Something wasn鈥檛 adding up in . Students were making strong gains in reading in kindergarten and first grade. They were developing foundational skills and, for the most part, reading accurately. But as students moved across second and third grades, growth became stagnant and the end-of-grade reading proficiency began to decline.

After taking a deep dive into the data, district leaders discovered that the challenge wasn鈥檛 necessarily whether students could read the words in front of them. In fact, many could. The concern was fluency and automaticity. Students weren鈥檛 reading at a pace and with the ease needed to devote their attention to understanding what they were reading.

For , Davidson County Schools鈥� director of elementary education and federal programs, the data pointed to a disconnect. The teachers had participated in training to deepen their understanding of how children learn to read, and the district had a core foundational curriculum with aligned support. But Davidson County did not have a comprehensive core reading program that pulled together vocabulary, syntax, knowledge building, fluency, and comprehension.

And the deeper they looked, the more the question shifted from: What are students missing, to what do teachers need to help students get there?

From knowing to doing

Davidson County educators had already invested considerable time in learning about the science of reading. Willard described LETRS as 鈥渟ome of the best professional learning鈥� she had experienced. Instructional coaches studied 鈥溾�� by Nancy Lewis Hennessy. Principals, assistant principals, and coaches examined research together. And most recently, more than 200 teachers were invited to learn from about the role knowledge plays in reading comprehension.

There were plenty of moments when educators could see the connections between what they were learning and what students needed. But seeing those connections was one thing. Translating them into daily instruction was another.

Without a comprehensive curriculum, teachers still had to find and evaluate quality texts, determine how those texts could build knowledge across a topic, plan explicit vocabulary and syntax instruction, incorporate comprehension routines, and connect it all to grade-level standards.

Amber Fitts, an early literacy specialist with the Department of Public Instruction鈥檚 , saw that challenge as she worked alongside instructional coaches. They were developing a deeper understanding of what effective comprehension instruction should include. The harder part was envisioning what all of it looked like when a teacher stood in front of students on Monday morning.

鈥淭here are wonderful things鈥� in LETRS, Fitts said. 鈥淲e know what to do, but teachers don鈥檛 always know how to make it happen in the classroom.鈥�

It wasn鈥檛 that teachers didn鈥檛 want to do the work. They needed a way to make all the pieces fit together.

The more Davidson County learned, the clearer the gap became. Educators were building the knowledge. What they needed was a way to turn that knowledge into practice, and the district had to decide how to help them do it.

What if we build it ourselves?

One option was to purchase a comprehensive core reading program. But for Davidson County, Willard estimated that could cost close to $1 million. District leaders also felt they didn鈥檛 have time to wait for someone else to solve the problem.

鈥淲e couldn鈥檛 wait on money to come for an adoption,鈥� Willard said. 鈥淲e had to do the work ourselves.鈥�

There was urgency behind that decision. Third grade reading proficiency had fallen below the state average, something Willard said was unheard of in a district accustomed to performing at or above the state average in its elementary subjects.

鈥淲e knew there was a disconnect,鈥� she said. 鈥淎nd we had to figure out where that disconnect was.鈥�

So, they did.

Willard approached Fitts with an idea: What if Davidson County Schools created their own knowledge-building units?

The goal wasn鈥檛 simply to create another collection of lessons. They wanted something that could bring together what teachers had learned through LETRS with vocabulary, syntax, fluency, comprehension, and knowledge building, while also giving teachers the texts and instructional structure to make all of it manageable in the classroom. And if teachers were going to be expected to use the units, Willard believed teachers needed to help build them.

The district invited educators to apply for a design team and began with third grade, where the data suggested the need was greatest. Teachers worked through the summer and continued throughout the school year, creating units designed, as Willard described them, 鈥渇or teachers by teachers.鈥�

The team also made an intentional decision to connect the units to science and social studies standards, two subjects that can get squeezed out of the elementary school day when time is limited. Yet those subjects offer something essential to literacy development: opportunities for students to build the background knowledge they need to understand increasingly complex texts. Instead of asking teachers to choose between literacy and content, the team began looking for ways to build both at the same time.

Changing more than the curriculum

Creating the units was one thing. Using them required teachers to rethink some familiar approaches to reading instruction.

A teacher might traditionally spend time teaching main idea with one text, pull another text for more practice, and then move on to the next standard. The new units asked teachers and students to stay with texts longer. Students reread. They examined vocabulary and sentence structure. They built knowledge around a topic. And they encountered multiple reading standards within the same text rather than approaching comprehension as a series of isolated skills.

For Willard, that shift was particularly important because fluency had been part of what the district saw in its third grade data. Students didn鈥檛 necessarily need an endless supply of new passages. They needed opportunities to go deeper into the text already in front of them.

The texts themselves presented another shift. They were intentionally more challenging to stretch learning growth.

The team considered both quantitative and qualitative measures of text complexity, sometimes selecting texts with Lexile measures one or two grade levels above third grade. The expectation wasn鈥檛 that every child should be able to pick up those texts and read them independently. Teachers would provide the scaffolding, particularly early in the year, so students could engage with complex ideas and language while continuing to receive foundational reading instruction based on their individual needs during another part of the school day. Still, teachers noticed.

鈥淭his text, it鈥檚 too hard,鈥� Willard remembers hearing repeatedly during the first quarter.

For veteran third grade teacher Jill Hunt, the adjustment wasn鈥檛 only about the texts. After years in the classroom, she had accumulated favorite books, lessons, and activities. Now she was being asked to use lessons that were much more scripted than what she was accustomed to. There was some hesitation. But there was also a willingness to give it a try and to do it well.

Repeated reading began giving students another way into difficult text. A child who couldn鈥檛 initially read a grade-level passage independently could listen to it, discuss it, build knowledge around it, encounter its vocabulary, and then return to it again. After several readings, that same student might begin reading portions with a partner or more independently.

The text hadn鈥檛 gotten easier. The students鈥� access to it had changed.

Teacher perspectives and practices were changing, too. Rather than introducing multiple instructional strategies in quick succession, the units purposefully slowed the process down.

Teachers might concentrate on sentence parsing throughout one quarter before moving to sentence anagrams during the next. That repetition gave teachers time to become comfortable with a practice and students time to internalize the routine.

Instructional coach Tina Hampton saw that shift among teachers who had completed LETRS. Initially, she heard comments like, 鈥淚 already do this.鈥� But as teachers began using the units, they started to see the difference between incorporating a practice and going deeply enough with it to change what students could do.

Leveling the playing field for teachers, too

As the units moved into classrooms, Davidson County began seeing another effect it hadn鈥檛 necessarily set out to create. Teacher experience across the district varied considerably. Some classrooms were led by veteran teachers like Hunt, who had taught third grade for years. Others were led by beginning teachers, teachers new to the grade level, or educators entering classrooms through alternative licensure pathways. That variation mattered.

A veteran teacher might have years of instructional knowledge and materials to draw upon. A teacher hired in October who had never taught a tested grade might be trying to figure out what strong comprehension instruction looked like while simultaneously learning how to run a classroom. The units provided both teachers with a common foundation.

At , Principal could walk from one third grade classroom into another and recognize the same explicit vocabulary routines and instructional structures. The teachers weren鈥檛 identical. Their experience wasn鈥檛 identical. But students were encountering common language, routines, and expectations. Beasley saw that as a way to create more equitable instruction for students.

Willard began seeing something else in it, too.

鈥淲e talk about leveling the playing field for kids,鈥� she said, 鈥渂ut we forget teachers.鈥�

For newer teachers, the detailed lessons could serve as a scaffold. One newly hired third grade teacher used the units almost as a script, Willard recalled, and the instructional results surprised her. Veteran teachers didn鈥檛 always need the same level of support. But they, too, had access to the common routines, texts, and instructional expectations.

The district had started by trying to address a student learning problem. Along the way, it was also confronting a systems question: How do you make strong instruction less dependent on the experience level of the individual teacher?

Building the plane while flying it

Davidson County Schools didn鈥檛 have a polished curriculum waiting at the end of the process. The district was creating the units while teachers were using them. Willard and Fitts continuously reminded stakeholders that they were 鈥渂uilding the plane as they were flying it.鈥�

Each quarter, teachers used the materials and provided feedback. The design team listened, revised, and released the next round.

At the end of the school year, teachers were asked to look back across the entire experience and provide feedback again. The team reconvened during the summer and made more changes.

That feedback loop became important to teacher buy-in. Teachers weren鈥檛 simply asked what they thought. They could see their feedback reflected in what came next.

School leaders were part of the process, too. Willard had been clear from the beginning that the third grade units weren鈥檛 optional. The data, she believed, showed that the district could not continue doing what it had always done and expect a different result. But a mandate alone wasn鈥檛 going to change classroom practice.

Principals spent time examining the data and understanding why the district was making the shift. They carried that understanding back into their schools, into PLCs (professional learning communities), classroom observations, and conversations with teachers.

And then something began happening that the district hadn鈥檛 mandated. Fourth grade teachers started asking for the units.

鈥淲hy can鈥檛 we have something like that?鈥� Willard remembers them asking.

The work began expanding into fourth grade. At Davis-Townsend, fifth grade teachers wanted in, too.

What had started as a required response to a third grade reading problem was beginning to spread because teachers were asking to be part of it.

And within one year, third grade reading proficiency increased 10 percentage points.

鈥淲e are proud of the progress our third grade students have made,鈥� Willard said. 鈥淭his growth reflects the hard work of our students, the dedication of our teachers, and the continued support of our families.鈥�

But she was quick to add that the gains are not the finish line.

鈥淲hile we are pleased with these gains, we know our work is not done,鈥� Willard said. 鈥淲e remain committed to strengthening literacy instruction through expanding our ELA Knowledge Building Units into other grade levels, providing targeted support, and ensuring that every student develops the reading skills and knowledge needed for continued success.鈥�

Davidson County School鈥檚 story started with declining third grade reading scores. But somewhere along the way, the problem the district was trying to solve became bigger than a test score.

North Carolina has invested heavily in helping teachers understand the science of reading. This district鈥檚 experience raises the question of what comes next: What does it take to move that knowledge from professional learning into daily classroom practice consistently, across teachers, classrooms, and schools?

Davidson County School leaders didn鈥檛 answer that question with another training or wait for a finished solution. They started with the data and brought teachers into the work. They tried something, listened, changed it, and tried again. The plane is still being built. But now, more teachers are asking to get on.

This first appeared on and is republished here under a .

She . Even before she could report to the classroom, airplanes had struck the World Trade Center. The next year, she became a full-time history teacher at the High School for Environmental Studies. This year marks her 25th educating students there about the 9/11 terrorist attacks and their aftermath.

Rosenberg鈥檚 first few years teaching about the attacks meant remembering an experience she shared with her students. There were school assemblies and moments of silence. But Rosenberg鈥檚 lessons gradually shifted from sharing memories to having students interview their parents about their recollections. 

By the 15th anniversary of 9/11, the students in her classes didn鈥檛 personally remember 9/11. About 10% of adults today were born after 2001, according to a recent report. Of those who are between the ages of 18 and 24, 60% first learned about 9/11 in class or through school assignments. 

鈥淲hat’s starting to get different now is the growing share of parents who weren’t around for it either, or weren鈥檛 old enough to be aware,鈥� she said. 鈥淭his whole firsthand memory pipeline [of 9/11] in the household is thinning. That’s why I think it鈥檚 more important than ever to learn about it, because there’s so many different threads to unpack 鈥� how it relates to the current day and where we are today as a country and a world.鈥�

An found that while at least 40 states currently expect or suggest that schools address 9/11 in some way, education standards vary widely in scope and framing. Some don鈥檛 specify what to teach. 

A 2019 University of Wisconsin-Madison of secondary school teachers found that educators usually spent a short period of time on the topic 鈥� often on the anniversary 鈥� and that it was common for the narrative to be oversimplified. 

States that have revised their standards to expand instruction around 9/11 in the past few years include Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Louisiana, South Dakota and Utah. A 2024 requires fifth graders to track U.S. military conflicts, including those after 9/11, while juniors have to evaluate the country鈥檚 response to the terrorist attacks.

In 2022, Arizona lawmakers a requirement that every public school devote time to 鈥渁ge-appropriate education鈥� on 9/11 around the anniversary. But the law was three years later to limit instruction to grades 7 to 12.

Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Kansas, Kentucky, New Hampshire and North Dakota have education standards that suggest the topic for consideration in classrooms. A few states, such as Wyoming, Washington and Vermont, don鈥檛 have any requirements at all, and Minnesota doesn鈥檛 mention 9/11 in its guidelines, according to the Associated Press analysis.

鈥淧olicy helps, and [9/11] being in the standards helps because, to me, the biggest challenge of 9/11 is there’s not a single aspect of the story that isn’t complicated,鈥� said Jennifer Lagasse, education programs director at The National September 11 Memorial & Museum in New York City. 鈥淲here do you start the story? How do you make it age-appropriate? I fully understand why it feels like it might be easier not to talk about it, but if our students aren’t getting their information from us, the question becomes: Where are they getting their information?鈥�

In New York, eighth graders are expected to learn about 9/11鈥檚 effects on national security, the Patriot Act, the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and the war on terror. Sophomores and juniors analyze global security and the government鈥檚 reaction to the attacks. 

The museum has published 9/11 lesson plans for teachers across the country to use for many years, Lagasse said. Its latest for the 25th anniversary.

鈥淲e have reinvested in laying a factual foundation of what happened on 9/11, because students are coming in with no lived knowledge and sometimes less received knowledge,鈥� Lagasse said. 鈥淚t’s crazy to think that it’s already been 25 years, which is a full generation. But at the same time, that means that 9/11 hasn’t made it into all of the history books or curriculums yet. So the amount of formal education that students are receiving can be very uneven.鈥�

Lagasse said new teachers are also coming into the classroom without personal experience of 9/11, making it harder to educate children about the subject. 

Rosenberg said it鈥檚 become more difficult to teach about the terrorist attacks because students view it as just another tragedy that happened a long time ago, like Pearl Harbor and President John F. Kennedy鈥檚 assassination, rather than an event that occurred in the recent past.

It鈥檚 also hard to get to events that happened in 2001 when American history lessons begin in 1492, she said.

鈥淏ut even if you do, you’re going to have to rush through a lot,鈥� Rosenberg said. 鈥淚 think that it’s so important that kids understand the past 25 years of history, because 9/11 has 鈥� without them even realizing it 鈥� shaped their world, from ICE to the wars that we’re engaged in, to Islamophobia and civil liberties issues. The fact that we don’t have a lot of time to talk about that day, let alone recent history, is a big concern.鈥�

In the 2019 , researcher Jeremy Stoddard found that of the 1,047 surveyed teachers, 50% who taught U.S. history said they provided instruction about Islamophobia or anti-Muslim attitudes. About 86% reported teaching about terrorism and 75% about Osama Bin Laden, mastermind of the terrorist attack. 

鈥淥ur research suggests a major issue in how the majority of secondary school social studies teachers in the U.S. teach about the events of 9/11 and [the war on terror],鈥� the report said. 鈥淭here is little historical context or depth in their engagements with students. Further, by continuing to focus on 9/11 as a memorial event and emphasis on heroes and Muslim villains, with the U.S. as victim, teachers have likely reinforced rather than challenged the endemic anti-Muslim sentiment.鈥�

On Friday 鈥� the second day of school in New York City 鈥� Rosenberg will dedicate a full day of instruction to topics around 9/11. She said she plans on covering issues like foreign policy and the Islamophobia that followed the attack. 

鈥淵ou can hold those truths that it was a tragic, awful day, but also you know it was awful what happened afterward,鈥� she said. 鈥淚 think that not teaching all of that and just teaching it as a horrific day for America because people died and then moving on doesn’t tell the whole story 鈥� especially for kids to understand it and the complexity of history.鈥�

This is the crux of the curriculum implementation gap. It’s not a teacher problem. It’s not a curriculum problem. It’s a leadership problem, and it’s one most districts don’t see until they鈥檝e already spent millions and fallen behind.

As a former middle school principal who has spent my career developing the leaders schools and districts need, I have seen how critical it is that principals are an integral part of instructional improvements. They are the connective tissue between curriculum intent and classroom reality. They as much influence, if not more, on student learning as teachers do. Without including them, districts navigating will never get their money鈥檚 worth out of new research-based literacy or math curriculums, or curriculum-focused professional learning for teachers.

There is much that can be done at the state and local , from improving principal preparation programs to increasing funding for school leader professional development. In the meantime, districts can make a few immediate changes to better position principals to lead their schools in getting the most out of their investment in high-quality curriculum.

First, meaningfully involve school leaders in choosing the right curriculum for their district. In most cases, district leaders drive the curriculum selection process, according to . Principals have a unique perspective on students鈥� learning needs and the kinds of professional development teachers have already received, making them an essential part of the conversations about which instructional materials are right for the school. They should be included in meetings with curriculum developers, so they can ask the hard questions about how those particular instructional materials will suit their teachers and their students, and given a say in deciding what will work for their schools. 

Second, give principals real time to learn the materials themselves. While teachers increasingly get learning opportunities grounded in their new curriculum, principals rarely have the chance to meaningfully grapple with the instructional materials, such as by studying and annotating complex texts and co-planning lessons. But they need to become experts in the materials so they can help their teachers get better at using and adapting the curriculum to meet the students’ needs. My organization has seen a real difference in schools when principals regularly participate in professional learning communities, coaching conversations and discussions with educators about what is and isn鈥檛 working, and why.

