recess time in elementary school doesn’t go far enough.”
Emily Tate Sullivan at The 74 added last month that:
“The momentum around recess has been building for years, with experts raising awareness about the importance of preserving time for daily play as well as grassroots efforts from parents across the country.
“Earlier this year, the American Academy of Pediatrics added to the chorus by publishing an updated policy statement about the ‘crucial role’ of recess.
“‘Our recommendation is whatever time you have allocated in the day for recess occurs rain or shine, snow or no snow, heatwave or not,’ said Cathy Ramstetter, co-author of the AAP policy statement and author of the book Why Recess Matters: The Importance of Unstructured Play and How to Fight for It, which came out in August.
“‘This is time that should not be taken away for academics or for behavioral problems,’ she added, and occurs ‘preferably more than once per day.’
“And many states are taking notice. Tennessee, California, Pennsylvania, and Washington are among the states that have set higher minimum requirements for recess in the last few years. Advocates in a slew of other states are working toward joining them soon.”
Personally, I am sympathetic to these arguments, especially given the likelihood that little boys in particular could benefit from blowing off steam during what is otherwise a quite structured elementary school experience.
But is this really something states should be wading into?
My colleague Chad Aldis, who leads the Fordham Institute’s Ohio policy work, explains:
“Recess is good. So is math. So is reading. So is science. So is social studies. Etc.
“If states are going to set minimum times for everything, please give lawmakers a calculator and a basic understanding of how long the day is. The reading blocks in many states are crazy long. Intervention in many states requires an additional 30 to 60 minutes if a student is below grade level.
“Changing state law is of course an option, but it creates a one-size-fits-all approach. For Ohio, that means 600-plus districts must allocate time the same way. You better be sure that you’re right.”
Precisely.
Which brings us to a key question: What’s the limiting principle?
Not just for recess, but for all these other policy debates, can we come up with some kind of reasonable rules for when states should intervene versus when they should leave matters to local school boards or even school principals?
I see a couple of possible commandments we could follow.
Last week in SCHOOLED, I wrote that dictates are appropriate:
-
If the evidence is overwhelming that a particular course of action is correct. Akin to what Chad argues.
-
If a state mandate can be easily implemented and enforced.
-
If there is an intractable barrier to local action, especially political dynamics that make it unlikely that school boards will do the right thing without a mandate from above.
Tim Daly wrote in to say:
“I like your list of commandments, Mike. If hindsight is 20/20, are there any mandates since 2010 that would have satisfied all three but were not widely adopted by states? Is there any place we under-mandated?”
Which was a good question!
My response:
“In some states at least, I think there’s a case for a minimum starting teacher salary mandate, given how districts continue to fail to prioritize that versus endless increases in staffing. And the evidence that teacher quality matters, which is hard to achieve when we’re still paying $30K.
“I feel the same about differential pay for high-need schools. Won’t happen without state policy, and the evidence is strong.
“I’m comfortable with the Science of Reading bills too, which were overdue. And muscular state action around teaching and learning, and curriculum and instruction, writ large.”
That perhaps is the most controversial one.
Back to my commandments:
Are we sure about the correct course of action on curriculum and instruction?
Can states implement and enforce change on this front?
Is it true that districts won’t act without state leadership?
Maybe?
But maybe not?
That’s why, for decades, many of us in education policy, and education reform, thought these topics were taboo for state lawmakers and state ed-department bureaucrats.
After all, this is the land of local control.
Then a few, mostly Southern, states decided otherwise.
They decided they could just do things.
That’s the story of the Mississippi Marathon in a nutshell.
And it worked!
Carey Wright didn’t respect the timid traditional role of states versus districts, for example, just providing small grants to a few local education agencies to pilot stronger approaches to teaching reading, or using her bully pulpit to encourage local educators to do the right thing.
No, she acted like she ran the schools and used every lever she could find to push a coherent vision of teaching and learning, especially around early reading, from the state capital to the classroom.
That included directly hiring reading coaches and placing them where she thought they needed to go, designing professional learning experiences at the state level, forcing ed schools to change their ways, and leaning hard on local curricular decisions.
