Every state’s reading law asks the same blunt question: can this child read? Central office teams inherit a harder question hiding underneath it. How do we raise scores fast without draining judgment out of every classroom? Superintendents ask me some version of this in nearly identical language, from very different states.
Here is the turn most districts take first. Leaders buy a fully scripted program, hand teachers a pacing guide, and call the law satisfied. Fidelity monitoring becomes a walk-through that counts minutes and slide numbers instead of watching children think. Scores creep upward for a year, then flatten, because compliance was never the real goal.
A deeper problem sits underneath the paperwork. Many leadership teams believe a strong script can substitute for a strong teacher. That belief feels safe, because scripts are easy to audit and teachers are hard to develop. But no scripted lesson can diagnose why one child confuses letter sounds while another cannot blend them.
This mistake shows up in predictable places across the country. Districts rush to buy new materials before building the coaching structure that makes materials work (Lexia Learning, 2024). Training gets compressed into a single day, then leaders wonder why classroom practice barely shifts. The materials were never the missing piece; sustained support for teachers was.
A literacy coach once asked to meet with me, and she brought her own agenda. She walked in holding running records for six struggling readers, along with notes on where the core program had let each child down. I let her lead the conversation and watched her explain, student by student, which decoding skill each one still lacked. When she left, my assistant said, “She is going to fix this district’s reading scores.”
I sat with that comment, because her lesson plans looked nothing like the pacing guide on the shelf. She had not memorized a script; she had internalized how reading works well enough to diagnose a child in real time. That is the difference between a program followed and a skill owned, and it is what every reading law is actually chasing.
Abraham Lincoln is often credited with saying reputation is the shadow, and character is the tree. Compliance works the same way inside a school system. A checklist can produce the shadow of good reading instruction without ever growing the tree underneath it. Districts that chase only the shadow can pass an audit and still lose a generation of readers.
The right answer starts earlier than any purchase order. Teachers need deep training in how reading actually works: phonemic awareness, decoding, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. The National Council on Teacher Quality found that lasting gains require ongoing coaching, not one workshop and a calendar (Holston, 2024). When teachers understand the reading brain, they can flex within a strong core program instead of being trapped by it.
Diagnostic assessment matters as much as initial training. Teachers need regular, quick data on specific skills, not just a screening score three times a year. That data only helps if teachers know what to do with it in the moment. Coaching cycles built around real student work turn a scripted program into a living one.
Central office leaders can watch for one clear signal in any classroom. Strong teachers adjust the lesson the moment a child’s error reveals a specific gap. Weak implementation looks like everyone on the same page at the same minute, regardless of what students need. Forty states now have reading laws on the books, which makes this distinction more urgent, not less (Hagerman, 2024).
Board members do not need to read every phonics program to lead well here. They need one honest question at every literacy update: are we building capacity, or buying a shortcut? That single question changes budget conversations, professional learning calendars, and how principals get evaluated. It also protects the law’s intent long after this year’s compliance report gets filed.
Here is where to start this month:
- Pull your last three classroom observation reports and check whether feedback addressed the schedule or student thinking.
- Schedule one deep coaching cycle for every elementary reading teacher before winter break, not only for those struggling most.
- Ask your state agency what evidence it requires beyond program adoption.
Most states now expect proof of teacher knowledge, not just materials (Council of Chief State School Officers, 2024).
Every reading law exists because too many children reached fourth grade unable to read a map, a simple graph, an informational article, or a ballot for class officer elections. That outcome will not change because a program was purchased correctly. It will change because a teacher understood a struggling reader well enough to change course mid-lesson.
What will your district be known for once the compliance report is filed: the shadow, or the tree?
#EducationalLeader,
Kim
When schools are well led, students learn well.
References
- Council of Chief State School Officers. (2024). Science of reading legislation and implementation state scan.
- Dungy, T., & Whitaker, N. (2010). The mentor leader: Secrets to building people and teams that win consistently. Tyndale House Publishers.
- Hagerman, G. (2024, October 4). The “multiverse” of the science of reading. NEA Today.
- Holston, S. (2024). Five policy actions to strengthen implementation of the science of reading. National Council on Teacher Quality
- Lexia Learning. (2024, August 26). Science of reading implementation: How to overcome common challenges.
The views shared herein are solely those of Dr. Kim D. Moore and do not necessarily reflect the positions of her employer, the school district, or any local, state, or federal government entity.
0 comments