District leaders can ensure principals have dedicated time for this deep, hands-on work by reducing their administrative burdens, such as by having central office staff handle compliance tasks that don’t require the principal’s attention, and establishing predictable and consistent communications with school leaders, such as a weekly email. They should set clear expectations that principals spend significant time in classrooms working alongside teachers to strengthen instruction. And rather than holding district-led meetings where system leaders provide updates, they should use those times together to refine classroom observation and feedback practices and examine how principals are using data to monitor how changes to instruction affect student learning.

Third, shift the focus of classroom observation from compliance to quality. Teachers make real changes to their practice when they get meaningful, real time feedback. As principals develop a deep understanding of the instructional materials, they must also shift from using classroom observations as a compliance exercise 鈥� making the minimum required number of visits during the year with a checklist of basic expectations 鈥� to regularly stopping into classrooms to examine the quality of instruction. That means assessing how students are using the materials sitting on their desks and whether they are pushing real learning. How is the teacher tailoring the content to provide multiple ways for kids with different learning styles to engage? Are students discussing the material and challenging one anothers鈥� thinking? Whether through classroom walkthroughs and coaching with district instructional leaders or professional learning communities, principals must build the skills to truly understand surface level versus impactful use of curriculum. It鈥檚 one of the most important, and least expensive, investments a district can make.  

Fourth: make feedback specific and anchored to student learning. Classroom observations are only as useful as the feedback that follows. By knowing the curriculum intimately, principals can clearly and directly connect what they saw in the classroom 鈥� from the questions teachers asked students to the classwork they engaged in and their discussions 鈥� to the relevant pieces of the instructional materials. This kind of feedback can happen in one-on-one coaching conversations as well as in meetings to which teachers bring student work. The discussion should focus on where instruction broke down. What did and didn鈥檛 work? Where and how should the curriculum be adjusted? 

Fifth, get everyone speaking the same language. To ensure there is exceptional teaching in every classroom, everyone in the district and the school 鈥� from operations and instructional teams to schedule developers and recess aides 鈥� need to understand how student learning intersects with their work. How can business managers keep instructional goals top of mind when making budgetary decisions? Do schedulers understand instructional priorities well enough to use them to inform their efforts? The principal is central to ensuring that all the adults in the building knows how student learning goals can shape their work.

As districts prepare for the next school year with lingering questions about funding, it鈥檚 critical that they get their money鈥檚 worth from the investments they鈥檝e made. Putting principals at the center of efforts to adopt new and better curriculum is an essential step toward getting the most out of the millions already spent. Principals are key to marrying vision with reality on the ground. They should be treated as such.

But here鈥檚 what it feels like from his seat. In his classroom, his teacher references a 鈥渟ilent e,鈥� but the intervention software calls it a 鈥渕agic e.鈥� His tutor uses different hand signals and follows a different skills sequence. Supports meant to reinforce classroom learning are unintentionally cutting against that, leaving him to sort it out alone.

When a student hasn鈥檛 mastered something in class, the standard response has been to try a fresh approach 鈥� a different program, a new strategy. But evidence from Knox County Schools in Tennessee suggests the opposite: What they need is more of the same.

Last year, Knox County conducted a , the 鈥済old standard鈥� of education research. Students below the 40th percentile on literacy assessments were randomly assigned to one of two tutoring models. Both received the same amount of tutoring time and similar support. The difference was the curriculum.听

One group used off-the-shelf materials designed specifically for intervention. The other received tutoring built around the high-quality instructional materials used in their regular classroom. Content was delivered with scaffolding and pre-teaching, in groups no larger than four students who met at least three times weekly to ensure intervention kept pace with classroom instruction.

When Accelerate staff visited Pleasant Ridge Elementary, one of the pilot schools, the difference was immediately noticeable. Students receiving aligned tutoring moved seamlessly between intervention and regular instruction because the materials looked, felt and sounded the same. 

The data confirmed that impression. Students in the aligned group outperformed peers, posting gains of 0.12 standard deviations, or about 1.3 months of additional literacy growth, with even greater gains among students who began the year in the lower half of the tutored group. Those children saw the largest effect: 0.18 standard deviations in growth.

Under these conditions, trained paraprofessionals also delivered the aligned intervention at least as effectively as licensed teachers. That allows districts to keep experienced educators focused on core instruction while extending proven support to more children.

This idea isn鈥檛 unique to Knox County. In its recent report, “,” TNTP argued that instructional incoherence undermines learning acceleration and widens opportunity gaps. When districts align instruction across settings, students are better supported to engage in grade-level work.听

This doesn鈥檛 mean standalone interventions should disappear. Some students require specialized instruction. But districts should stop assuming a separate intervention program is best for literacy learning, especially when they have a high-quality curriculum in place.

The practical case is just as strong.

• Teachers benefit from a unified system. When intervention specialists and classroom teachers use the same materials, coordination becomes genuine collaboration. In Knox County, who experienced both models preferred the aligned approach.听
• Students face less cognitive load. When the words, routines, sequence and strategy hold steady between classroom and intervention, students stop spending energy navigating inconsistencies and can focus on learning.
• Cost savings are real 鈥� and can be redirected to other priorities. Districts invest approximately on literacy instruction, with a significant portion dedicated to parallel interventions. Tennessee SCORE estimated Knox County could save $2 million 鈥� 鈥� by drawing on the core curriculum rather than purchasing separate programs.
• Fragmentation falls hardest on students who need coherence most. Benefits should extend to multilingual learners and students with disabilities, who move between settings more than most. Knox County didn鈥檛 test that premise explicitly, but evidence from the pilot was promising enough that the district is expanding the aligned tutoring method to those students starting this fall. 

Exploring this sort of alignment doesn鈥檛 require major investments or a district-wide overhaul. Erin Phillips, Knox County鈥檚 executive director of learning and literacy, frames the opportunity in a refreshing way: “try in” rather than “buy in.”聽

District leaders can begin with a pilot 鈥� a low-risk one where teachers learn and refine with support, leaders build context-specific evidence, and costs stay low since they鈥檙e using materials they already own.

are drawing national attention, and districts everywhere are looking for what to borrow. Right now, leaders are making decisions about next year’s budgets, staffing and schedules. It may feel late to act, but the strategy embraced by Knox County doesn鈥檛 require a change of course, just a refocusing of intervention around the existing curriculum. Here鈥檚 how to do it:

• Start with a coalition of the willing. Pick one grade level and schools whose leaders want to try this. 
• Plan professional learning. Teachers and paraprofessionals can deliver this well but need effective support. Build training before the year starts.
• Set clear metrics. Decide how you鈥檒l measure success: student movement between tiers, curriculum-embedded assessment results, teacher feedback or dollars saved. Monitor progress and adjust as needed.

The most compelling lesson from the Knox County study may be that it doesn鈥檛 ask leaders to buy another program or adopt a new initiative. It asks them to reconsider how the pieces of their existing instructional system fit together.

Education has no shortage of products promising to accelerate learning. Before investing in the next one, leaders should embrace Phillips鈥� suggestion to “try in.” They might discover, as Knox County did, that the most effective intervention materials are sitting on their shelves.

A of four urban districts confirms these research-based early literacy pedagogies are indeed widely implemented in these school systems. Educators are doing many things right: They are consistently delivering explicit phonics instruction that includes a clear purpose using high-quality foundational skills curricula.听

Across the four districts, between 88% and 94% of over 200 surveyed teachers reported using their foundational skills curriculum daily or almost daily. Classroom observations of 112 foundational skills lessons confirmed that instruction was focused, aligned, and explicit鈥攈allmarks of effective early literacy teaching.

But something critical was often absent from those same lessons: the opportunity to

connect sounds and words to meaning. In a previous report, we explored how meaning is often missing in the tasks that upper elementary students are assigned 鈥� for instance, finding literal and nonliteral language in a reading passage but not what the author was trying to convey. In our latest publication, we look specifically at the foundational reading skills taught in the earlier grades.

Moreover, we found that many students meet literacy benchmarks for foundational skills on early literacy screening assessments. But by third grade 鈥� when they are expected to make meaning from more complex texts on state literacy assessments 鈥� far fewer demonstrate proficiency. 

In other words, early success with word reading does not always translate into later success with comprehension. 

This mirrors national trends: relying on early literacy assessments indicates that 56% of K鈥�2 students nationally are 鈥渙n track鈥� for learning to read, but only 31% of fourth graders performed at or above the proficient level on the 2024 NAEP reading assessment, a test that requires students to comprehend with greater depth.

What we found in our research, which included hours of classroom observation, was that only about one in five lessons gave students the chance to apply their phonics knowledge beyond single words to connected text: sentences, passages or stories that build reading fluency. And in more than half of lessons, teachers addressed word meaning just once or not at all.

In other words, students are learning how to blend sounds together to read words but not consistently how to make sense of them. We鈥檝e made real progress on decoding, but the connections between decoding and meaning are often missing.

That stems, in part, from how early literacy instruction is structured and supported. Decoding and language comprehension are often taught in distinct lessons with different curricula, and teachers receive separate professional learning for each.

While this structure can support focused instruction, it can also give the false impression that meaning making does not belong in phonics lessons. At the same time, K鈥�2 literacy data systems 鈥� including screeners and progress monitoring 鈥� tend to emphasize phonemic awareness and phonics, reinforcing the idea that those are the outcomes that matter.

The findings from this study point to an area for growth in foundational skills instruction that may help: bridging processes. These processes are the mechanisms that connect word recognition and language comprehension and should be incorporated into word recognition or phonics instruction, supporting students to build more meaning as they learn to decode. Two key bridging processes are vocabulary knowledge, which is understanding the meanings of words, and reading fluency or the ability to read connected text accurately and smoothly.

Without these bridging processes, decoding single words can be devoid of meaning.

Students may be able to sound out words yet still struggle to understand what they read. Importantly, bridging processes must be built into phonics instruction early on, and students should work on them throughout their early years of schooling, not just after they have successfully learned to decode words.

The encouraging news is that incorporating bridging processes does not require an overhaul of instruction or instructional systems. In many cases, bridging processes can be embedded into existing lessons in small but powerful ways.

Consider a phonics lesson on the two common sounds for double o, as in mood and look. A teacher might briefly define a target word 鈥� such as, 鈥渁 brook is a small stream鈥� 鈥� and show a picture of a brook before students practice reading it. Then she might instruct students to turn to a partner and share a sentence with the word brook.

This can take less than a minute but can anchor decoding in meaning, which is important for all students, especially for emergent multilingual students to expand their vocabulary as they are learning English. 

Similarly, building fluency doesn鈥檛 require a pivot away from explicit phonics instruction.

It requires ensuring that students regularly read sentences, passages and texts that incorporate the phonics patterns they are learning.听

For example, after decoding a list of words like book, cook, hood, soon, tool, and boot, students might read a simple sentence like, 鈥淲e went to fish in the brook,鈥� applying their phonics knowledge to connected text. Then they might read a short story about animals at a brook with several other double o words.

Our study found that such opportunities to build fluency were surprisingly rare and did not meaningfully increase from kindergarten through second grade. 

This is a missed opportunity. 

Stories and passages that use targeted phonics skills are often provided in early literacy curricula but are sometimes skipped due to pacing or a lack of understanding their importance. 

Fluency develops through practice with connected text; without it, students struggle to transition from decoding single words to understanding longer texts.

Bridging processes are critical for students to connect word recognition and language comprehension. Adequately addressing them requires more than individual teacher effort. District leaders must clearly assert that these processes are fundamental to foundational skills instruction and reflect this priority in curricula, professional learning and classroom observation tools.

District and school leaders should expand the data they use to capture a broader view of reading development, aligning tools with bridging processes and incorporating information beyond word recognition.

School leaders and instructional coaches should provide professional learning opportunities around bridging processes, leveraging existing structures like professional learning communities to teach educators how to embed vocabulary and fluency practice into phonics lessons without sacrificing instructional focus. 

This can be done through watching exemplar videos, conducting peer observations, lesson rehearsal and engaging in coaching conversations.

The promise of early literacy reform has always been that strong foundations would lead to strong readers. But developing students鈥� decoding skills alone is not enough.

If we continue to teach decoding and language comprehension as separate endeavors, the result will be the same: early gains that fade when students are asked to read and comprehend longer texts. But if we build the bridges through vocabulary knowledge, reading fluency practice and intentional meaning making in phonics instruction, we can change that trajectory.

SRI Education and 社区黑料 both receive financial support from the Charles and Lynn Schusterman Family Philanthropies.

But the most important question wasn鈥檛 how we got there, it was why it hadn鈥檛 happened sooner.

Like many districts, we weren鈥檛 lacking a curriculum, effort or committed teachers. What we were missing was something far less visible and far more important.

We had reached a point where math performance wasn鈥檛 where we wanted it to be. Teachers were frustrated, and our instinct was to look outward for a solution. We began searching for a new math program 鈥� something that would finally move the needle.

We approached the process thoughtfully. A committee was formed, programs were reviewed, and alignment to standards was carefully analyzed. On paper, many options looked promising. But the more we evaluated, the more uncomfortable the truth became: The issue wasn鈥檛 the program.

Across our elementary schools in Pennsylvania鈥檚 Abington Heights School District, we were hearing the same concerns. Students were progressing without a solid grasp of foundational concepts. Skills that had supposedly been mastered weren鈥檛 transferring. Teachers were reteaching content, often with the same results. It forced us to confront a difficult question: If the curriculum is aligned and the content is there, why isn鈥檛 the learning sticking?

That question led us to take a closer look at our own practices. Like many elementary schools, we had invested heavily in literacy, and our teachers felt confident in reading instruction. Math, however, was a different story.

Many teachers did not feel that same level of confidence in mathematics. That lack of confidence shaped instruction in ways we hadn鈥檛 fully recognized. Lessons often leaned toward procedures or steps to follow rather than deep conceptual understanding.

Students could sometimes arrive at the correct answer, but they struggled to explain why. And when students cannot explain their thinking, the learning rarely lasts.

We also realized we weren鈥檛 fully leveraging the data available to us. While we had assessments and performance metrics, we were not consistently analyzing student work to understand how students were thinking. Without that insight, instruction remained generalized rather than responsive to individual needs.

What changed was not just the amount of data we had, but how we used it and how we used it together. Through our professional learning program, our teams developed a shared approach to analyzing student work, identifying patterns in thinking and using that insight to guide instruction.

In practice, this meant teachers coming together with student work by sorting responses, discussing strategies and identifying where understanding broke down. These conversations made student thinking visible in a way we hadn鈥檛 experienced before.

Data conversations became a regular part of our collaboration, not an isolated event tied to testing windows. Teachers met to examine student strategies, anticipate misconceptions and align next instructional moves. 

Instead of continuing the search for a new program, we made a different decision 鈥� one that required more commitment but ultimately led to more meaningful change. We chose to invest in our teachers.

We implemented across our elementary schools, focusing on building teachers鈥� conceptual understanding of mathematics and how that understanding develops over time. From the outset, this was not a passive experience. Teachers were actively engaged in solving problems, analyzing strategies and grappling with concepts themselves.

That experience was, at times, uncomfortable and that was precisely why it worked. Teachers began to experience math as a process of reasoning and sense-making rather than simply applying procedures. That shift deepened their understanding and created a new level of empathy for student learning.

As teacher understanding grew, instruction began to evolve. Educators became more intentional about the questions they asked and more attentive to student thinking. They created space for multiple approaches and encouraged students to explain their reasoning. Over time, that shift led to something just as important as instructional change: increased teacher confidence.

That created a shift in student mindset. Math is no longer viewed as a set of rules to follow, but as something to explore. We now have students who ask for more math time 鈥� something that would have been difficult to imagine just a few years ago.

This transformation has also reshaped how our teachers work together. Teachers regularly examine student work, identify patterns in thinking and determine next instructional steps. Conversations are grounded in evidence and a shared understanding of how students learn mathematics.

We have moved away from asking, 鈥淲here are we in the program?鈥� and toward asking, 鈥淲here are our students in their understanding?鈥�

The results followed and they were significant. Within a few years, math proficiency rose from roughly 70% to over 85% across key grade levels, alongside strong gains in student growth. Just as important as the numbers is what we now see in classrooms every day: instruction focused on understanding and students actively engaged in meaningful mathematical thinking.

This experience has reinforced a belief that feels more important than ever: programs do not change outcomes, people do. When we invest in teacher knowledge and give educators the tools and confidence to truly understand their content, everything else begins to align.

Of course, this kind of change requires ongoing commitment. We continue to train new teachers and prioritize collaboration to sustain the work.

If there is one lesson we would share with other district leaders, it is this: Before searching for a better program, take a closer look at how your system supports teaching and learning. You may find, as we did, that the most powerful solution isn鈥檛 something new; it鈥檚 a deeper investment in how teachers understand and teach mathematics.

I live and work in a somewhat isolated corner of western Arizona, along the banks of the Colorado River. Here in Lake Havasu City, the nearest major airport is nearly three hours away. We are a bit removed from the world, with plenty of natural beauty and vacationing tourists but no neighbors. Without peers in other school districts or hands-on outside support, it鈥檚 up to us to make sure we鈥檙e getting things right for our students.