Other states in the South, especially Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana, and more recently Texas, have also used parts of this playbook.
It’s similar to what our cousins across the pond in England are up to as well.
And long, long ago, Massachusetts used it to “miraculous” effect, too.
So why aren’t more states doing it?
So far, in America at least, we’re not seeing this approach spread far and wide, or north, east, and west.
To be sure, lots of states have adopted “Science of Reading” laws, and a growing number are enacting bills related to math.
But most are half measures.
Maybe they require the state to publish a list of high-quality instructional materials, but they don’t make local districts follow it.
Or the lists have dozens of entries, meaning almost anything goes.
Or investments in professional learning are too limited to reach all, or even most, schools in the state.
Or teacher preparation is ignored.
In blue states, pushback often comes from, who else, the teachers unions, under the banner of “professional autonomy.”
But there’s resistance in red states, too, as I’ve seen firsthand in Fordham’s home state of Ohio and in conversations with center-right policy wonks nationwide.
Many are still wedded to the “tight-loose” frame first popularized by my colleague Checker Finn.
That’s the notion that states should be “tight” about the results to be achieved, articulated by state academic standards, but “loose” as to how schools and districts get there.
It’s akin to the autonomy-in-return-for-accountability bargain at the heart of charter schooling.
States should evaluate the finished meal, so to speak, not dictate the recipe or cooking methods.
I get it, and spent much of my career arguing for it, but I can’t help but wonder if the Southern Surge states have found a better way.
Just do things.
Just try to improve teaching and learning.
Rather than rely on what can feel like “bank-shot” strategies, using various carrots and sticks to cajole and prod and nudge, why not just go straight to the heart of the matter and give educators clear guidance and direction?
Well, again, back to my commandments, there are several “why nots.”
First, states might get it wrong.
In the long history of American education, countless fads and fashions have whipped through our field, and state education agencies and their leaders have hardly been immune.
What if we empower states to tell schools what to do, and they give marching orders that are misguided or worse?
Second, people don’t like being bossed around, especially those who call themselves professionals and those engaged in knowledge work.
Stripping frontline staff of decision-making authority can demoralize and alienate them.
We don’t want teachers acting like automatons.
They aren’t robots, at least not yet!
So if states are going to follow Mississippi’s lead, they had better get it right, focus on the areas where the evidence is strongest, and embrace some degree of local input and variation so as to keep educators doing their best work and allow for some experimentation and innovation.
States would also be smart to allow for real escape hatches, waiver policies that let schools or districts opt out, and carve-outs for schools of choice.
Back to the question of recess, I don’t think it makes sense to mandate it.
The evidence is strong, but so are the politics.
What teachers and parents don’t want more recess for little kids?
So I think state policy is unnecessary.
Curriculum reform, though, is a place where, despite the challenges, state leadership makes sense.
If for no other reason than that we hear many districts, especially the smaller ones, say they welcome the guidance.
That’s my take, but tell me if you think I’m drawing lines in the wrong places!
And with that, now it’s time for everyone’s favorite, Amber’s Research Minute!
Research Minute: Science of Reading certification exams
Mike Petrilli
Amber, welcome back to the show.
Amber Northern
Thank you, Mike.
Mike Petrilli
And you too, David, since I just went solo.
Welcome, welcome.
David Griffith
Thank you. It’s always a pleasure.
Amber Northern
Have any arguments with yourself?
Mike Petrilli
I actually, that’s funny that you ask that.
I have arguments with myself.
I think listeners will agree that the answer is yes.
I mean, I was trying to talk through, like, when are state mandates a good idea?
When are they not a good idea?
Yeah.
I have these rules, but then I probably broke them in trying to make the case that curriculum reform is a good thing for states to lead on.
Even though it’s pretty complicated.
And there’s danger in states, as we’ve talked about here before, choosing the wrong stuff, right?
And look, we see that.
I mean, just worry about leaving good curriculum off a list or putting a bad curriculum on the list.
You know, this stuff happens.
And guess what?
These textbook companies, you know, once states start meddling in stuff like curriculum, they’re like, oh, well, we should send our lobbyists to go lobby the State Department of Ed to make sure that our book is on there.
