Why Schools Keep Getting Reading Wrong

Working to protect what public education promises every child: the right to read.

If we want different outcomes for kids, we have to start making different decisions about reading.

I was recently at a party, talking with a friend and fellow teacher, when the conversation took a familiar turn. She had just been moved into a reading intervention position and was feeling overwhelmed. She came to me looking for guidance. Naturally, I asked what resources she had. What program was she being asked to use? When she told me the name, I was floored.

It was a program rooted in balanced literacy.

I asked her to repeat it. Then I Googled it myself, hoping I had misunderstood. I had not. In 2026, a school district had just invested significant money in a reading program built on practices we now know are ineffective.

How is this still happening?

This year, New York State required districts to complete an attestation about their reading programs. The intent was good. The problem is that NYS did not provide districts with a list of approved or vetted programs. New York City offered its schools a short list of options. Throughout the rest of the state, districts were left to figure it out on their own.

And many are getting it wrong.

I Am a Public Education Advocate and That Is Exactly Why This Matters

Before I go any further, I want to be clear. I am a strong advocate for public education. I went through public schools from kindergarten through college. My parents were both public school teachers. My brother is a public school teacher. I taught in the public school system for sixteen years. Both of my children attend our local public schools.

I believe deeply in public education.

I also know it is flawed.

I know it has let down families. I know it has failed too many children. And I know we can do better.

The Real Reason Districts Choose Flawed Programs

Here is the uncomfortable truth.

Most district leaders are not experts in reading instruction.

That is not a criticism. It is a reality of how educational leadership works. Administrators are responsible for budgets, personnel, compliance, safety, and community trust. Deep knowledge of reading science is not a prerequisite for the role. When literacy decisions are made, districts often rely on what sounds reasonable, what feels familiar, and what aligns with long-standing beliefs about teaching.

This is where workshop-based models continue to thrive.

Writer’s Workshop as a Case Study

When I first came to my district, the district was working with a Writer’s Workshop consultant. This was after widespread scrutiny of Lucy Calkins and the Units of Study. I asked why the district would hire someone connected to that work.

The response I received was, “I think she is taking a different approach.”

As my mother used to say, a leopard does not change its spots.

When I met with the consultant, she was engaging and articulate. She had a clear vision. She shared examples of her work. For a moment, I thought maybe it could work. Around the table, heads were nodding.

Her proposal was to pull teachers out of classrooms to write units of study. If first graders were learning about animals, teachers would write a corresponding writing unit focused on animals.

It sounded collaborative. It sounded responsive. It sounded professional.

It also revealed the core problem.

Why Workshop Models Appeal to Districts

Workshop-based programs are attractive to districts for several reasons.

They emphasize teacher autonomy and creativity. They avoid the perception of being scripted. They promise flexibility and responsiveness to students. They align with the belief that strong teaching comes from teacher-designed lessons rather than shared instructional tools.

What these models do not provide is just as important.

They do not offer a coherent, research-aligned scope and sequence. They do not provide explicit instructional guidance. They do not reduce planning demands. Instead, they shift the responsibility for curriculum design onto teachers.

That shift has consequences.

The Hidden Costs of “Let’s Write Our Own”

When districts adopt workshop-based approaches, they often underestimate what they are actually paying for. They pay consultants to guide the work. They pay teachers stipends to write units. They pay for substitutes so teachers can meet during the day. They pay in professional development hours, summer work, and ongoing revisions.

And even with that investment, district-created curricula are rarely complete.

There are gaps. There are inconsistencies across classrooms and grade levels. There is limited alignment to evidence. There is little guidance for students who struggle most. When those gaps appear, teachers do what teachers always do. They try to fill them. This is often where Teachers Pay Teachers materials enter the picture. Teachers are not turning to these resources out of carelessness. They are trying to make the curriculum work.

But the result is a system where instruction becomes increasingly fragmented. One classroom uses one set of materials. Another uses something entirely different. Equity quietly erodes. High-quality curricula are designed to prevent this. They reduce the need for constant supplementation, provide coherence across grades, and embed evidence-based instruction so teachers can focus on teaching rather than searching for materials (Remillard, 2024).

When districts choose models that require teachers to build instead of implement, variability is inevitable.

This Is a Systems Problem, Not a People Problem

It is easy to blame teachers. It is easy to blame administrators.

A Way Forward

The shift to the science of reading is not easy, but it is possible.

Districts need clearer guidance, better vetting of programs, and stronger support structures. In the absence of that, leaders must be intentional about who they turn to for help and what they look for.

What to Look for in Consultants

Not all consultants are created equal. Districts should look beyond polished presentations and familiar language.

Strong consultants will:

• Ground their work in current reading research

• Be transparent about their instructional beliefs

• Support high-quality curricula rather than replace them

• Emphasize explicit, systematic instruction

• Focus on building internal capacity rather than dependence

Be cautious of consultants who:

• Avoid naming balanced literacy but use its language

• Emphasize frameworks over instruction

• Encourage districts to write their own curriculum without evidence

• Dismiss the importance of scope and sequence

• Rely heavily on leveled texts or workshop structures

A key question districts should ask is this: When the consultant leaves, what will actually remain?

Districts need to do their homework. Where has the consultant worked before? What have they published? What does their past work look like in real classrooms and real systems? Instructional philosophies do not disappear simply because the language has changed. A consultant’s history matters. As noted earlier, past practice is often the clearest predictor of future work.

At Sunday Literacy, my work with districts is grounded in that reality. The focus is not on rewriting curriculum, introducing new frameworks, or creating parallel systems. The focus is on building knowledge within existing structures. That means helping leaders and teachers understand the research behind instructional decisions, strengthening the implementation of high-quality curricula, and reducing instructional variability so students experience coherent, evidence-based instruction across classrooms.

Consultants should not be the curriculum. They should help districts learn how to use what they have, identify what is missing, and make informed, research-aligned decisions moving forward. For those seeking more individualized support, I also offer consulting through Sunday Literacy at SundaysWithSarah.org.

If You Are a School Administrator Just Getting Started

If you are a school or district leader beginning this transition and are unsure where to start, one resource worth exploring is The Teachers Table.

The Teachers Table is a professional learning platform designed to support educators and leaders through evidence-based practice, collaboration, and shared learning. It connects research, expert insight, and practitioner experience to help districts build capacity without reinventing the wheel.

It is especially helpful for leaders seeking to better understand instructional shifts, curriculum decisions, and what evidence-aligned implementation looks like in practice.

You can explore membership here:

Look to districts doing this work well. In Kingston, we are making meaningful progress. We have a long way to go, but we are moving in the right direction.

I am always willing to meet, talk, or host visits for districts seeking guidance. This work is too important to do alone.

Final Thought

Public education was designed for all people.

At its core is the belief that every child is entitled to a free and appropriate public education. Literacy is not optional within that promise. It is foundational.

When districts invest in practices we know do not work, students pay the price. When we invest in evidence-based instruction, we strengthen not only our schools, but our democracy.

Investing in our youth is the greatest investment we can make as a society.

If we want to save public education, we must be willing to make different choices. Choices grounded in evidence. Choices grounded in equity. Choices that honor the promise public education was built on.

When we know better, we teach better.

See you next Sunday!

References

Remillard, J. T. (2024). How to partner with your curriculum. ASCD. https://www.ascd.org/el/articles/how-to-partner-with-your-curriculum