This year, we鈥檙e seeing a strong signal that we鈥檙e doing just that. Based on practice-test data, juniors at Lake Havasu High School are expected to score about 21, on average, on the ACT this spring 鈥� higher than the national average of 19.4. Back in 2021-22, our average ACT score was 17.5 and last year, it was 18.7. 

What changed?

It鈥檚 often said that there are no silver bullet solutions in education, and after 34 years working in classrooms and schools, that certainly rings true. But I can also point to one clear starting point for our high-school students鈥� academic rise: the adoption and tireless implementation of knowledge-building reading and social studies curricula in all of our elementary and middle schools five years ago. 

The work began in a single district school: a classical charter elementary school where educators opted to use knowledge-building. This was a major change for teachers and students. 

Often, elementary reading curricula are organized by a target skill of the day, and the topic of that day鈥檚 text or worksheet isn鈥檛 necessarily connected from one day or week to the next. These new knowledge-building curricula were organized by content鈥攊n each unit, they鈥檇 spend weeks reading, writing and discussing topics like fables, Mayan civilization, geology, as they practiced reading skills. Meanwhile, instructional materials in social studies are typically created or curated by individual teachers. The new curricula were designed to build knowledge over time, across an entire school or district.

Almost immediately, we noticed impressive, and important, changes. Students were engaging differently, with more confidence, stronger vocabulary and a deeper understanding of the content they were learning. I remember seeing fourth graders confidently explain key ideas from the American Revolution, saying things like, 鈥淲ait, so it wasn鈥檛 just about tea. The colonists were mad because Britain kept taxing them without letting them vote, so they decided to break away and make their own government!鈥�

If this was possible at one school, why wouldn鈥檛 we want this content-rich learning for every student? Pockets of excellence are insufficient and just plain unfair. And that gave us our next step: adopting the curricula districtwide.

It was a lot more complex than just ordering new materials. We needed to build a new, shared understanding of teaching and learning, one that was rooted in knowledge. As a district, we had to agree that all students need access to rich history, science, and literature content, and that what they learn in one year should intentionally prepare them for the next. We needed to develop a non-negotiable collective commitment to implement the curriculum with fidelity at every level.

Implementation was not instant or easy. If you鈥檝e ever watched a rowing team, you know that success doesn鈥檛 come from one strong rower working in isolation. It comes from the team’s shared timing, steady rhythm and trust in one another. That鈥檚 what we had to build.

Administrators strived to be honest and transparent about what the shift to knowledge-building instruction entailed. One difficult move: Teachers were required to stop using any materials or activities that were not part of the new curricula. They had to let go of familiar practices, which for some may have felt like walking into the abyss. But we also offered support, including monthly district-wide professional learning communities by grade level. 

This allowed teachers to plan together, wrestle with the materials and ask questions. We also gave teachers time and space to expand their background content knowledge, a crucial opportunity for elementary generalists preparing for in-depth history lessons.

Instructional leaders also played a big part. They visited classrooms frequently and shared informal feedback, guiding teachers to follow pacing guides and stay true to the new materials even when it felt uncomfortable. They also observed and provided implementation feedback to principals, whose support would be integral to our success. 

It was excruciatingly challenging and, at times, frustrating. But then we began to see glimmers of positive change, like sunlight on a river. Young students were engaging in conversations about history and literature with confidence. They were using vocabulary that was grounded in knowledge, not memorization, and making connections between what they read and what they wrote.

As the years passed, we saw students carrying ideas from one grade to the next, building on what they already knew instead of starting over. The gains accrued: fifth graders were excited to learn about the Maya, Aztec and Inca, exploring their pyramids, calendars and daily life; seventh graders were then able to analyze the rise and fall of those same civilizations, examine their systems of governance and belief and evaluate the impact of Spanish conquest because they had a foundation of knowledge to build on. 

Best of all, this development was consistent across classrooms and schools. Students had stronger comprehension, greater stamina, and a deeper ability to think critically about what they read. These were not pockets of opportunity, but knowledge for all. 

We are proud of the progress we鈥檝e made. More of our schools are by the state of Arizona 鈥� including four of our six elementary schools and the high school. This growth reflects not only the work we鈥檝e done with curriculum but also the coherence, alignment and intentional instruction happening across every classroom. We are rowing in the same direction.

Our implementation efforts aren鈥檛 over, because strong systems don鈥檛 stand still. Every lesson, every text, every discussion is another stroke forward. While the impacts of our work were almost immediate in elementary and middle school, we鈥檙e also getting a fuller sense of just how much building knowledge in the early grades benefits students in high school. Knowledge doesn鈥檛 just assist with reading comprehension today and instructional coherence tomorrow; it.

So we carry on. Just like in crew, we keep adjusting, listening and refining our practice based on what we learn. We take joy in this daily work and its results so far 鈥� but we鈥檙e most inspired by the future. Because when schools create opportunity, there is no limit to what our students can achieve.

Knox County Schools looked like it was doing everything right.

The district was using a well-regarded, evidence-based curriculum to teach students how to read. Young students who struggled got intensive tutoring using high-quality supplemental materials. Tutoring sessions took place during the school day, ensuring high participation.

But the 60,000-student district in eastern Tennessee wasn鈥檛 seeing the results from tutoring that leaders had hoped for. Erin Phillips, the district鈥檚 executive director of learning and literacy, decided to try something new: ask tutors to use materials that matched what students were learning in the classroom.

Working with outside researchers during the 2024-25 school year, Knox County Schools randomly assigned more than 300 early elementary students who fell below the 40th percentile on a universal literacy screener into two groups. One group received tutoring using the district鈥檚 usual supplemental materials. The other got tutoring using materials that were aligned with the district鈥檚 core curriculum, Benchmark Advance.

The results, described in a , were striking. Students who received tutoring that aligned with classroom instruction made more progress, the equivalent of an additional 1.3 months of learning, compared with students in the control group whose tutoring sessions used supplemental materials.

This approach and the outcome might sound like common sense. But it goes against a widespread way of thinking about intervention, that if students didn鈥檛 learn the material well in class, they might benefit from new ways of approaching it or different explanations of the same concepts.

But the study suggests the opposite was true, that teachers and tutors may have inadvertently confused students by, for example, teaching different letter sounds in different orders or referring to the 鈥渕agic e鈥� in one setting and the 鈥渟ilent e鈥� in another.

The findings are important as school districts look for ways to make tutoring more effective with limited dollars. School districts were urged by experts and officials to invest in high-intensity or high-dosage tutoring, generally defined as occurring at least three times a week and for 10 weeks or longer, as an evidence-based way to address pandemic-related learning loss. But large-scale tutoring programs often .

The education sector jargon for what Knox County is doing is 鈥渃oherence.鈥� That鈥檚 simultaneously an increasingly popular buzzword and a .

In Knox County鈥檚 case, 鈥淲hat we were asking our most at-risk learners to do is carry the heaviest cognitive load,鈥� Phillips said. 鈥淲e were calling the same thing by different names in every learning experience. We were overloading their ability not only to have that knowledge in their brain, but to retrieve that information, not only retrieve it, but then apply it, and then transfer it from place to place.鈥�

Using aligned materials, in contrast, lightens their cognitive load and gives them more opportunity to practice the same skills covered in class, she said.

Knox County students using aligned materials also did better on state standardized tests, according to the study from Jackson and Shakeel, though the difference was not statistically significant.

Tennessee is in its fifth year of a major early literacy initiative that includes teacher training, state-approved curriculum lists, mandatory tutoring for certain students, and holding back students who don鈥檛 meet certain benchmarks by third grade.

Stanford University鈥檚 National Student Support Accelerator鈥檚 notes that alignment seems like it would be good practice but doesn鈥檛 have a strong research base. Jackson, research manager at the Center for Outcomes Based Contracting, said she wanted to address that gap with a randomized controlled trial.

鈥淲e were testing something lots of people very much believed would be true, and that a lot of people have talked about for a long time,鈥� she said.

Jackson said she hopes other researchers try to replicate her findings in other settings and with larger groups of students.

Phillips is moving to adopt more aligned curriculums across subjects and grades. She鈥檚 also continuing to closely monitor student learning, including whether fewer students score in the bottom quartile or are referred for special education evaluation.

She said the study results shed light on a long-standing problem in the district.

鈥淲e had a decade鈥檚 worth of data showing us that students were not exiting intervention,鈥� she said. 鈥淭hey were becoming intervention lifers. That鈥檚 not the intention of this support. All this data was showing that this was not working.鈥�

Different curriculum choices can create an unhelpful 鈥榣asagna鈥�

Many factors have nudged districts away from using aligned curriculum for students in intervention services, according to TNTP, a school improvement consulting organization that worked with Knox County.

Large established publishing houses dominate the market for core curriculum, while dozens of smaller companies fill in the gaps. When states draw up lists of approved curriculum, core and supplemental materials might go through different approval processes, and districts might not see materials from the same company on both lists.

Grants might also require districts to pick materials from certain vendors, contributing to a proliferation of different learning materials that take different tacks.

鈥淲e build this lasagna of program over program over program,鈥� said Devon Gadow, TNTP鈥檚 director of national consulting.

Surveys by the research organization Rand Corp. found that , with the average teacher reporting they used two core curriculums and five supplemental curriculums.

And a found more than 350 different supplemental math products in use across 1,700 school districts. These same school districts chose from fewer than 20 core curriculum options.

While districts often put significant time and attention into assessing core curriculum options before making a decision, they adopted supplemental materials in an ad hoc way, in part because the contracts were shorter and less expensive, the analysis found.

TNTP is to look at ways they may be steering districts away from using more-aligned materials. The group also wants district leaders to look at what they already have in their arsenal that they could redeploy.

Gadow said district officials should be wary of marketing pitches based on coherence or alignment. They may not need to buy something new as long as they鈥檙e already using high-quality materials.

Core curriculum often includes materials to support scaffolding, remediation, and intervention, Gadow said, but classroom teachers don鈥檛 have the time to read through every page and develop lessons for struggling students. That鈥檚 work that central office staff could take on.

In Knox County, Phillips said teachers had developed a habit of using supplemental materials in the past when the district鈥檚 core curriculum wasn鈥檛 as good. Those habits were hard to break, in part because those past experiences led teachers to distrust that any core curriculum could cover all the necessary ground.

Phillips spent roughly $1.4 million from what remained of Knox County鈥檚 pandemic relief on aligned supplemental materials from Benchmark at the beginning of the study period. But if she had it to do over again, she would have looked more closely at what already existed in the core curriculum, she said. That鈥檚 what she鈥檚 doing now for other subjects. Most teachers are on board with the change, she said.

Meanwhile, she鈥檚 phasing out materials from other publishers as licenses expire, saving money going forward.

Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools. This story was originally published by Chalkbeat. Sign up for their newsletters at .

A report released last month makes this even harder to ignore: New York State ranks among the most segregated in the entire country. That finding builds on a showing that deep school segregation in New York City has been the status quo since at least 2009. In some districts, the racial divide looks no different than it did in the 1930s.

Why have the state and the city failed to live up to the promise of excellent schools for all? Because a misconception persists: that building racially and economically diverse schools means lower quality and less academic rigor. Prospect Schools, a K-12 network of intentionally diverse charter schools in Brooklyn, was founded to challenge this notion, and I鈥檓 proud to have served as CEO since 2021. 

Brooklyn Prospect, our first campus, was the city鈥檚 first public charter school designed intentionally to be integrated along racial and socio-economic lines. Today, Prospect Schools serves almost 3,000 students across seven campuses, and is one of the few open enrollment public charter school networks offering the International Baccalaureate program to all high school students. Integrated schools benefit all students and raise performance across the board by spreading out resources and opportunity, expanding access to the best teachers and facilities, and preparing learners to thrive in a diverse world. 

The recent appointment of New York City Public Schools’ Chancellor Kamar Samuels and his policy agenda underscore that equity and excellence are not at odds. He garnered community support during previous leadership roles while  pursuing integration, an approach usually too controversial to touch. As superintendent of District 13 here in Brooklyn, he made the bold decision to replace exclusionary programs with school-wide IB enrichment. He understood that true equity isn鈥檛 about picking winners and losers; it鈥檚 about raising the ceiling for every child. 

Since taking office, Chancellor Samuels has signaled he is ready to hold this entire city accountable to a vision of education that is both radically inclusive and relentlessly rigorous. This is the right move for New York City. It also validates the approach to integrated education we rely on at Prospect Schools, where nearly two decades of work demonstrate that this vision can deliver meaningful results for students. 

We operate with a conviction that Samuels shares: that students learn best alongside peers who do not look, pray or live like them. At Prospect, we are 鈥渄iverse by design,鈥� which means we ensure that all of our classrooms reflect the vibrant diversity of the city through strategic recruitment, a weighted lottery, provision in our charter and a program that is inclusive and affirming. The result is a student body that is 29% White, 29% Black, 27% Hispanic and 10% multi-racial;  currently 44% of our students qualify for free and reduced-priced meals. 

We ensure all of our students have access to excellent teachers and rigorous academic curriculum which we model on the renowned IB Program. Through this globally recognized program, we raise the level of academic responsibility for all our students by cultivating curiosity, academic confidence, empowerment, global mindedness, community stewardship and life readiness. Further, we have proven that when you combine this intentional diversity with the high bar of the IB curriculum, the results are transformative.

Our students excel on state English language and math exams, most recently outperforming their city and district peers by 23 and 18 percentage points, respectively. This past year, over 80% of our graduating class was IB Diploma eligible, the highest in our history, and 100% of graduates were accepted into college. 

In Chancellor Samuels, I see a kindred spirit: a leader who understands that equity and excellence are not zero-sum competitors but twin pillars of a functioning democracy. Like Chancellor Samuels, I am the proud daughter of West Indian immigrants. I attended school in the Bronx and navigated the complexities of being a first-generation college student. Those experiences taught me early on that talent is distributed equally, but opportunity is not.

When I discovered the IB program, I saw a framework that didn鈥檛 just teach students what to think, but how to think. I knew then that this opportunity shouldn’t be reserved for private schools or select tracks of students 鈥� it belonged in every neighborhood and should be accessible to every child. 

We need this focus now more than ever. We are living in a time of deep polarization across our country, where echo chambers are solidifying into concrete walls. If NYC schools continue to remain segregated by race, class or academic tracking, we are merely preparing the next generation to perpetuate this divide. By championing integrated schools, academic excellence for all and global-mindedness of the IB, Chancellor Samuels is offering an antidote to this fragmentation. 

Leo鈥檚 wariness of Latin is understandable. When the “Habemus Papam” declaring him Pope was delivered in Latin, it encountered , reigniting debate about whether Latin is still useful in the modern era.

Rumors of Latin鈥檚 demise are greatly exaggerated, but school districts are planning its funeral. That needs to stop; the first step in planning for Latin鈥檚 continued life is to resist the elitist label that studying the language imparts. Latin is an equity tool, and we don鈥檛 acknowledge that enough. 

Latin programs across the country are being euthanized. In Needham, Massachusetts, a more than $2 million budget shortfall combined with declining enrollment led the public school district to eliminate its entire high school Latin program. Only 62 students were enrolled across four classes, compared to 945 in Spanish. Latin 1 had already been removed the prior year.

Over in Shaker Heights, Ohio, the district decided to Latin out of the middle school entirely 鈥� removing it grade by grade over three years 鈥� while technically keeping it at the high school for now. The high school Latin teacher warned it would be unsustainable: Without a middle school feeder, most students simply wouldn’t switch languages.

A t across Denver Public Schools put Latin at risk at Riverside High School, where the teacher noted that the lack of Latin in middle schools was already contributing to low high school enrollment. 

Cutting Latin off in middle school is the death knell for the language. Middle school Latin gets cut first due to low enrollment, which then makes high school Latin unsustainable, creating a self-reinforcing decline; about 80% of students who took Latin in middle school had been continuing it in high school.

That鈥檚 why the language is on life support. Only about 1,513 public high schools teach Latin, out of roughly 24,000 high schools total 鈥�  about of schools. That’s just public schools; private and Catholic schools push the number higher, but a comprehensive combined figure isn’t tracked precisely. Estimates put total K鈥�12 Latin enrollment at around 210,000 students, which is about of all students studying a foreign language.

This decline is not new: High school Latin students dropped from around 700,000 in , largely due to the post-Sputnik push toward math and science. More recently, Advanced Placement Latin exam takers fell from 6,083 in 2019 to 4,336 in 2025,suggesting continued erosion at the advanced level.

That鈥檚 bad for English speakers, as Latin forms the root of nearly two thirds of English vocabulary, especially the advanced words used in science, law and literature. For school-related vocabulary, the figure is 90%. Studying Latin can strengthen reading comprehension, which is why some schools still offer the course. 

It鈥檚 time to address the real reason why Latin studies have been declining without many scholars becoming too concerned: the elitism debate. 

Classics always had an elite image 鈥� classical knowledge was historically the hallmark of gentility 鈥� and parochial and private schools maintained classical standards longer than most public ones.This difference in offerings is most stark in the U.K.: only of private schools.

In the U.S., Latin is especially concentrated in certain types of schools: elite independent prep schools 鈥� such as Exeter, Andover and Groton 鈥� and Catholic secondary schools where it’s often required. 