David Griffith
Yeah.
Or we should sue them.
Mike Petrilli
Or we should sue them.
That’s right. That’s right.
One last thing, though, I got to say is David did not get the memo.
It is sweater weather, people.
Amber knows.
Amber Northern
I know. I do.
Mike Petrilli
Come on, the weather has turned.
Still wearing a T-shirt, David?
David Griffith
It has turned.
It is nice and brisk outside, I will admit.
I, as you can see, am inside.
So I’m doing all right.
Mike Petrilli
Yes, but you’re also now a dad.
So I would hope that you’ve got it, you know, quite frigid in there.
You know, heating a home these days is expensive.
David Griffith
Oh, my gosh.
Hence why I’ve decided I’m not turning my heat up, but I’m putting a heating pad in my lap.
Mike Petrilli
Nice.
See, there you go.
There you go.
Hey, I can remember, David’s too young, but I remember Jimmy Carter telling us, hey, put on a sweater.
And, you know, if we’re going to have artificial intelligence, all these data centers, maybe we need to wear more sweaters so that we can make sure that all the energy goes to our AI friends.
David Griffith
That’s right.
Mike Petrilli
Okay.
So, Amber, what you got for us on the education research?
Amber Northern
Oh, my gosh, we’re talking Science of Reading again.
This time we got a UVA professor.
Oh, man, he’s digging into these Science of Reading certification exams that apparently 18, no, 20 states now have on the books, require these teacher candidates to take these things.
Apparently the stakes are pretty high if you got to pass them, but there’s basically very little evidence to show that these things actually matter.
So this study actually is pretty important, in my view.
Texas’s SOR exam, certification exam, was required in January 2021.
All new candidates, elementary and middle-grade teachers, have to take this test.
And then grade three through grade six ELA and core-subject teachers also have to take it, which is nice.
So they aren’t just, you know, restricting it to the early grades.
You know, you gotta know your stuff.
Ninety minutes, multiple choice.
They have a cut score, so you know where this is going.
A cut score of 240.
They cover phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension, like all the SOR stuff.
And then they’re able to link these certification exams to employment data and student achievement records.
All right.
So yes, they’re using a regression discontinuity design.
They’re comparing candidates whose score fell just below the passing cutoff with those who fell just above it.
Again, with the idea that, you know, you’re actually estimating the immediate effects of passing versus failing the exam.
And they also use a difference-in-differences design.
And that basically means they can look at how newly certified teachers changed after the SOR requirement took effect.
And that they can look at those same comparisons within the same educator programs compared to the unaffected fields.
Because again, this only affected certain fields.
So they’re looking within ed prep programs too, which strengthens the design.
They’re trying to isolate the change just around this SOR mandate.
And then they look at, I should say, the characteristics of the teachers, not individual teachers themselves, how they changed.
Right.
And looking within the education programs as well.
And then they’re looking at whether these certification scores predict effectiveness.
So, again, that’s pretty important.
And also looking at these Texas Reading Academies, which are apparently some modules that certain programs are using to make sure that they can prepare teachers to take the exam before they sit for it.
Twelve modules, again, covering all the SOR stuff.
So first finding: The exam is actually, quote, a barrier.
I don’t know if that’s the word they use, but I would say it’s operating as intended because, yes, it actually does show you that narrowly failing reduces the probability of earning a teaching certification within six months by eight percentage points, and the probability of teaching the following October is about seven percentage points.
And then when you look at the alternative-certification folks, it’s even higher.
They’re pretty much driving the effect.
And I tried to dig into, like, what’s going on there.
And if you’re an alternative-certified teacher in Texas, you actually have to pass this exam before you can be placed in a school where then you do your on-the-job training and your courses and everything while you’re placed.
But if you’re a traditionally certified teacher, you can, you know, take the test at the very beginning while you’re still doing your coursework, while you’re doing your student teaching, and you can retake it and retake it.
So it’s a little bit more, you know, pressure, so to speak, for these alt-cert folks because they’ve got to take it first to even start their training on the job.
All right.
