There might be hope for finding common ground and ending the reading wars.

Can we seize the moment?

I just read a blog post (originally published in Forbes) by one our great educational scholars and leaders, Linda Darling-Hammond, pointing to themes in state policies that have led to significant growth in reading and math achievement.

The intriguing headline in these hyper-polarized political times: “Improving Student Achievement: What Red and Blue States Are Doing Right.”

Credit: Gemini

The concluding paragraph has another potent heading: “The Common Threads Across the Political Tapestry”:

There is much more that could be said about the educational strategies in these high-achieving and steeply improving states. What is clear when one looks across East and West, North and South, is that the states that have built lasting educational success—whether Massachusetts in the 1990s or Mississippi today—have done so through patient, systemic investment in schools and in the people who work in them. They invested in schools based on student needs; prepared and supported teachers seriously; and built coherent instructional systems rather than chasing singular reforms. These are not red or blue lessons; they are simply what works. If we are to make progress in public education, we need to evaluate what works across political and geographic borders to the fundamental systemic elements that support learning for all students.

The states Darling-Hammond uses as examples of “high-achieving and steeply improving” are striking. They are rarely cited as similar in any meaningful way. Yet here they are, showcased together as exemplars that provide models for other states seeking a path to widespread improvement in student learning.

“… states that have built lasting educational success—whether Massachusetts in the 1990s or Mississippi today—have done so through patient, systemic investment in schools and in the people who work in them.”—Linda Darling-Hammond

The Blue States

Darling-Hammond cites blue-state perennial high scorers Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New Jersey for reforms undertaken decades ago to increase and equalize school funding, bringing additional resources to districts with the greatest needs. The results, she says, were “dramatic gains in achievement with reductions in achievement gaps within a decade.” All three states perform at a level “comparable to the highest-achieving nations in the world.”

These same states, Darling-Hammond continues, also made investments in upgrading instructional quality by, for example, improving teacher salaries, preparation, and ongoing training. Massachusetts developed new standards, curriculum, and 21^st-century learning goals and assessments. Connecticut introduced a major initiative rooted in the “science of reading” that led to improvement in National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reading scores in the 1990s. New Jersey spent for new curriculum linked to state standards, whole school reform, early childhood education, full day kindergarten, class-size reduction, health and social service initiatives, and summer school programs.

Illinois, another blue state, launched its school funding reform in 2017. The effort, according to Darling-Hammond, is beginning to show the benefits of providing additional resources to students with the greatest needs.

The Red States

Red states Mississippi and Louisiana are cited as “worthy of attention” for their dramatic improvements in the first decades of the 21^st century. Mississippi in particular has garnered tremendous amounts of attention. And controversy as well, which Darling-Hammond says misses the point. Commentators continue to square off on whether Mississippi’s most improved status and position among the highest scoring states (when scores are adjusted for student demographics) occurred because of a switch to phonics instruction or due to the impact of 3rd-grade retention. Some have suggested the state just cheated.

Darling-Hammond cautions against these simplistic and misleading claims:

[T]he actual reform that led to the success was more complex. … Much like Connecticut and Massachusetts had previously done, Mississippi used insights from research to establish the components of a robust, multifaceted literacy policy [that] include the elements described in a recent synthesis of evidence from the science of reading, which notes that, in addition to explicit, systematic instruction that supports decoding, students benefit from rich conversations and books read aloud in the classroom and at home, by frequent reading of connected texts that build on existing knowledge, in-depth discussions about texts, and explicit teaching of comprehension strategies.

…Far from the rote drill or scripted curriculum featured in caricatures of phonics instruction, Mississippi’s guidance specifies that worksheets should not be used with young children and that most of this learning should happen in hands-on learning centers in each classroom that allow for differentiation of tasks depending on what each student needs.

She points out that “Mississippi’s progress has not only been due to its very thoughtful literacy reforms.” As happened in the blue states earlier, there were significant improvements in per pupil spending and teacher raises.

Louisiana “followed Mississippi’s lead as it reformed literacy instruction and then mathematics instruction in the early grades.” Per pupil expenditures also increased as did pay raises for teachers.

“Much like Connecticut and Massachusetts had previously done, Mississippi used insights from research to establish the components of a robust, multifaceted literacy policy [that] include the elements described in a recent synthesis of evidence from the science of reading…” —Linda Darling-Hammond

Other States… and Looking Ahead

High scoring states of all shades have cameos in the essay: purple Colorado and Wisconsin. Blue Minnesota makes an appearance, as does red Utah, which, Darling-Hammond says, “holds the honor of the most equitably distributed school funding in the country in relation to student needs.”

I don’t know whether all the claims and generalizations in this piece withstand scrutiny if the full picture of 50 states and the District of Columbia are systematically considered.

Regardless, this is a bold and much-needed statement about casting aside political ideologies and other biases and instead making honest efforts to understand what states around the country are doing that can help guide the rest of us toward better outcomes for all students.

And of course… please share your thoughts (with apologies for my poor record of responding to comments).