But a third type of school is breaking that loop: charter schools. They demonstrate how to keep Latin alive. Classical Charter Schools in the South Bronx offer a tuition-free education in one of the most underserved congressional districts in the U.S., with Latin as a core part of the curriculum. Latin instruction starts in , framed not as prestige-building but as a practical tool: improving English grammar, spelling, vocabulary and readiness to learn other languages.The idea is to flip the script: give low-income kids the same linguistic tools that elite schools have always hoarded.

Latin critics have pointed out that no one speaks the language but that鈥檚 not exactly true.  Linguists like Tim Pulju argue that Latin never truly stopped being spoken 鈥� it continued in Italy, Gaul, Spain and elsewhere, g into the Romance languages over centuries.There鈥檚 an important distinction:  Classical Latin of Cicero and Virgil became fixed and may have died conversationally but Vulgar Latin 鈥� what ordinary Romans actually spoke 鈥� kept evolving into what we now call Italian, French, Spanish, Portuguese and Romanian. 

For Latino students especially, Latin can be framed as the root of their own language, not a foreign elite artifact but something ancestral and relevant. 

Latin is very much alive but it鈥檚 limping. Presenting it as an equity tool rather than a classical tradition can change who sees themselves as a potential Latin student and can change curricula 鈥� and lives.

In Kristin Lidstrom鈥檚 business classes at Hamilton Southeastern High School in Fishers, the finance lessons quickly become personal.

鈥淭hey begin thinking about their own spending habits, future goals, or even what they鈥檙e seeing at home,鈥� Lidstrom said. 鈥淐oncepts like interest rates or debt suddenly carry weight when they realize how long it can take to pay something off or how quickly costs can grow.鈥�

Not every student will pursue business after Lidstrom鈥檚 class. But all of them can apply the lessons they鈥檝e learned from business class in their future career paths, she said.

And Indiana wants all high school students to start thinking about what those paths will look like beginning in high school. The state will have in 2029 that emphasize career learning and financial literacy.

Lidstrom鈥檚 own career journey started with studying marketing at Indiana University鈥檚 Kelley School of Business. But she found the path she wanted to pursue through volunteering in schools, and combined it with her passion for business to become a teacher.

Now the business department chair at Hamilton Southeastern with 22 years of experience in the district, Lidstrom has been piloting an AP Business with Personal Finance class this year, which is open to grades 9-12. The course, which is set to roll out nationwide in the 2026-27 school year, has the backing of the Indiana Chamber of Commerce and local employers.

Read more below about Lidstrom鈥檚 class at Hamilton Southeastern High, and the projects that students complete pitching business ideas and putting together a realistic budget.

These answers have been edited for length and clarity.

What does a typical day look like in AP Business with Personal Finance? How is this class different from other AP courses?

A typical day in this class is very active and hands-on. The course is intentionally designed with a project-based learning approach, so while there are occasional moments of direct instruction, most of the time students are learning by doing, working through real-world scenarios, collaborating with peers, and applying concepts in meaningful ways.

What really sets this course apart from other AP classes is that it鈥檚 less about memorizing content and more about developing skills. Students are consistently engaging in problem-solving, critical thinking, and communication, which mirrors how business actually works outside the classroom.

One of the anchor projects in this course is an entrepreneurship business plan that students build from the ground up, centered around solving a real problem.

Students start by identifying a need 鈥� something they鈥檝e observed in their own lives, school, or community. From there, they develop a product or service to address that need and work through the full business planning process. This includes defining their target market, analyzing competitors, creating a marketing strategy, and building out basic financials.

What makes this project especially meaningful is that it鈥檚 not hypothetical in the traditional sense. Students are expected to make realistic decisions, justify their choices with data, and adapt as they encounter challenges along the way.

The project leads to a presentation where students pitch their business as if they were seeking investment. It鈥檚 a great example of a real-world scenario because it requires them to bring together everything they鈥檝e learned.

The culminating project in the course is a financial-adviser simulation, in which students take on the role of advising a client through real-life financial decisions.

What makes this project impactful is that students have to think holistically and justify their recommendations based on the client鈥檚 situation. It pushes them to apply what they鈥檝e learned in a realistic context and communicate their reasoning clearly.

Have you seen any moments where the material 鈥渃licked鈥� in a real-world way for students?

One of the biggest 鈥渃lick鈥� moments is around things like compound interest or saving for the future. When students see how small, consistent decisions can significantly impact their financial situation over time, it changes how they think. They start asking better questions, making more intentional choices in simulations, and connecting it to real-life decisions they鈥檒l be making soon.

It鈥檚 in those moments you can tell it鈥檚 no longer just a class, it鈥檚 something they see as directly relevant to their lives.

What do your students hope to do after high school and has taking this course changed the way they think about money, entrepreneurship, or next steps?

My students have a wide range of plans after high school. Some are heading to four-year colleges, others to community college or trade programs, and some are eager to jump straight into the workforce or start something of their own. What this course does is give all of them a stronger sense of direction and confidence in those next steps. While not all students will pursue business after high school, they all come away with an appreciation for how business acumen can support them in any career path.

How does the course support students in meeting Indiana鈥檚 new diploma requirements?

This course directly supports Indiana鈥檚 new diploma requirements by fulfilling the Personal Finance requirement, ensuring all students graduate with a strong foundation in money management, credit, and financial decision-making.

As an AP Career Kickstart course, it also helps students begin building a purposeful pathway early in high school. It encourages them to pursue additional AP coursework, putting them on track toward earning Honors and Honors Plus Seals. By starting that progression earlier, students are more prepared and confident as they move into more rigorous AP classes, while also developing practical, real-world skills that connect to both college and career opportunities.

If you could adjust one thing about how business or personal finance education is taught nationwide, what would it be?

If I could adjust one thing, it would be to make business and personal finance education more consistently rooted in real-world application rather than theory. Students don鈥檛 just need to know what a budget, credit score, or interest rate is, they need to actively use those concepts in realistic scenarios. When students are making decisions, experiencing the consequences, and reflecting on those choices, the learning sticks in a much deeper and more meaningful way.

I鈥檇 also push for this type of learning to happen earlier and more consistently across grade levels. By the time students are making real financial decisions, they should already feel confident navigating them, not encountering the concepts for the first time. Ultimately, the goal should be to move beyond exposure and toward true readiness, so students leave school not just informed, but capable.

What鈥檚 the best teaching advice you鈥檝e ever received, and how have you put it into practice?

The best teaching advice I鈥檝e ever received is to never do for students what they can do for themselves. In practice, that鈥檚 shaped how I structure my classroom in a big way. Rather than stepping in with answers, I focus on asking questions, creating space for productive struggle, and designing experiences where students have to think, decide, and reflect.

It can be uncomfortable at times (for both the students and me) but that鈥檚 where the real learning happens.

In a course like this, it means students aren鈥檛 just learning concepts, they鈥檙e applying them, making mistakes, adjusting, and building confidence along the way. Over time, you can see them become more independent, more thoughtful, and more willing to take ownership of their learning, which is ultimately the goal.

This story was originally published by Chalkbeat. Sign up for their newsletters at

Experts have raised a variety of factors contributing to this reality: learning loss due to the pandemic, increased screen time, the dissolution of long-form reading and teacher burnout. While each of these points are critical, there鈥檚 an even deeper, more fundamental issue facing students that a flurry of educational reforms haven鈥檛 fixed and may have worsened:

They are simply not spending enough time actually reading in school.

Practice makes perfect, but without the reps, there鈥檚 no room for growth. Research kids should have at least 15 to 30 minutes of uninterrupted reading time a day. The reality? Much worse. On average, middle school and high school kids are getting about, if that.

This poses an even greater challenge for students in poverty. Kids who have little to no reading opportunities at home depend on school to fill the gaps. When reading minutes are reduced, they’re hit the hardest.

So how do educators fix it?

It turns out, they already have the answers. Here鈥檚 what the research tells us.

First, schools must protect uninterrupted reading time 鈥� and make it non-negotiable.

Right now in school, kids are bombarded with interruptions: digital devices, announcements, visual distractions, visitors. In fact, a recent of the Providence Public School District revealed that classrooms are interrupted more than 2,000 times a year, resulting in the loss of between 10 and 20 days of instructional time. What鈥檚 more, administrators often underestimate or misperceive how these interruptions might be disrupting the learning process.

Students need to be given the space to focus. If educators want to make changes, they need to get intentional about providing stronger opportunities for kids to focus in school: rethink the physical environment to reduce visual noise, streamline communications for students and build in time for cognitive processing.

That means giving students the time and space to get their reading reps in.

Second, teachers must make the time kids are spending in school worthwhile.

Giving kids the time and space they need to read, requires that they know how to do it. And there needs to be accountability and checks that tell us the practice is worthwhile. That鈥檚 where a strong curriculum comes in.

Educators need to be asking ourselves whether the work we鈥檙e asking students to do is worthy of their time and intelligence. If our kids are spending 15,000 hours in school across K-12, it鈥檚 on us to ensure they鈥檙e getting out what they鈥檙e putting in. It starts with providing high-quality instructional materials that are comprehensive, coherent, evidence-based, knowledge-rich, and grade-appropriate.

shows students learning under a coherent curriculum gain an average of 1.3 months of additional learning 鈥� 1.8 months for struggling students. With the right instruction, kids who are hit the hardest finally have the opportunity to catch up.

Unfortunately, TNTP鈥檚 2018 multi-system study,, and its subsequent study revealed that students are rarely taught grade-level work, and they鈥檝e often seen the materials that are being covered in a previous class. As a result, while kids are getting As and Bs, they鈥檙e demonstrating mastery of grade-level standards just 17% of the time.

Bottom line? Kids are doing the work, but they aren鈥檛 being appropriately challenged. They鈥檙e caught in an incoherent moshpit of disconnected academic programming. Schools are underestimating students鈥� potential, and it鈥檚 backfiring on their ability to learn to read.

Schools need to prioritize a curriculum that is cohesive, knowledge-rich, and grade-appropriate to support true learning. If we鈥檙e going to ask kids for their time, let鈥檚 make it count.

Finally, schools need to be clear-eyed about how they are measuring success.

Today, the domain of English Language Arts is made up of three key areas that are interconnected: reading, writing and oral language. these areas work hand in hand to help students build their skills; writing improves reading comprehension, while oral language supports both reading and writing.

The problem? Most testing tools that are used for instructional decision-making focus on a small slice of what it means to be proficient in the higher order skills of ELA. They rely on limited data sets like from to draw conclusions around proficiency across the whole domain, sometimes with big consequences for kids and teachers and instructional programming. Often, these tests don鈥檛 measure grade-level proficiency, they measure recall. That鈥檚 why our children can get As and still not be proficient readers.

If schools want our kids to succeed in literacy 鈥� an imperative in the age of AI 鈥� there has to be a more advanced discussion about assessment. Schools need to adopt an assessment system that aligns with the domain of English Language Arts. That means moving away from single-point-in-time multiple choice testing strategies and adopting assessment practices that hold the bar for higher order reading, critical analysis, writing, speaking, communicating and collaborating.

Solving the literacy gap doesn鈥檛 require an overhaul of our education system or an innovation that is smarter than all humans combined. As educators, we can teach children to read who attend school for 15,000 hours. We need a collaborative, aligned effort to challenge the status quo. We need leaders who are willing to pull on the right levers for change: protect reading time, provide high-quality, grade-level materials and measure what actually matters

This social capital 鈥� the knowledge of how to forge connections that make opportunities visible and attainable 鈥� is the missing curriculum in American K-12 and postsecondary education. And it’s a shortcoming with consequences.

Young people from well-connected families absorb social capital almost by osmosis when it comes to learning things like how to ask for help, follow up and signal ambition without arrogance. Others, equally capable but from less-connected families, must figure this out alone. The result is unequal starting lines and unequal outcomes 鈥� a yawning between social wealth and social poverty. 

Social wealth means having not only knowledge and credentials, but relationships that open doors, including mentors who give advice, supervisors who challenge us when we need to grow and networks that surface opportunities. Social poverty is the absence of those assets. It is being a talented individual without advocates.

Research finds that students from higher-income families are far more likely to report having mentors who help them consider careers, internships and next steps than students from lower-income backgrounds, first-generation college-goers and young women, especially those without college-educated parents. They report thinner networks and fewer trusted adults to guide them through critical transitions.

One of the most schools and colleges can counter social poverty is through mentorship. It’s not just a “nice to have” experience; young people with mentors are more likely to persist in education and transition successfully into work than those who lack such guidance.

But schools treat mentorship as an optional add-on, something that happens only if a motivated teacher, counselor or employer goes above and beyond.

Psychologist David Yeager what young people need is not generic encouragement, but relationships combining high expectations and genuine support. Effective mentors don鈥檛 simply reassure students that they belong. They communicate that growth is expected and that effort will be taken seriously.

This builds trust and reinforces agency. Young people are more likely to persist when they believe that adults see their potential and are invested in helping them meet it.

Yeager suggests these dynamics can be designed and structured rather than left to chance. This doesn鈥檛 mean turning schools and colleges into networking factories or diluting academic rigor. It means recognizing that social development is educational development. 

Just as literacy requires instruction and practice, so does learning how to form professional relationships and networks, seek mentorship and navigate institutions.

What would it look like for schools and colleges to design a system that takes this responsibility seriously? Here are six principles to guide this effort.

1. Make mentorship universal, not exceptional. Mentorship shouldn鈥檛 depend on self-selection or teacher heroics. Schools and colleges should assign mentors, integrate advisory systems and partner with local organizations to ensure every student has sustained contact with at least one non-family adult mentor. 

2. Start early. Students should encounter mentors beginning in middle school, when identities and aspirations are still forming. These relationships should become more formal and structured as students progress through school and college. Mentorship should be framed as normal, not remedial.

3. Teach the skills of relationship-building. Social capital isn鈥檛 only about access 鈥� it鈥檚 about competence. Students need instruction and practice in how to ask for help, follow up after meetings, give and receive feedback, and navigate professional norms. These skills can be taught, rehearsed and assessed, just like writing or public speaking.

4. Connect learning to people and places. Career exploration should include visits to workplaces, not just abstract classroom discussions about careers. Opportunities to shadow professionals on the job, internships, project-based learning and alumni networks help students see how knowledge travels into the world, and who helps move it along.

5. Signal high expectations with high support. Mentorship programs should avoid coddling or coldness. Adults should communicate clearly that they expect students to grow, stretch and persist, and that they鈥檒l provide the guidance that makes growth possible.

6. Measure what matters. Schools and colleges track test scores and graduation rates but rarely monitor whether students graduate with mentors, references or professional networks. Simple measures, like verifying whether students can name adults who would help them find a job or write a recommendation, should serve as leading indicators of social wealth.

The remedy for this missing curriculum isn鈥檛 a mystery. It鈥檚 the will to treat social development as a core educational outcome rather than a byproduct. Reframing education around social wealth doesn鈥檛 diminish the importance of academic knowledge. It completes it. 

In a world where opportunity increasingly flows through relationships, schools and colleges that ignore social capital risk graduating students who are credentialed but stranded. Those that build it provide young people with the relationships and networks they need so they know that they are seen, supported and connected to a realistic future they can pursue.

That is the curriculum students need. And it鈥檚 one that schools and colleges can no longer afford to leave unwritten.

In February, the organization I lead, , brought these two camps together when it became the new home for the program. The program is a system for whole-student learning that integrates high-quality instructional materials from leading curriculum providers, key life skills, real-time data and monitoring tools, with dedicated coaching. It has reached more than 250,000 students across 46 states. 

Some may wonder: “Why would an organization known for school design and innovation become the home for one of the most comprehensive high-quality instructional materials platforms in the country?” But the fact that we found our way to each other shouldn鈥檛 be surprising. It should feel overdue. 

I spent the first chapter of my career in education certain I had figured out the equation: Great teachers. Rigorous materials. High expectations. If you gave students access to challenging content and put skilled educators in front of them, outcomes would follow. I trained teachers on that logic. I watched it work often enough to trust it.

It wasn’t wrong, but it wasn’t the whole story.

Over the years, visiting thousands of classrooms and talking with young people and their families, I kept seeing the same thing. Teachers were getting stronger. Curriculum was getting more aligned and rigorous. The field’s investment at the instructional core was raising the floor for millions of students. Yet, the experience around all of it was still mired in century-old assumptions about how learning actually happens. The daily interactions and activities through which young people build knowledge, skills, and identity had barely changed.

Young people can feel it. About 75% of elementary students say they love school. By high school, that number flips. Only one in four teenagers reports being truly engaged in learning, a crisis Jenny Anderson and Rebecca Winthrop lay bare in The Disengaged Teen. Students are simultaneously bored and overwhelmed. 

Families are voting with their feet, too. Public school enrollment has fallen by nearly two million students since 2020, with in some states and private school enrollment surging. In New York City alone, sits 11% below pre-pandemic levels, and 41% of departing families cited a desire for more rigorous, engaging instruction.

This is what led me to co-found Transcend. For the past decade, we’ve been helping communities design learning environments where strong instruction meets intentional experience design, where the learning itself is engaging, relevant, relationship-rich and connected to who students are and who they’re becoming.