They can’t run causal estimates by race, so we don’t know.
But we do know, relative to what I just said, that there’s a more racially diverse set of candidates in the alt-cert pool.
And then in terms of the pipeline writ large, they basically said that these new certifications, they spiked right before the requirement took place because the candidates were trying to rush to certify under the old rules.
And then it fell sharply after the new rules, and it still hasn’t recovered five years later.
So that’s just on the pipeline side.
Then on the actual, like, screening side, they found that the SOR exam scores predicted student reading achievement more strongly than other scores on other certification exams.
And I’m like, okay, what does that mean?
Apparently teachers don’t just take the SOR certification.
They take general pedagogy certification.
And then the teachers who are going to teach English specifically, they take ELA content exams.
So it’s associated with slightly better reading performance, twice as strongly, in fact, than these other two that I just mentioned.
And then kids who were taught by teachers who passed this SOR exam on their first attempt performed modestly better.
Wasn’t a huge effect there in reading than the students taught by the candidates who initially failed it.
And then the last thing, then they look into, okay, can better preparation help this, you know, this phenomenon we’re seeing?
Because we don’t want to reduce the standards.
And they found that first-attempt pass rates rose by four percentage points at the programs that offered this Texas Reading Academy thing, which is this coursework in twelve modules, so on and so forth.
But it said it’s preliminary because they only have one cohort that they can look at.
So they’re hoping to continue to follow this.
And I’m sitting here going, okay, why aren’t they all getting that in their regular program?
Why do they have to, you know, get this Texas Reading Academy thing on top of what they’re already doing?
But whatever.
It looks promising.
And I think the thing I was thinking about was, and you guys will remember, our Science of Reading survey for teachers, we actually found a little signal where teachers in states with these reading-aligned licensure tests knew more about the Science of Reading.
So it feels to me like we’re starting to build, you know, a little baby research base here around the Science of Reading certification exams, which seems like we should be doing this already.
It’s kind of common sense, but hey.
Mike Petrilli
It’s good stuff.
David Griffith
It is good stuff.
Mike Petrilli
Thank you, Amber.
Exciting.
This is a form of a state mandate, going back to what I was just talking about, right?
I mean, there is an argument that says, oh, you know, states should just hold schools accountable for results and let them hire whomever they like.
And, you know, look, I think there’s some argument for that, especially when kids get older, let’s say, or you’re talking about career technical education.
You’re getting to certain places where you might want there to be more flexibility.
But in a case of people teaching reading in elementary school, and I guess middle school, the argument is, well, this is an appropriate state role, right?
Especially if there’s evidence that this stuff matters.
What I wonder, you know, with these things, and maybe it’s unknowable, is to what degree is it the knowledge about the Science of Reading versus just teachers who have stronger verbal ability?
Let’s say teachers who are smarter are more likely to pass this test.
And, you know, like, is it the content?
Are you saying that, like, a different kind of teacher certification exam wouldn’t get the same, have these same benefits?
What if we try this with the, quote, science of math, you know?
Amber Northern
Yeah, I don’t think the science, I mean, personally, I don’t think the science of math is near established.
I still don’t know how to define it myself.
I think SOR is unique in that way, given the science that we do have.
And yeah, I mean, like I pointed out, it was at least more predictive than these other certification exams that they’re taking on pedagogy.
Mike Petrilli
Yeah.
David Griffith
Yeah, I mean, I feel pretty strongly about this one, right?
Like, you try to imagine a conversation in the medical field, right?
And it’s like, I don’t know, you know, like, should we let doctors who don’t know where the heart is or, you know, where the stomach is, should we let them, like, operate on patients?
I mean, I get it.
We’re kind of desperate, right?
Like, teachers aren’t compensated as well as doctors are, but this is so basic, right?
It’s really, it’s basic and it’s universal, and it’s just sort of laughable, honestly, that we would let people into the classroom if they don’t know how to teach kids to read.
Like, that just seems, I would rather have larger class sizes, honestly.
And I don’t know.
I also guess I would also say we’re just observing really, like, the short-run effects here, right?