Consider what this looks like in practice. At Intrinsic Schools in Chicago, strong academic content lives inside a learning environment where even the physical design of the building is responsive to the learning experience. Multiple teachers work with students across different learning modalities in a single large classroom, adjusting instruction in real time based on individual goals and needs. 

On Choice Days, students build their own schedules, selecting academic supports like writing labs alongside enrichment they care about. Three times a year, students lead their own conferences with advisors and families, reflecting on their growth and mapping their path forward. The instructional core is rigorous. The experience is intentional.

At the same time, Gradient Learning鈥檚 movement to strengthen the instructional core has accomplished something that needed doing. I would never want us to stop investing there. When I visit schools with strong teaching and learning systems, I see students doing more meaningful work. The kind of work necessary for thriving in the world they are about to inherit.

That hard infrastructure, though, operates inside a learning environment. If that environment hasn’t been intentionally shaped, even the strongest instructional elements hit a ceiling. The science of learning and development tells us why. The brain does not process content in isolation from context. 

Learning is shaped by relationships, by whether students feel safe and known, by whether the work connects to something that matters to them, by whether they have agency in the process. Belonging activates the neural architecture that makes deep learning possible. Students actively construct knowledge , and no amount of well-sequenced information changes that fact.

We take for granted everywhere, except school, that experience matters. When we choose a restaurant, book a hotel or pick a doctor, we want to know how it felt to be there. In education, we’ve largely measured only outcomes while leaving the daily experience of learning itself unexamined. That is a gap we must close.

Community-based design, which I discussed in a recent , is how we close it. Students, families, educators, and learning experts must come together to rethink how we do school. 

This work builds the environment that strong instruction requires. The Gradient Learning program finding its home at Transcend is the bridge. Rigorous, aligned instructional materials now sit inside an organization designing the learning environments where those materials can do their best work.

AI, economic disruption and civic fracture are reshaping the world our students are entering. School is one of the few institutions positioned to help young people navigate all of it. But we won鈥檛 meet this moment through one-size-fits-all mandates handed down from above, nor by asking exhausted educators to innovate on nights and weekends. 

The path forward is a third way: communities redesigning schools together 鈥� drawing on research, proven models, and local wisdom to build learning environments where rigor and meaning reinforce each other, where young people are held to high expectations and supported as whole human beings, and where the daily experience of learning is as intentional as the curriculum itself.

The false choice between rigorous instruction and bold design has held the field back long enough. The schools that figure this out will be the ones young people actually want to attend. Our field has all the pieces. It’s time to put them together.

The Texas Education Agency received final approval Wednesday evening for roughly 4,200 corrections and changes to its elementary and secondary school curriculum.

Voting 9-6, the State Board of Education approved the changes to Bluebonnet Learning after in January. Members had said they needed more time to review copyright concerns, formatting errors and typos.

On Wednesday, some board members questioned whether the errors indicated a need to change Texas鈥� for learning materials, while others asked the education agency to provide an estimate of the corrections鈥� cost to taxpayers. Texans will bear the financial burden of the corrections because the education agency developed the materials using state funding.

鈥淚 think that when we have mistakes, that kind of undercuts the trust that we’re building with our local trustees and our local administrators,鈥� said Republican board member Brandon Hall, who supported the corrections.

Colin Dempsey, a Texas Education Agency official who helps organize the instructional material review process, said the agency planned to calculate the costs after the State Board of Education voted on the changes.

Dempsey also said the agency has increased the number of people who review publishing materials since Bluebonnet in November 2024, expressing optimism that the increase would help the state catch errors earlier in the process. State Board of Education rules, Dempsey added, do not specify accountability measures when the board finds errors in state publishing materials.

鈥淐learly it’s something that we need to address,鈥� he said.

Several board members who voted against the changes Wednesday have long opposed Bluebonnet. The reading and language arts curriculum attracted national attention in 2024 for its references to the Bible and Christianity.

The education agency has said the make up only a fraction of the overall product, which includes reading and math. have found that the reading curriculum skews heavily in favor of Christianity compared to other religions. Parents and historians have also about the materials downplaying America鈥檚 history of racism and slavery.

Roughly have indicated that they鈥檙e using at least some portions of the reading curriculum, covering about 400,000 students. The materials come with a $60 per-student incentive for districts.

Some board members requested Wednesday to hear from education agency officials who worked on Bluebonnet. Other board members said the Bluebonnet developers reached out to them directly and offered to address concerns or questions about the 4,200 errors prior to the meeting. Republican Aaron Kinsey, the board chair, said he could not force the publishers to testify if they were unwilling.

Dempsey advised against having the individuals testify, saying the agency preferred to keep dialogue between its staff overseeing the review process and board members.

Texas Education Agency spokesperson Jake Kobersky said in a statement that 4,200 represents the number of changes to Bluebonnet, not all of them errors.

“Some updates are simply improvements based on teacher feedback,” Kobersky said. “Every change and/or edit made to the product must be submitted individually for SBOE approval, regardless of the nature of the change, hence the large number. “

Dempsey said earlier this year that the 4,200 edits span more than 2,100 components of Bluebonnet. The curriculum, he noted, also has more components than other publishers.

For comparison, four other publishers that submitted correction requests reported a combined 16 edits.

Before the initial vote, board members acknowledged the trivial nature of some errors identified in Bluebonnet, while standing firm on concerns about what Republican Pam Little described as 鈥渟loppy publishing.鈥�

鈥淲e are basically putting content out there that has not met the legislative request of us to remove, to review materials for quality and suitability,鈥� Little said.

Democratic board member Tiffany Clark said the board and the education agency harmed students by allowing schools to teach flawed materials.

鈥淚f this is a product they’ve been using because they believe it was a high-quality instructional material, again, we have failed our students this school year,鈥� Clark said.

The education agency will update the online version of the materials within 30 days and begin replacing physical books and teacher guides.

This first appeared on .

In one classroom, students identified literal and nonliteral language: an exercise in labeling text features. Students defined the types of language and carefully annotated the text with examples of both kinds, concluding with a perfunctory discussion.

In the other classroom, students identified literal and nonliteral language, but went further, grappling with what Neil Armstrong meant by 鈥渙ne giant leap for mankind鈥� and connecting the famous phrase to the broader significance of the moon landing. The teacher engaged students by asking them if they, third graders firmly located on planet Earth, were part of the 鈥渕ankind鈥� of whom Armstrong spoke as he stepped onto the moon. The power of the text and the instruction echoed through that classroom.

Both teachers used the same high quality instructional materials. Only one truly supported students in building meaning. Across classrooms and districts, this pattern repeats, according to a.

In nearly two-thirds of 111 observed comprehension lessons, the work that students did supported only surface-level comprehension 鈥� a literal or task-oriented, partial understanding of the text that stops short of the deeper and fuller comprehension work readers need to engage in to succeed in later grades and beyond. Only 24% of lessons fostered robust comprehension, the kind that integrates literal and inferential understanding into a cohesive mental model of the text.

In other words: the curriculum is there. The materials are being used. But, in many classrooms, the meaning-making is missing.

SRI鈥檚 research focused on four large school districts that have implemented high quality curricula 鈥� including Core Knowledge Language Arts, Wit & Wisdom, and EL Education 鈥� for several years. Researchers surveyed 539 teachers who reported near-daily use of their district-adopted curriculum.

Students in these districts are reading and discussing knowledge-rich texts. On paper, this is what policymakers hoped for when states began recommending adoption of such curriculum.

But SRI also sent observers into classrooms in those four districts. The observations showed that teachers spent high proportions of class time on comprehension instruction, and that lessons featured many opportunities for student participation and highly engaged students. These findings represent the notable successes of the districts鈥� comprehension-focused curriculum implementation. But the comprehension instruction often stopped with the task 鈥� finding details, answering literal questions, naming text structures 鈥� without guiding students toward the bigger ideas and themes that define deep comprehension.

High quality instructional materials can lay the foundation for robust comprehension instruction. But they cannot deliver it on their own.

This is not just an instruction problem; it鈥檚 a systems problem. Curriculum designers, district leaders and instructional coaches may be unaware of the extent to which systemic practices determine the depth of comprehension instruction. SRI鈥檚 findings point to multiple well-meaning school and district forces that unintentionally nudge instruction toward the shallow end.

SRI researchers found narrow 鈥渟tandards-aligned,鈥� 鈥渄ata-driven鈥� approaches guiding teachers to focus on discrete skills and individual standards, despite the reality that comprehension standards are not individually measurable. There鈥檚 also insufficient teacher time spent discussing, analyzing and mastering the texts 鈥� and their content 鈥� as they prepare to teach knowledge-rich curriculum

Administrator classroom walkthrough observation rubrics and checklists often reward the most visible aspects of a comprehension lesson 鈥� posted objectives, student participation andx curricular materials in use 鈥� rather than what actually matters: Are students making meaning?

In short, well-intentioned systems may be signaling to teachers that addressing standards, completing tasks and tests, and simply using curriculum materials are the most important goals. But SRI鈥檚 findings suggest that these efforts might distract teachers from the true goal of teaching students to understand texts.  

SRI鈥檚 analysis of the 24% of observed lessons that did foster robust comprehension points to six teaching practices that matter. These practices include engaging students in text-specific analysis, modeling meaning-making, leveraging prior knowledge, providing instructive feedback, creating opportunities for text-based reasoning and structuring peer learning. These practices were more tightly correlated with robust comprehension 鈥� suggesting they could be steps toward how teachers might shift their practice toward that goal.

None of these are new ideas. Educators have talked for years about modeling, text-based evidence, and rich peer-to-peer discussion. What is new is the clarity with which we observed how these practices must be oriented toward the big ideas of a text 鈥� not merely toward a task 鈥� to move instruction from surface to substance.

For example, in one lesson, a teacher used strong instructional modeling to show students how to collect key details and paraphrase a main idea. Then, she showed students how to do it in a history text about how new navigational technologies facilitated European exploration of the New World, truly unlocking robust comprehension.

For policymakers and system leaders who championed high quality materials as a lever for literacy improvement, these findings offer both a warning and a roadmap. Fortunately, the districts involved have the literacy leadership and professional learning infrastructure to make key shifts toward robust comprehension instruction. Three next steps for literacy leaders stand out:

1. Define and communicate a clear vision for robust comprehension instruction. Districts must go beyond 鈥渇idelity鈥� to curriculum and articulate what deep understanding looks like for students and what it demands from instruction. Discussion, writing, knowledge-building, and standards are all part of the story, but ultimately, robust comprehension must be the target.

2. Reorient professional learning around the knowledge-building texts and their meaning. Teachers need structured opportunities to build the historical, literary, and scientific content knowledge necessary to facilitate robust understandings of the knowledge-building texts. Their professional learning should require deep, collective unpacking of all the nuances in the texts. .

3. Align observation and assessment systems to priorities for instruction. If tools and interim assessments measure only surface features, surface-level instruction will persist. Systems must adopt tools that can discern whether instruction leads students toward robust comprehension and use that data transparently to support improvement.

These changes are not small lifts, but they are essential.

Perhaps the most hopeful finding in the study is this: Lessons that supported robust comprehension didn鈥檛 just deepen learning, they increased student motivation and engagement. Students liked these lessons more. The students in the robust One Giant Leap lesson could see themselves in the Apollo mission 鈥� and on the moon.

In short, the path to better literacy outcomes is also a path to more joyful teaching and learning.

SRI Education and 社区黑料 both receive financial support from the Charles and Lynn Schusterman Family Philanthropies

Wielding chainsaws, they helped the 97-year-old former Colorado governor clear out fallen timber this year to make a path for some four wheelers. 

鈥淭hey just enjoyed the working relationship back then, and they enjoy the friendship now,鈥� Romer said in a recent interview. 

But when they finish the day鈥檚 projects, it鈥檚 not unusual for the group to relax over wine and cheese and trade war stories about Romer鈥檚 tenure. Under his leadership, the district saw several years of steady gains in reading on both and . Fighting bureaucracy and a powerful teachers union, he required elementary schools to use Open Court, a phonics-based program that embraced what is known today as the science of reading. The district trained teachers to use it and hired reading specialists to make sure they stuck to the curriculum. 

鈥淔or six years, we concentrated on that. It was the most important thing we did,鈥� Romer said. But the teacher鈥檚 union chafed against the program鈥檚 rigid design and eventually demanded over the curriculum. 鈥淭hey didn’t want us to be screwing around in classrooms. They wanted the door shut. We forced those doors open.鈥�

Nearly 20 years later, those stories have a new relevance as reading scores are once again on the rise. The current superintendent, Alberto Carvalho, has taken a similar, top-down approach to literacy with a program from curriculum provider Amplify. District leaders say they鈥檝e learned from the past about the dangers of a lockstep approach to teaching reading, but some wonder whether teachers are getting the support they need. 

Tackling a new curriculum is 鈥渘ot an easy shift, and the ongoing support is needed,鈥� said Francisco Villegas, chief academic officer at the Partnership for Los Angeles Schools, a nonprofit that manages 20 high-need schools in the district. 鈥淭here are fewer dollars, and that likely will have implications for what the district is able to provide.鈥� 

The Partnership schools adopted the Amplify program in 2018-19 and began to see in English language arts on the state test. Since 2022, seven of the Partnership鈥檚 11 elementary schools have seen double-digit increases in the percentage of students meeting or exceeding state standards. At a in September, Carvalho called the Partnership a 鈥渢errific incubator鈥� that influenced the district鈥檚 curriculum choices. 

But systemwide, leaders are to balance the budget and layoffs are expected. Compared to the Open Court years, training on the reading curriculum districtwide is more 鈥渉it or miss,鈥� said Maria Nichols, president of the district鈥檚 principals union. LAUSD offers opportunities, both online and in-person, for professional development. School leaders, however, often don鈥檛 know which courses teachers have taken or whether they鈥檙e using what they鈥檝e learned, she said. 鈥淲e are PD rich and implementation poor.鈥�

鈥極n the same page鈥�

Romer鈥檚 team implemented Open Court at a time when was pouring millions into training to teach reading. A $133 million from the U.S. Department of Education provided even more. Nearly all of the district鈥檚 12,000 elementary school teachers participated in and many completed follow-up sessions throughout the year.

鈥淚t was phenomenal,鈥� Nichols said. 鈥淲e were treated as professionals. There was a lot of money back then.鈥�

Former board members, among Romer鈥檚 annual visitors, said Open Court was a way to ensure all students, in an urban district where kids often change schools, would receive strong instruction. Marlene Canter, who served on the board from 2002 through 2008, said that regardless of teachers鈥� level of experience or the college they attended, 鈥渆verybody would be on the same page.鈥�

For some teachers, that played out literally. Many found Open Court . There was a specific set of cards with letter sounds to post on the wall and a recommended U-shaped classroom layout that, according to a teacher guide, left 鈥渁 large open space on the floor for whole-group and individual activities鈥� and provided 鈥渁n easy 鈥榳alk-around鈥� for the teacher.鈥� Critics viewed the , deployed to ensure teachers followed the curriculum, as 鈥淥pen Court police鈥� ready to catch them veering off script. 

鈥淭hey took my fun and creativity away,鈥� former teacher Stuart Goldurs complained in a . 鈥淚 became an instructional robot.鈥� 

Ronni Ephraim, who served as Romer鈥檚 chief instructional officer, said the change upset some teachers. The district asked them to replace storybooks that had been favorites in their classrooms for years with Open Court phonics-based 鈥渞eaders,鈥� workbooks and classroom libraries. Despite the objections, the district saw struggling schools improve and outpace the state. 

鈥淚 don’t think top-down is bad,鈥� Ephraim, now a consultant, said about curriculum choices. 鈥淚 think the board and the superintendent have to believe in it, and then they have to make sure that everybody is prepared to teach it as designed.鈥�

鈥楤ig disconnect鈥�

Critics said the program was ineffective with English learners. Over time, performance flatlined, and the district replaced Open Court with a program. 

Rob Rucker is among the LAUSD teachers who worked for the district during the Open Court years and is now adjusting to Core Knowledge Language Arts. A third grade teacher at 135th Elementary School in Gardena, one of several small cities within the district鈥檚 boundaries, he said some novice teachers valued Open Court鈥檚 structure. They didn鈥檛 yet have enough experience to write lesson plans of their own.

鈥淚 actually liked Open Court,鈥� he said. 鈥淚t was very straightforward and easy for teachers to understand.鈥�

The Amplify program still covers the basic skills students need to decode words and recognize parts of speech. It鈥檚 also what reading experts describe as a knowledge-building curriculum. The units introduce students to early civilizations, like the Vikings in Scandinavia, and science content, such as the solar system and animal habitats.

That鈥檚 where Open Court fell short, said Nichols, with the principals鈥� union.

鈥淲hen we tested kids, they could read beautifully,鈥� she said, 鈥渂ut they couldn’t understand what they were reading.鈥�

For a student population like LAUSD鈥檚, with 86% living in poverty and one in five still learning English, strengthening kids鈥� knowledge of the world is 鈥済oing to be the real game changer,鈥� said Barbara Davidson, president of StandardsWork, a think tank, and executive director of the Knowledge Matters Campaign. Since 2015, the campaign has been a leading voice for integrating history, science and the arts into reading curriculum. 

Rucker said his students were already familiar with stories like 鈥淎lice in Wonderland鈥� and 鈥淎laddin,鈥� so it wasn鈥檛 hard to keep them interested in a lesson on classic fairy tales. Getting them to relate to lessons on ancient Rome has been more challenging.

According to a district spokesperson, 鈥渢he goal is to ensure that every school has access to the literacy expertise and coaching capacity it needs.鈥� But other than a two-day training from Amplify, Rucker said he hasn鈥檛 had any additional support on how to implement the program, he said. He thinks his school would benefit from an English language arts coordinator teachers could lean on when they need someone with more experience, but because of enrollment loss, many schools have lost administrative positions. 

Some teachers feel Amplify is out of reach for struggling students, leading them to patch in other materials to make the material more relevant. 

During a recent lesson on early American irrigation systems, Kareli Rodriguez, who teaches at Stoner Ave. Elementary School on the west side of town, used pictures and videos to help her fifth graders grasp the idea. Excitement over the Dodgers鈥� successful World Series run helped her pique kids鈥� interest in a passage on Yankees鈥� relief pitcher Mariano Rivera.

But it鈥檚 鈥渘ot realistic,鈥� she said, for teachers to get through a lesson in the recommended 90-minute time slot with so many students working below grade level. A district coach modeled a lesson for the teachers last school year, Rodriguez said, but she couldn鈥檛 finish it in time either.

鈥淚 think that’s a big disconnect that the district needs to understand,鈥� she said. 鈥淚t鈥檚 definitely rigorous, but most of the students are always playing catch up.鈥�

Still, like most other schools in the district, Stoner Avenue saw improvements in reading. Fifty-two percent of fifth graders met or exceeded expectations, compared to 41% last year. 

Literacy advocates hope those gains will convince leaders 鈥� as Romer did with Open Court 鈥� to stick with Amplify. 鈥淥ur push is going to be to say, 鈥榊ou got to stay the course,鈥� 鈥� said Yolie Flores, president and CEO of Families in Schools, a nonprofit that for research-backed teaching materials. Her group breaks down the science of reading for parents so they鈥檒l know how to talk to teachers about the curriculum and help their kids at home.

District leaders gathered in October to celebrate the district鈥檚 recent improvement. Outside the auditorium at Maywood Elementary School, as students rushed back to class after lunch, Deputy Superintendent Karla Estrada took a moment to talk about lessons learned since the Open Court years, like taking feedback from teachers.

The district, she said, wants them to follow the Amplify curriculum 鈥渨ith integrity鈥� while recognizing they often have to make decisions in the moment, depending on their students. 

鈥淭hey let me know where something is not quite what they want,鈥� she said. 鈥淏ut no curriculum is going to do everything for you.鈥�

What鈥檚 the problem? The truth is, adopting and implementing a new curriculum isn鈥檛 simply an educational challenge 鈥� it鈥檚 a human behavior problem. For students to benefit from instructional materials, those materials must be used well in classrooms. But that can happen only when districts support early and meaningful to strengthen the quality and sustainability of adoption efforts.

The stakes are high. A demonstrates that high-quality instructional materials (HQIM), when used effectively, improve student achievement. School systems need every tool at their disposal to address worrisome learning gaps in core academic subjects. But these efforts come at a cost. Districts typically replace their core curriculum every five to seven years, and each adoption represents a multi-million-dollar decision that holds the potential to impact teaching and learning. Yet too often, new materials sit on shelves and go underused leaving the investment, and the impact on students, unrealized.

Behavioral scientists have long known that makes people favor what鈥檚 familiar, even when better options exist. This can help with making quick decisions in a complex world. However, in group settings, it can lead to and overlooking evidence. Organizations often struggle to turn good intentions into lasting new practices, and schools are no exception.

To better understand why strong curriculum adoptions sometimes falter, our organizations partnered 鈥� combining 鈥� producing evidence-based reviews of K-12 instructional materials and helping districts design effective adoption processes with 鈥檚 expertise in applying behavioral science to help organizations , change habits and follow through on new practices.

Together, we surveyed a nationally representative group of 254 district leaders and educators who had recently adopted new materials. The findings, presented in our new report, , make one thing clear: The toughest hurdles come not during selection, but during implementation.

Nearly half of respondents (49%) said 鈥渁chieving consensus or stakeholder buy-in鈥� was their biggest challenge, and 48% cited 鈥渋mplementing purchased curriculum.鈥� By contrast, far fewer struggled with early steps such as identifying needs or narrowing options. This pattern reflects a confidence-implementation gap. While 72% of leaders said they feel confident choosing new curricula, only 59% have systems to evaluate implementation and just 60% pilot programs before adoption.

The data also reveal a blind spot. Although nearly half of districts cite buy-in as a major obstacle, only 18% seek outside support for consensus-building 鈥� suggesting that many underestimate the complexity of change management and try to do it all internally. Teachers, meanwhile, often have limited input: In a 2024 survey, only 1 in 5 reported having a role in selecting their school鈥檚 materials, and just 1 in 4 said their district was 鈥渧ery effective鈥� in helping them implement new ones. When educators feel excluded or undersupported, the status quo bias strengthens 鈥� making even the best materials harder to sustain in classrooms.

Districts that beat these odds do a few things differently, taking a proactive approach to countering biases and building energy around change:

Involve teachers early and often: Bringing educators in at the start 鈥� on curriculum committees, in pilots and in decision-making 鈥� builds ownership and strengthens implementation. Teachers bring practical insights into what works for students and can flag potential pitfalls before rollout. Their engagement isn鈥檛 just good process 鈥� it鈥檚 what makes change possible.

Plan for implementation from day one: Adoption must be understood as an ongoing process, not a single decision. Districts that plan early for how materials will be rolled out in classrooms 鈥� including scheduling, teacher training and ongoing support鈥攕ee stronger results than those that treat adoption and implementation as separate efforts. When teachers receive curriculum-based professional learning, student outcomes can , having about the same effect as a 15% reduction in class size.

Make field testing non-negotiable: Piloting new materials before full adoption helps districts gauge how well resources meet teacher and student needs, while giving educators a chance to see their value firsthand. This familiarity reduces resistance to change and surfaces adjustments that improve long-term success. 

State and district leaders can learn from the examples of and , where clear definitions of high-quality instructional materials, paired with complementary state guidance, help districts in making local decisions. Districts such as and highlight the power of early teacher engagement, transparent communication and sustained professional learning to translate curriculum adoption into quality use of new materials. When districts approach adoption through a people-centered process 鈥� anticipating bias, engaging teachers and designing for implementation 鈥� they set themselves up for lasting success.

When the time comes to replace core curriculum, district leaders have a choice: repeat the same ineffective procurement routines or build a process centered on people and learning. Handled poorly, even the best materials risk gathering dust. Managed thoughtfully, with an understanding of how people respond to change, they can transform teaching and learning. 

When adoption focuses on engagement, planning and teacher support, curriculum stops being a box to check and becomes a lever for success, sparking the kind of lasting improvement every district seeks: better teaching and better results for students.

These are the telltale signs of math anxiety creeping back into my classroom, and it鈥檚 heartbreakingly common. Between experience a decline in math skills over the summer across elementary grades. By the time they reach fifth grade, students can lag behind their peers by two to three years.

That means students are missing out on crucial math skills that form the foundation for everything that comes later. As many teachers can attest, math remains one of the hardest subjects to teach because the basics aren鈥檛 always as black and white as they seem.

I鈥檝e had to look for new ways to break down those barriers and ease the pressure. That鈥檚 why I鈥檝e leaned into game-based learning. It takes something stressful and makes it approachable. In teaching math, that makes all the difference.

I first brought games into my math block because I wanted to try something different. A student suggested we review a concept with a math game he had used, and I decided to give it a shot.

There are plenty of games: Math Reveal, Quizizz and Coolmath among them. In my class we use Prodigy, which allows students to play as wizards exploring different fantasy worlds. They progress through the game by engaging in math-based quests and battles, answering a series of math questions to power spells, cast attacks or heal their wizard. Behind the scenes, the platform analyzes each student鈥檚 strengths and gaps, then adjusts and tailors content to the appropriate learning level.

The benefits were clear almost immediately, and the atmosphere in my classroom shifted. Kids who normally avoided eye contact were leaning in, laughing and actually asking to do math. It was a small change at first, but it began breaking down the anxiety that had been holding students back.

Their anxiety turns into curiosity, and their avoidance shifts into active participation. Students knew they could make mistakes, try again and keep moving without the fear of failure they often carried into traditional lessons.

Over time, I鈥檝e learned that these games weren鈥檛 just fun. They were powerful teaching tools. Game-based learning platforms helped students review after new lessons and revisit older concepts to keep their skills sharp. As a result, when we moved on to fractions or multi-step problems, they weren鈥檛 burdened by forgotten fundamentals.

Now, I incorporate game-based learning throughout my curriculum. I may introduce a new lesson with a quick round or have students partner up to practice and reinforce a concept. Before a test, I can assign relevant game modules that give students a low-stakes way to practice and prepare.

I noticed students catching up quicker than in previous years. At the start of one school year, I had eight students who were pulled out of my class for extra math help. By the end of the year, only two needed the extra support.

And let’s be honest: These tools have helped me, too. Teaching math can be overwhelming, especially with constant pressure to get every student up to speed and prepared for benchmark tests.

Game-based learning became a comforting resource for me because it offers new ways to personalize lessons and celebrate small wins. As students play, I can track their learning in real time to see which skills they鈥檝e mastered, where they鈥檙e struggling and how their performance is shifting over time. Students can move at their own pace now, and I can step into the role of guide rather than taskmaster.

Like any classroom tool, game-based learning works best when you use it with intention. Over the years, I鈥檝e learned some strategies that make it more than just 鈥減lay time.鈥�

• Play along: When I first started using game-based learning platforms, I didn鈥檛 fully understand how each game worked or the way they built in rewards, challenges, and storylines that keep kids engaged.
  
  That changed when I created my own character and began playing alongside my students. Suddenly, when a student shouted, 鈥淚 just beat the Puppet Master!鈥� I knew exactly what that meant, and I could celebrate and learn with them.
  
  By experiencing the games myself, I learned how to implement them in the classroom. I could see firsthand how to weave them into lessons, when to use them for review versus pre-teaching, and how to keep the fun from becoming a distraction.

• Assign with purpose: I don鈥檛 just let students log in and click around. I strategically tie games to the key concepts we鈥檙e learning that week or use them to revisit skills. For example, I might assign a short warm-up where they tackle problems from earlier in the year so they鈥檙e never losing touch with old material. Cyclical practice helps build long-term retention while lowering the stress of new concepts.

• Differentiate lessons: One of the biggest wins with game-based learning is how easy it is to differentiate and personalize learning. In any classroom, I have students at wildly different levels: Some need extra review, others are ready to race ahead. With games, I can assign work that meets each child where they are.
  
  That flexibility saves me time, but more importantly, it saves students from unnecessary stress. They can master concepts step by step, and I can gently move them up without overwhelming them.

When I first introduced game-based learning, I didn鈥檛 know what to expect. It felt like one more thing to manage. But I let students guide me, and the results spoke for themselves. They were more engaged, less anxious and more willing to try.

For teachers who are unsure, my advice is simple: Give it a chance. Watch your students light up when math feels less like a hurdle and more like a game. For me, the greatest reward has been seeing kids who once dreaded math start to relax, build confidence and move from 鈥淚 can鈥檛 do this鈥� to 鈥淐an we play again?鈥�

Game-based learning isn鈥檛 about replacing rigor. It鈥檚 about sparking curiosity, reducing fear and creating the kind of engagement that fosters a genuine love of learning. Most of all, it reminds us 鈥� and our students 鈥� that math can, and should, be fun.

More and more, are developing strategies for summer instruction, recognizing it as a cost-effective way to combat learning loss, drive academic and social-emotional benefits for students and advance curricular priorities. Designing and delivering high-quality summer programs requires many of the same district-level efforts needed to plan a full academic year, including recruiting and enrolling students, identifying qualified staff, defining the curriculum, providing professional development and arranging for transportation. All this takes time.

Because influence local activities, will position leaders, from state capitals to schools, for success in 2026. As they get to work on summer learning, state leaders should keep four guiding principles in mind.

First, they can make summer learning a priority by signaling its importance as a vehicle for education and enrichment. and , for example, have done this by codifying summer learning into legislation. Through its Additional Days School Year initiative, has allowed districts to add up to 30 instructional days to the school calendar, including through summer learning programs. has provided communication toolkits that include flyers and social media graphics that build awareness of and enthusiasm for summer reading programs throughout the state. Designed to attract students, teachers and site coordinators, the tools also detail the benefits of participation: Students receive free, small-group tutoring, have a chance to catch up and build confidence in all subjects; and teachers get to work intensively with smaller student groups while receiving training and coaching.

Second, state leaders can establish a vision for what summer learning should accomplish for students. Some states, like , have made literacy a priority. emphasizes reading camps that include daily doses of math as well. For high school students, New Mexico offers paid summer internships, providing work experience and opportunities for community engagement. 

Third, summer learning must be factored into state education budgets. Funding decisions are particularly time-sensitive and may require legislative action. It is crucial for state leaders to help local education agencies understand avenues for funding their programs. Several states have secured ongoing financial support for summer learning, whether through legislative action (Oregon), tax revenue () or recurring budget line items ().  

States can consider an array of funding options to support local programming, which may include formula grants, competitive grants, grants for districts and grants for community-based organizations that may partner with districts. However, applying for grants can be time-consuming and labor-intensive. Some of the school systems serving the students with the greatest needs may have limited bandwidth for grant writing. 

Lastly, it is critically important for state education leaders to offer guidance for providers of summer learning to help translate their vision into program design. For example, the collaborates with state education leaders to give financial and technical support to community organizations offering evidence-based summer programs. requires summer programs to be at least 30 days in length and to blend core instruction, enrichment activities and social-emotional support, which is consistent with . Texas mandates that districts receiving state funds share data related to enrollment, attendance and academic growth, to help its state education agency understand engagement and impact statewide. 

As part of this quality-assurance effort, state education leaders should consider the 鈥渂oth/and鈥� qualities of summer learning: It is most effective when designed with both evidence-based characteristics and flexibility in mind. Certain , such as a combination of academic and enrichment activities, the use of highly qualified staff and sufficient time for academic instruction, contribute to . At the same time, effective programs are flexible enough to address a range of needs and goals. For example, a state or district might identify a need to focus on building reading skills or providing students with opportunities for STEM immersion or career exploration. Widespread summer programming that will make a difference for students across villages, tribes, towns and cities in each state will depend on a 鈥渂oth/and鈥� mindset. 

Summer is not just a time. It is a tool for providing evidence-based, adaptable learning programs. As they enjoy autumn, state leaders must look ahead to summer 2026, ensuring their state and local partners are well positioned to advance learning priorities and opportunities for the students they serve. 

A painter prepped the side of a classroom building at the school for a new mural 鈥� smiling dragons in caps and gowns, and the district slogan: 鈥淩eady for the World.鈥� On a patch of pavement sat a mini outdoor library featuring a small seating area, an umbrella for shade and a cart full of books.

She hopes the features prompt visitors to ask, 鈥淲ho鈥檚 the principal here?鈥� But the progress at 135th, part of the Los Angeles Unified School District, goes much deeper. Chronic absenteeism is down to 13%, from 17% in 2024. Over the past two years, the percentage of students meeting state standards in English language arts has climbed from 25% to 37%. In math, it grew from 26% to 34%.

The changes, along with the formation of a STEM lab and the addition of afterschool Boys and Girls Clubs, were enough to convince Daveyeon Shallowhorn, the school鈥檚 plant manager, to pull his two kids out of a nearby Catholic school and enroll them in 135th.

鈥淚 just see different things being offered that I don’t usually see,鈥� he said.  

Districtwide, leaders are celebrating the highest-ever performance on California鈥檚 state test. But the strong gains in math, reading and science, at every grade level, weren鈥檛 limited to wealthier, or high-performing magnets. They were evenly distributed across some of the district鈥檚 most challenging, high-poverty schools, like 135th.

Some say Superintendent Alberto Carvalho鈥檚 centralized approach to steering the nation鈥檚 second-largest district is lifting performance at schools that languished near the bottom for years. The seven-member school board, which hired him in 2021, reaffirmed their confidence in his leadership last month, to renew his contract for another four years. But others say there are likely multiple explanations for the boost. The question is whether the positive trends will continue in a city where the powerful has a history of resisting top-down programs.

鈥淚f Carvalho is seeing gains, that means our students are gaining,鈥� said Jose Luis Navarro, a former principal in the district who now coaches school leaders. For now, United Teachers Los Angeles is unhappy that a recently adopted budget didn鈥檛 include raises. Nevertheless, Navarro urged the union to embrace Carvalho鈥檚 agenda. 鈥淵ou鈥檝e already tried fighting every superintendent for the last 40 years. Just try working with one and see what happens.鈥�

The improvements came in spite of wildfires that wiped out part of the city, a crackdown on undocumented students and a federal government trying to on blue California. 

鈥淥ur kids, our students persevered,鈥� Carvalho, who declined to be interviewed, said at his back-to-school address in late July. 鈥淭hey, in fact, soared.鈥�

But while students from all racial groups improved, significant gaps remain. At least two-thirds of white and 74% of Asian third-graders met or exceeded expectations in reading, compared to 37% of Latino students and 31% of Black students. 