I mean, in the long run, the hope is that ed schools will actually teach their teachers how to teach kids to read, right?
I mean, this should be something that they should pass.
Everyone who’s been to ed school should be passing this with their eyes shut.
Frankly, people who haven’t been to ed school should be able to work it out, to Mike’s point, right?
But it’s just, it’s an incredibly low bar to expect college, you know, kindergarten teachers to understand phonics.
And I think it’s really hard to construct a counterargument, right?
I mean, you talk about the other forms of accountability, Mike, right?
It is so hard to fire a well-meaning teacher once they’re hired.
It is so hard to close down a bad school once it exists.
It is comparatively unbelievably easy to keep bad teachers out of the classrooms, or folks who just don’t have what it takes, right?
And I also think that there’s, I mean, I think I can make a similar point about kind of the knowledge that the profession is building, right?
Like, I mean, I think anecdotally, certainly it really seems like it’s hard to get through to teachers who’ve been teaching it the wrong way for fifteen years, right?
So if you force them to learn it the right way when they enter the classroom, right, and they come in hopefully knowing it, like, that should have downstream effects on the culture of reading instruction.
Anyway, I feel very strongly that this is something states should do.
Mike Petrilli
Yeah.
Well, it is interesting, this question, how do ed schools respond?
Right?
And maybe it’s different in Texas than in other places, given that it’s more of a red state.
But I don’t know.
I mean, initially, they’ll say, well, this is racist.
This is classist.
It’s the kids, you know, it’s going to be teachers of color who are more likely to fail this test.
And therefore, you’re hurting efforts to diversify the classroom, if that’s true.
And then they’ll complain that, oh, you know, the evidence is more complicated than these tests and these curriculum let on.
And I don’t know.
Maybe we should say, okay, the ed school professors and their deans, they all have to pass this test also.
Or else we take their tenure away from them.
Right?
David Griffith
I mean, look, that’s the problem, right?
We have this traditional academic model that just doesn’t work for ed schools, right?
I mean, there was a time when it was understood that these were somewhat vocationally related schools.
They were pre-professional schools.
And you wouldn’t necessarily have the same, you know, expectations around publishing and around tenure and around these other, you know, those teacher prep programs were there to prepare teachers, right?
And that’s what they’re held accountable for.
We need to, in some way, get back to that.
At least, like David said, on the place where we have very good evidence, right?
Maybe that’s a small number of topics, right?
But on early reading, come on.
Amber Northern
Yeah.
Mike Petrilli
Yeah.
David Griffith
Yeah.
Mike Petrilli
We’re all saying the same thing this time.
All right.
Well, that’s boring.
So we might as well wrap it up then.
Ah, no, this is good, though.
And I am glad that we have more evidence that these kinds of things work.
And I do wonder, I mean, you know, you’ve got to ask, like, well, these elementary teachers are also teaching math.
So then there is this question of what should they be tested on when it comes to math?
And maybe it’s a smaller set of things.
We should be more humble about what we know and don’t know on math.
But I can’t believe that it’s nothing.
That there’s, like, right?
We would want to know, for example, that they are decent at math and that they have some knowledge of, for example...
Amber Northern
Sure.
Mike Petrilli
Little kids need to learn their math facts automatically.
I think we know that quite well, for example.
Amber Northern
Yes.
Mike, you do realize we are at Fordham doing a survey of math teachers trying to get at this very thing.
Mike Petrilli
Don’t scoop ourselves.
Come on.
Amber Northern
I’m not saying what we’re finding.
We don’t know yet.
Mike Petrilli
All right.
It’s definitely worth finding out.
Amber Northern
And hello, did anybody pick up on our survey?
I looked at all these policies, and it was the only one that popped.
So I was like, wow, that’s something that was, like, very descriptive survey.
Anyway, it’s nice when you kind of see some things that are found in descriptive studies pop up in more rigorous studies.
Mike Petrilli
I agree.
Very exciting.
All right, Amber, thank you.
That was a great one.
But that is all the time we’ve got for this week.
So until next week.
David Griffith
I’m David Griffith.
Mike Petrilli
And I’m Mike Petrilli of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, signing off.