鈥淲e will redouble our efforts. We will redouble our commitment,鈥� he pledged at an Oct. 10 press conference at Maywood Elementary. 

鈥楽maller numbers鈥�

Experts say the recent achievement growth among the district鈥檚 neediest students is likely a cumulative effect of several initiatives, including a more uniform approach to instruction, extra help for kids who are the furthest behind and a concentrated focus on the most troubled schools. 

But Carvalho has 鈥済enerally good instincts about what works,鈥� said Morgan Polikoff, an education professor at the University of Southern California. The district adopted a research-based literacy curriculum, has over 10,000 teachers in the science of reading and has spread some of those to math instruction. 鈥淚t seems the district is investing in quality curriculum and supporting teachers to use it.鈥�

As scores go up, however, enrollment continues to dwindle. Over the past five years. LAUSD has lost .

But that factor could be working in the district鈥檚 favor. That鈥檚 because for now, LAUSD, unlike , has , leaving some schools with more staff per student.

鈥淵ou already have built-in small group instruction with smaller numbers,鈥� said Nery Paiz, principal of Glen Alta Elementary School, east of downtown. With an enrollment of about 100, his average class size is about 19 students, he said. 

shows that such 鈥減ronounced鈥� declines can sometimes lead to increases in test scores. found that enrollment loss doesn鈥檛 immediately translate into funding cuts, freeing up more resources for schools in the short term. LAUSD鈥檚 $18.8 billion budget, adopted in June, increases spending for majority-Black schools, arts programs and support for LGBTQ students.

鈥楴o secret sauce鈥�

Some in the district say the uptick in scores would have happened without Carvalho, whom they dismiss as a slick media personality.

鈥淲e’re far enough away from the lockdowns that teachers have been able to recover, and students have been able to recover,鈥� said Nicolle Fefferman, a veteran high school social studies teacher in the district. 鈥淭here is no secret sauce to teaching.鈥�

She helps lead an advocacy group, Parents Supporting Teachers, whose members are far less enamored with Carvalho than when he arrived in early 2022. The district鈥檚 failed experiment with a $6 million AI chatbot has drawn accusations of misspending. Officials discontinued use of the tool when the company went under. Others argue he to close schools during the fires, relying on guidelines that failed to account for multiple fires burning across the region and filling the air with . 

Some parents say students have in school and are unhappy with Carvalho鈥檚 move to roll out an online program called . To Fefferman, the digital lessons and assessments represent 鈥渙vertesting,鈥� which the teachers union has traditionally opposed. UTLA didn鈥檛 respond to requests for comment, but Maria Nichols, president of Associated Administrators of Los Angeles, the principals union, said i-Ready has created 鈥渇riction鈥� between school leaders and teachers who object to the program.

The increase in scores is worth celebrating, she said, but said it came 鈥渙n the backs of the [principals] who are working 60 hour weeks.鈥� Her union joined with UTLA and SEIU Local 99, which represents non-teaching employees, outside schools Sept. 16. All three are currently in negotiations with the district over salaries and working conditions. 

Board President Scott Schmerelson, who has the union鈥檚 support, said such concerns are to be expected. It鈥檚 a 鈥済eneral rule鈥� to complain about the superintendent 鈥渘o matter what he says, no matter what he does,鈥� he said. But he called the 鈥済rumbling鈥� minimal. 

He鈥檚 particularly enthusiastic about the district鈥檚 Black Student Achievement Plan, a $175 million initiative that provides schools serving Black students additional counselors, cultural activities and field trips. Former Superintendent Austin Beutner proposed the program in early 2021 to reduce achievement gaps. Under Carvalho, it continues to expand, in spite of challenges from who say it discriminates against students of other races. 

Since last year, students in Black Student Achievement Plan schools have seen slightly more growth in reading and math than the district as a whole. 

The additional resources have 鈥渉elped [Black students] a lot, not only academically but emotionally,鈥� Schmerelson said. 鈥淚 think they feel important. I think they feel respected.鈥�

鈥楴othing short of remarkable鈥�

With high expectations, the board voted unanimously to hire Carvalho in late 2021. At the time, Pedro Noguera, dean of education at the University of Southern California, likened the award-winning superintendent鈥檚 arrival to鈥淟eBron coming to the Lakers.鈥� The board trusted that Carvalho鈥檚 success leading the Miami-Dade schools for 14 years would follow him to the West Coast. 

But efforts to overcome COVID learning loss and rise above pre-pandemic performance began a year earlier, with schools still locked down. Most students wouldn鈥檛 set foot in classrooms for another year. 

Beutner used COVID relief funds to launch Primary Promise, a highly popular effort to target extra instruction to struggling readers, including English learners, students in foster care and others most likely to fall further behind because of school closures. 

In 2021, a Boston-based consulting group that designed the model 鈥渘othing short of remarkable.鈥� On average, students began the year reading five words correctly per minute. Some couldn鈥檛 read at all. After 10 weeks, they were close to reaching the goal of 21 words per minute.

Julie Navarro, who is married to Jose, worked on the program as a reading specialist at Panorama City Elementary in the San Fernando Valley, where she said teachers were eager to share materials and ideas with each other. 

鈥淚t was seriously the most positive collaboration I’ve ever been a part of,鈥� she said. Primary Promise teachers attended monthly training that she described as 鈥渨ell-planned, thorough and research-based.鈥� 

Then Carvalho , arguing that with relief funds drying up, it was unsustainable to keep paying instructional aides to staff the program. The renamed Literacy and Numeracy Intervention expanded services into higher grades, drawing criticism from who said the emphasis on the early grades was what made it effective. Beutner and Ray Cortines, also a former superintendent in the district, called the move .

鈥淚 had never seen teachers who were willing to die on the hill of an LAUSD program,鈥� Fefferman said. 鈥淎s a high school teacher, I was like 鈥榊es, please make sure they can read by third grade.鈥� 鈥� 

In Julie Navarro鈥檚 view, educators who lead the intervention work are sometimes 鈥減ulled in multiple directions鈥� and the program has 鈥渓ess integrity鈥� than the original. But Panorama, she said, is an example of staying true to the model of giving students small group instruction and consistently tracking their progress.

The school has seen double digit increases in reading and math since 2022 and was on this year鈥檚 list of . With many families facing financial hardship and newcomers navigating language and cultural barriers, Julie described the population as 鈥渢he most-challenged families I鈥檝e ever seen all at one school. In spite of their situation, they were growing.鈥�

鈥楰ids know their data鈥�

Close attention to student data was a hallmark of the Primary Promise program. Carvalho expects the same level of monitoring districtwide with i-Ready. The platform, Schmerelson said, helps teachers know whether to 鈥渟low down鈥� the pace of learning for students who are struggling or move kids ahead.  

On a bulletin board in a second grade classroom at 135th Elementary, students鈥� initials are clustered into four color-coded groups 鈥� from blue for exceeding standards in i-Ready down to red for being two grade levels behind. Some argue that 鈥渄ata walls鈥� if they鈥檙e not among the high-achievers. But Tanya Ortiz-Franklin, the school board member whose district includes the school, believes the practice motivates students to work hard. 

鈥淜ids know their data and teachers know their data,鈥� she said. 鈥淭hey are using it to move instruction. That鈥檚 exactly what we’ve been trying to do for years.鈥� 

Her region encompasses 175 schools that stretch from the Port of Los Angeles in San Pedro 鈥� the busiest container terminal in the U.S. 鈥� to the historic Black neighborhoods south of downtown. They include Maya Angelou Community High School, one of Carvalho鈥檚 121 鈥減riority schools,鈥� where he takes a more hands-on approach to tracking data and staffing schools with extra counselors and academic coaches. 

鈥淚 spend 90% of my time dealing with 10% of the schools,鈥� Carvalho said at a conference at  Harvard University in September. 鈥淭hey are accountable directly to me.鈥� 

The schools have some of the poorest achievement and attendance rates in the district, and in Maya Angelou鈥檚 case, a high rate of community violence. In 2019, the listed the high school among those with at least 50 homicides within a one-mile radius over a five-year period. In 2023, a stray bullet during a football game at the school.

鈥淏eing an inner-city school, it’s very easy to focus on the negative aspects that happen here. That’s the low hanging fruit,鈥� said Principal Jose Meza. That鈥檚 why he encourages staff and students to 鈥渇lood鈥� social media platforms with positive news, like a poetry night for newcomers, and the 13 students admitted to Berkeley and the University of California Los Angeles this year.

鈥淓mbracing our roots and honoring our heritage,鈥� the school posted on Instagram for Hispanic Heritage Month, with a reel of students dancing, sampling food and displaying artwork.

But in trying to make students feel welcome and safe inside the fence that surrounds the school, Meza has also tightened up the academic program. He reassigned counselors to students by grade level, rather than grouping them alphabetically. The change allows ninth graders to get extra support as they adjust to the demands of high school.

He gives students a double dose of Algebra I each day if they need it, and moved credit recovery courses to the regular school day instead of afterschool or on Saturdays when they鈥檙e less likely to come. His students have posted gains in state scores the past two years, but two-thirds of 11th graders still don鈥檛 meet expectations in language arts and over 80% are failing math.

鈥淗alf of our students are coming in below grade level,鈥� he said 鈥淭hat doesn’t mean we’re going to treat them as such. We’re going to have expectations that are aligned to the standards.鈥�

Carvalho aims to create more consistency in teaching across the district, but he鈥檚 choosing math and reading programs based on the experience of schools that tested programs and found them to be effective with high-need students, said Rick Miller, CEO of CORE Districts, a network of nine large systems in the state, including LAUSD.

Illustrative Math, now being phased in districtwide, is one example. Teachers at Jordan High School, in a densely populated neighborhood of housing projects and small homes, were among the first to use the program. 

On a Monday morning earlier this month, 10th graders in Luis Lopez鈥檚 geometry class opened their workbooks to a new lesson on congruent shapes. They chatted with classmates about the set of rectangles on the page before Lopez stepped in to remind them of vocabulary words like 鈥渧ertices鈥� and 鈥渃orresponding.鈥� The curriculum is structured so that students grapple with new concepts and work together on problems before teachers deliver a full lesson. 

鈥淲hen we were going to school, especially in math, it was 鈥業 will model. I’m the teacher and now 鈥� you’ll just do 100 problems,鈥� 鈥� said Principal Alex Kim. This curriculum, he said, flips that process while also ensuring the tasks focus on grade-level material.

The program has gained popularity in other districts. The New York City Public Schools saw a decline in scores after implementing the curriculum in hundreds of schools. But two , one in Missouri and one in Maryland, found that students using Illustrative Math outperformed those who didn鈥檛. At Jordan, a quarter of 11th graders met expectations in math, compared to less than 4% two years ago.

鈥楬istoric generational implications鈥�

To some former LAUSD parents, the improvements are too little, too late.

They are cynical about any post-pandemic rebound, saying that the district contributed to learning loss by staying closed almost until the end of the 2020鈥�21 school year. 

鈥淚 don’t think LAUSD should get credit for putting out a fire that it was responsible for lighting,鈥� said Ben Austin, a longtime Democratic political adviser and former member of the state school board. 鈥淢y daughters didn’t go to school for 18 months, along with all the other kids in LAUSD. That obviously had historic generational implications.鈥�

California鈥檚 sluggish reopening affected students statewide, but what angered some LAUSD parents the most was the teachers union鈥檚 influence over remote instructional time during school closures. In March 2021, 社区黑料 reported that the union negotiated a reduced, six-hour school day despite district officials saying they didn鈥檛 want to 鈥渟hortchange the students.鈥� The revelation came during a lawsuit, against the district and the union.

The agreement promises 45 hours per year of high-dosage tutoring to 100,000 students who are the furthest behind as well as summer school for up to 250,000 students in the district who were affected by the extended closures.

During the 2020-21 school year, Judith Larson said her daughter鈥檚 remote classes often 鈥渆nded well before they were supposed to鈥� or that teachers used the sessions to collect homework assignments rather than provide live instruction. Her daughter lost so much ground in math that last year, as a junior in high school, she scored at a sixth grade level. In English, she was two years behind and losing hope that she would be able to attend the University of California Los Angeles, her dream school. Now a senior, she鈥檚 made progress, but still struggles in math. 

鈥淪he is working hard to bridge the gap,鈥� her mother said. 鈥淚 am hoping that the high-dose tutoring 鈥� will help her get there.鈥�

As with schools nationwide, the pandemic worsened longstanding achievement gaps in LAUSD. There鈥檚 still a 30 percentage point difference between poor students and those from wealthier families in reading and math. 

鈥淭here鈥檚 a long way to go,鈥� and 鈥渨ith each year, progress gets harder,鈥� Miller said. But as a former state education official, he never expected LAUSD to outperform the state. 鈥淭hey were too big.鈥�

This year, LAUSD鈥檚 growth exceeded the state鈥檚 and California鈥檚 other large school districts. During the press event at Maywood Elementary, state Superintendent Tony Thurmond was on hand to mark the achievement. He organized a webinar so other districts in the state could 鈥渉ear some of the stories about what has created that success.鈥�

Speaker after speaker stepped to the podium to share in what one board member called a 鈥渨atershed moment鈥� for LAUSD. Drawing a few chuckles, Carvalho paused to note that Thurmond had to slip out early and 鈥済ive some love to other lower-performing districts.鈥� 

Bill McCallum, a lead writer for the Common Core math standards, and Kristin Umland, then a faculty member at the University of New Mexico, led the effort, which was supposed to last a year or two. 

At first, Umland said, the organization was focused on helping other groups, including the and testing companies, improve their products to meet the more rigorous standards. 

Eventually, she said, the group shifted to creating the curriculum 鈥� including lesson plans 鈥� that it felt best served students as they strove to achieve both a conceptual understanding of math, the why of how math works, alongside procedural fluency, the ability to solve problems. 

Illustrative Mathematics now encompasses 90 employees 鈥� all are remote workers 鈥� with no central location. For those states that still use it, the curriculum is aligned to Common Core standards 鈥� and there are also state-specific versions for those states that don’t.

鈥淥ur goal is to change outcomes for students, regardless of the standards they are using,鈥� Umland said. 鈥淢ath is math, and all states agree that kids should learn math.鈥�

Select schools within the New York City system have been using Illustrative Mathematics for half a decade. A recent, massive rollout across hundreds of campuses has been met with sharp criticism from many teachers and  

Some said the curriculum and for students to practice what they鈥檝e learned. One educator acknowledged these initial growing pains but said , one that helped students more easily understand abstract concepts.  

Umland has heard all of the complaints. While she acknowledges these early days struggles,  it doesn鈥檛 mean the move is a failure. Only that it needs more time, she said. 

鈥淭here鈥檚 no magic bullet,鈥� she said. 鈥淚f there was, somebody would have figured it out by now.鈥�

Los Angeles, which adopted the curriculum in its middle and high schools in 2023, meanwhile, .

社区黑料 talked with Umland recently about the math wars, how her organization鈥檚 approach stands out from the rest and about Illustrative Mathematics鈥檚 bumpy New York City rollout.

The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Where does Illustrative Mathematics fit into the math wars? And by math wars, I mean that push and pull between teacher- and child-centered learning? 

We always see ourselves as a third way. There’s no-one-size-fits-all for all students in all contexts. There are times when students need to understand and hear a direct explanation. And there are other times they should be given a chance to think about it for themselves, make sense of it, grapple with it and discuss it. So, it’s not either or. It’s what’s appropriate for what you’re trying to help students learn in the particular moment.

What type of lesson would require a direct explanation? 

So, a perfect example is when kids are learning to count. There’s no way they can figure that out on their own. Numbers are different in different languages. That’s a completely cultural thing. That’s something you have to learn by hearing other people say the number to you. 

But when you’re starting to do addition, once they understand what three is and what two is, you can say, 鈥淚f I have three marbles and two marbles, how many marbles do I have altogether?鈥� 

The things that are cultural have to be taught directly. But once you understand what the meaning is, you can figure it out. 

How does Illustrative Mathematics鈥檚 approach to teaching and learning compare to most other curriculum methods?

A lot of folks learn mathematics from an 鈥淚 do, we do, you do model,鈥� where the teacher does an example question, then they work together with the students, and then the students go practice.

Our method sort of flips that model on its head, allowing students to think about a problem so they can get oriented to it. And then there’s discussion where they make sense of it. 

And, finally, the teacher brings it all together. It gives students a chance to think for themselves before being shown something. 

I can show you how to do two plus three by counting it all myself, or I can say, 鈥淗ere’s a picture that shows two marbles and three marbles. How many marbles do you see altogether?鈥�

Some kids will know how to count it and will do it. And some kids won’t. They’ll talk about it, share their strategies, and then the teacher can make sure that the student who does it correctly shows their solution. Or if none of the students do it, they can show them how.

Illustrative Mathematics had a rough rollout in New York City. What went wrong for some teachers/schools? 

A lot of the complaints weren鈥檛 necessarily about the curriculum itself, but about the rollout or the implementation. 

Teachers need to have professional development where they get oriented to the design structure and they get a chance to experience what a lesson feels like. They need a chance to practice.

Ideally, they have opportunities to collaborate with their colleagues on planning and they have coaching support as they go. It鈥檚 just sometimes hard to coordinate all of those pieces.

A lot of teachers, in the first couple of months, are still trying to understand how it works. But once they get to the second or third month, then they start to see how it works. When something is new, it’s harder. It doesn’t necessarily make sense. And it takes time for people to get oriented to it. 

We’re seeing the best success in the places where they’ve been doing it longer. They鈥檝e put in a lot of time to support it and when they get to that phase, then they’re really seeing the outcomes for students.

What do you want to fix about mathematics education in this country?  

A lot of school districts have come to realize that they need high-quality instructional materials. They’ve made that commitment. Then they start to ask themselves, 鈥淥K, so what do we do for (struggling students)?鈥�

In a multi-tiered system of support, tier one instruction is the core instruction that all students receive. Students identified as needing additional support will receive tier two instruction. Often, this means they will be pulled for small group instruction or additional instruction.

One of the problems is that for many of these students, it’s like they’re on a highway and then they get pulled off onto the frontage road 鈥� only they never find a way back. They end up on a parallel track. What we want is to figure out how to support these students.

How might you help kids stay on track? 

Right now, we’re really focusing on early math. We are currently developing a pre-K math curriculum. It will be available next school year. If you can get to students early, it has an exponential impact on them before they head on to later grades. If we can do a better job with the youngest math learners, they won鈥檛 have the problems that we see at the secondary level in the future. 

Beginning his career in education as a state policy analyst, Hirsch has led the nonprofit 鈥� which takes an independent, Consumer Reports approach to reviewing instructional materials 鈥� since its founding in 2014. He previously spent years surveying teachers on to learn more about what made them want to stay in their careers, and in a similar way, aimed to elevate the role of teachers in what is often an 鈥渙paque鈥� industry, he said.  

The organization鈥檚 initial reports were not well received and drew 鈥渘asty letters,鈥� from publishers, Hirsch said. More than 1,100 reviews later, many states and districts consider EdReports the leading authority when deciding on new materials.

鈥淥ne of the things about 鈥� leading something as big, impactful and important as EdReports is this is an idea that’s bigger than me. It鈥檚 about the impact we’ve had,鈥� he said. 鈥淚 hope the job is as exciting to someone else as it has been to me. It’s just time for me not to be the one doing that job.鈥�

Hirsch, who said he鈥檚 not sure what he wants to do next, will leave at the end of the school year while the board conducts a search for a new chief. 

Hirsch鈥檚 departure comes at a time of change for the organization. Last year, it revised its scoring process in response to feedback from experts and educators. In June, the organization expanded to review pre-K materials, influenced by a 2024 showing that curricula for 3- and 4-year-olds often 鈥渇all short鈥� and don鈥檛 provide enough support for multilingual learners. 

have also taken a larger role in determining which materials districts select, with several to use EdReports reviews as guides. But with the growing attention to the role of high-quality materials in student learning, the organization has faced increased criticism.

Some argued the review process was slow to emphasize the science of reading. Reviewers gave its to programs that still encouraged students to guess words based on pictures or the rest of a sentence while also giving lower, yellow ratings to programs found to boost student achievement.

鈥淚 think we’ve caught up in terms of the criteria,鈥� said Courtney Allison, EdReports鈥� chief academic officer. 鈥淣ow we’re working on 鈥� just making sure that we can provide as much information as possible about as many programs as possible.鈥�

Other critics say EdReports鈥� review system overemphasizes whether materials address the . Hirsch acknowledged many of the concerns, and the released in November placed a greater focus on phonics, fluency and phonemic awareness while 鈥渟till considering standards where they鈥檙e useful,鈥� said spokeswoman Janna Chan.

Additional organizations, like and the , have also launched as alternatives. Hirsch said he鈥檚 never viewed them as competitors, and Allison said additional 鈥減artners鈥� can provide helpful signals to district leaders. The risk, she said, is that there鈥檚 so much 鈥渘oise鈥� that leaders picking curriculum 鈥渢hrow up their hands and say, 鈥楴ever mind, it’s too much.鈥� 鈥�

Devon Gadow, a partner with TNTP, a nonprofit consulting organization, said she appreciated Hirsch鈥檚 confidence in EdReports鈥� mission. 

鈥淭hey could have gone in 15 different directions, and certainly there are other organizations that have popped up over the years that are now reviewing materials,鈥� she said. But Hirsch鈥檚 鈥渟ingular focus鈥� on the connection between curriculum and standards 鈥渁llowed states and educators to demand better quality materials.鈥� 

In looking for a new leader, EdReports needs someone who understands the intersection of artificial intelligence and curriculum, both as a real-time , but also as a guide for teachers on how to present a lesson to students who might be working below grade level, Gadow said. With more schools incorporating tutoring and intervention groups into the school day, she said teachers also need more support in connecting their primary curriculum to additional materials.

With all the emphasis on high-quality materials, Hirsch noted growing research showing that simply adopting a strong curriculum isn鈥檛 enough. A from the Rand Corp. showed there鈥檚 often a mismatch between curriculum, teacher training and assessment. Teachers are using more curriculum materials than ever, but often 鈥渨ater it down鈥� to their students鈥� level, wrote David Steiner, executive director of the Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy. 

An released last month showed that most districts don鈥檛 pilot materials before adopting them districtwide and don鈥檛 have their own process for measuring whether the materials they choose are effective.

鈥淲hy hasn’t the needle moved on student achievement more?鈥� Hirsch asked. 鈥淲e鈥檙e starting to think the next decade has some really important questions that build off all we鈥檝e done.鈥�

Meanwhile, it is ever more common for and to publish 鈥減ortrait of the graduate鈥� 鈥� a vision of the well-educated student. As reveals, there is little emphasis on the acquisition of knowledge. that scanned a large number of such portraits produced this condensed list: 鈥淎nalyze to understand, care for and contribute to society, collaborate across difference, communicate in all media and modalities, create to solve and share, and practice self-awareness and regulation.鈥� Such a hodgepodge of metacognitive, behavioral and ethical goals is often confused, wrongheaded or underthought from the start. To analyze something, you need to know what it鈥檚 about; communication in the absence of learning might well be mindless or destructive. In public (and ) schools that are by income and race, what 鈥渄ifferences鈥� are we talking about? 

But the drumbeat continues 鈥� often found in the admonition to 鈥渢each 21^st century skills,鈥� with the ethical implication that an education that doesn鈥檛 provide them is cruelly undermining children鈥檚 very well-being. A careful review of these 鈥渘ew鈥� skills reveals a lengthy laundry list, multiple elements of which lack sharp definition or repackage long-held, if perennially vacuous, pedagogical aims. To cite some examples, I have my doubts that our century alone values 鈥渕anaging time and resources effectively to complete tasks and achieve outcomes,鈥� or that 鈥渇orming well-reasoned arguments鈥� would strike us (or even the ancient Greeks) as anything but obvious as an educational goal.

Even elements that seem both contemporary and sane, such as teaching digital literacy and the thoughtful use of artificial intelligence, leave us pressing for meaning. What standards should teachers and students use to evaluate social media if they know little to nothing about the topic?

What has been devalued in these exhortations to impart 鈥渟kills鈥� is the teaching of knowledge about the world, including geography, history, high-level science and math, foreign languages and the human condition through literature and the arts. Why do we devalue and neglect real knowledge? One key reason is that knowing is equated with 鈥渕emorization鈥� 鈥� a term that has apparently become a pejorative label for an antiquated model of learning. This is astonishing. We expect experts to know vast amounts of information by heart, regardless of whether they are surgeons or concert pianists. We know that without storage of information in long-term memory, learning would become next to impossible 鈥� indeed, survival itself would be at risk. 

But a second reason 鈥� the most common riposte to arguments for teaching content 鈥� is that doing so is just regarded as old-fashioned in the era of the internet. After all, we are told, we can always 鈥渓ook it up.鈥� 

To question this ubiquitous assertion, take one of the most famous theories in physics: string theory. When we look it up, we find out that to understand string theory, we need to grasp what a Calabi-Yau manifold is. Searching for that term, we are told that 鈥淐alabi-Yau manifolds are compact, Ricci-flat K盲hler manifolds that are important in string theory鈥� and that 鈥渁 Ricci flow is a differential equation that smooths a manifold’s metric.鈥� Search for an account of that equation, and we are informed that it鈥檚 a 鈥済eometric partial differential equation.鈥� 

It turns out that, beyond the pleasure of looking at some pretty, knotty shapes without the first conception of what they might be, what I really need to grasp string theory is 鈥渁 strong foundation in complex geometry, differential geometry and algebraic geometry, including concepts like complex manifolds, K盲hler manifolds and Chern classes. Key mathematical tools include differential and integral calculus, topology, abstract algebra and tensor calculus.鈥� This includes, for example, an understanding of the quintic hyperface where a fifth-degree polynomial in multiple variables is equal to zero (what we are after is a smooth quintic hypersurface in P鈦� (a quintic threefold) which is a Calabi-Yau variety). 

Are you still with me? Only one reader in 20,000 (I am an optimist on both counts) can, I suspect, understand the terms in the last paragraph, and such understanding isn鈥檛 just one more AI prompt away. It鈥檚 not that I lack critical thinking; it鈥檚 that any level of critical thinking is simply irrelevant to the fact that I haven鈥檛 studied the math. 

You don鈥檛 need string theory to make this point. For years, , followed more recently by , state leaders such as in Louisiana, commentators like and organizations like the , have argued 鈥� supported by considerable evidence 鈥� that without broad background knowledge, becoming a strong reader is impossible. According to this body of research (and to common sense), it鈥檚 pointless to ask an American child to 鈥渇ind the main idea鈥� in a sentence like 鈥渉e switched to the googly and so rearranged the placing of the silly mid-off鈥� 鈥� yet many English students would have no trouble understanding the cricket reference. from cognitive and educational psychology, sociology and curriculum studies converge on the foundational idea that knowledge acquisition is the essential foundation for complex thought, including thinking critically about a topic. Those who advocate for schools to teach metacognition should also demand that students first learn about the world and the human condition. 

The response that some things can鈥檛 be understood without studying them, or that students will struggle to comprehend texts if they are unfamiliar with the background knowledge those texts presuppose, hasn鈥檛 stopped the steady retreat from requiring schools to teach knowledge. Exhibit 1 is grade inflation: High school graduates earned an average , while NAEP scores (and ACT/SAT performance) declined. In short, we call knowledge today what we used to call ignorance. Exhibit 2 is the steady reduction in state requirements of any testing for high school graduation (incorporating recent decisions in and , we are down to six states). And Exhibit 3 is what counts as news: Does the nation care that Louisiana 鈥� the only state in which the vast majority of teachers have been using the same high-quality, content-rich curriculum for years 鈥� was also the only state to show NAEP gains in fourth and eighth grade right through the COVID years and continuing? Consider, too, the mainstream indifference (a couple of notwithstanding) to the fact that charter schools, especially those in , alone bucked the national trend of falling outcomes.

There is really only one important counter-push, known as HQIM (high-quality instructional materials). Fifteen states have now joined a , led by the Council of Chief State School Officers, to shift their public schools to the use of these curricula. In English Language Arts, such curricula are rated by EdReports as meeting state standards 鈥� and must pass a 鈥渂uilding knowledge鈥� standard as part of the evaluation.  Still, as is clear from detailed work that the has conducted over the last decade, many EdReports鈥渁pproved鈥� ELA curricula still focus on disconnected bodies of thematically related topics that fail to build sequential knowledge (E.D. Hirsch鈥檚 鈥� has been a rare exception). As , the use of knowledge-rich curriculum is now threatened by how AI is often used 鈥� namely, to dumb down strong curriculum. There are powerful ways in which AI could support effective knowledge acquisition ( is one example). But, as ever with technology, the question will be whether the misuses undermine the potential benefits. 

We reap what we sow. Today, poorer students are reading more poorly, compared with their wealthy peers, than they have since NAEP started measuring the gap. Preaching anti-intellectualism and a disdain for acquiring knowledge may be politically efficacious. It also creates a smokescreen over the nation’s widening income distribution, which is, in turn, . 

The arguments in this piece have been couched in the language of utility 鈥� why it鈥檚 important to know stuff, and why it鈥檚 worth reflecting on the causes of knowledge鈥檚 dethronement. But in closing, remember Plato鈥檚 Apology, and in particular Socrates鈥� now-untimely statement that the unexamined life is not worth living. Except that what Plato has Socrates say is, in fact, much more radical: For a human being, 鈥渢he unexamined life is not livable.鈥� Knowledge furnishes the mind 鈥� what we know is the most intimate, the most enduring, of our companions. Without it, we are but bundles of instincts, emotions and habitual behaviors. Fortunately, children love to absorb knowledge 鈥� if we would but provide it. 

With a state mandate looming, the Los Angeles Unified School District this week joined other districts in preparing to introduce a semester of personal finance by the Legislature鈥檚 2027-28 deadline. 

The LAUSD school board gave the go-ahead on Tuesday while stipulating that elements of financial literacy and economic justice be incorporated into the course. 

As of 2023, only 27% of the state鈥檚 high school students attended a school that offered a course in personal finance, the California Department of Education reported. But to increase access and make it a high school graduation requirement, the state passed Assembly Bill 2927 in 2024, which proponents argue could  students鈥� lifetime earnings by roughly $100,000. 

Twenty-nine states already require such a course. 

鈥淚f you speak to any adult, they will tell you one of two things,鈥� said Tim Ranzetta, a co-founder of Next Gen Personal Finance. 鈥淥ne is, 鈥業t鈥檚 a class I wish I had.鈥� The second is, 鈥楥an you educate my kids?鈥欌�� 

Per the , the LAUSD will be required to provide an update that includes a start date of February 2026. The course will address: 

• 叠耻诲驳别迟颈苍驳听
• 叠辞谤谤辞飞颈苍驳听
• Interest rates
• 叠补苍办颈苍驳听
• Taxes
• Credit
• Retirement planning
• Insurance

LAUSD鈥檚 program will also incorporate financial justice 鈥� an element that can help students understand American history, literature and government from an economic perspective. 

鈥淒uring a time when the future of a family may seem uncertain, when many students and youth find themselves suddenly the heads of household, it鈥檚 all the more important,鈥� said LAUSD student board member Jerry Yang at Tuesday鈥檚 meeting. 

Yanely Espinal, the director of educational outreach at Next Gen Personal Finance, added that including financial justice can help students understand ongoing wage gaps based on profession, gender and other factors. 

It鈥檚 鈥済etting students to understand the reality that we live in within the financial world,鈥� Espinal said. 鈥淚t hasn鈥檛 always been so picture perfect, and while it is increasingly improving and becoming, there鈥檚 a lot of effort to try to make it more fair.鈥�

鈥楳ost sought-after elective courses鈥�

Last year, Fresno Unified School District became one of the earlier California districts to offer a financial literacy elective course in the majority of its high schools. 

鈥淲e just kind of floated it out there, like, 鈥楬ey, if we were able to offer this elective course, who鈥檚 showing interest in it?鈥欌�� said Jeff Allen, a teacher on special assignment who has been focused on implementing the course districtwide. 鈥淥vernight, it became one of the most sought-after elective courses.鈥�

And in that year alone, the district identified 15 teachers who wanted to teach the subject and taught 998 students. 

Further south, at Olympian High School in San Diego鈥檚 Sweetwater Union High School District, Allison Saiki has been teaching financial algebra for years 鈥� and has recently worked to add financial literacy this semester. 

鈥淲e have social media where students can go and learn from 鈥� financial influencers,鈥� Saiki said. 鈥淏ut I have students that say, 鈥楬ey, you know what? We see a lot of that outside, but we don鈥檛 know what鈥檚 real. But we can come to you and we say, 鈥楬ey, is this true?鈥欌�� and we decipher it together.鈥�

Saiki, who has been awarded as the school鈥檚 teacher of the year and has been recognized districtwide, also transforms the classroom into an active economy, with its own currency, employment, pay, property and tax. Students fill out I-9 forms and learn about 401(k)s. 

Teaching the subject has also helped Saiki personally. 

鈥淚 look back and I鈥檓 like, 鈥極h my gosh, I鈥檓 an impulsive spender!鈥欌�� Saiki said. 

鈥淧rofessional development has given me an opportunity to look at my finances and be like, 鈥榃ait a minute, let鈥檚 fix some things, so that聽I can do everything that I am telling my students to do.鈥欌�澛�

Beyond the requirements 

Even though the mandate only calls for a one-semester high school course, Espinal said educators can start introducing students to basic principles of financial literacy even earlier. 

For example, at the elementary school level, she said teachers can mimic scenarios of how they might split their birthday money into different piggy banks. 

鈥淵ou should decide how many of those dollars will go to saving, how many will go to spending, how many will go to charity or donations or gifting to others 鈥� and how much will you invest for the future, for bigger goals that are much beyond the next few weeks or months of your life,鈥� Espinal said. 

Middle school can be more specific, and high school should be oriented toward students鈥� lifetime goals, according to Espinal. 

She stressed that many of the topics covered are already relevant for high schoolers, who may be navigating car insurance as young drivers, or looking into ways to pay for college. LAUSD school board member Kelly Gonez also stressed the importance of extending financial literacy into adult education during Tuesday鈥檚 board meeting. 

鈥淭hat early exposure amounts to very specific decisions that they have to make,鈥� Espinal said. 鈥淏ut you can鈥檛 really make those decisions unless you鈥檙e informed about everything that weighs into that decision-making process.鈥