Shanker Blog

The Citizen’s Republic: Power From the People

Our guest author Erica McPheeters works with the Human Rights Campaign as a consultant and social advocate, focusing on equity, LGBTQ+ rights, and community empowerment.

The Great Rejection

Almost two hundred fifty years ago, the original American colonies decided to pursue the right to freedom. Before freedom came the king. This decision has not only changed the trajectory of human governance, but has influenced every aspect of American ideals for almost two hundred fifty years. By denying the proposed divine right of kings and embracing one of the most important concepts of the United States: democracy. This decision embedded certain principles into the legacy of this country. Power derives from the people and cannot be substituted with birthright or conquests. The United States’ shift from a monarchy to a democracy redesigned the future of the entire world while creating a new reality between the government and citizens.

At the inception of our democracy, colonists were not only displeased with a monarchy government. They were concerned with addressing the greater system that subjected individual citizens to a lack of rights, privileges, and freedoms. Absolute power implies the exclusive role of leaders in making decisions for the masses. Where there is a king, there are only subjects, not citizens. When the thirteen colonies declared independence, it represented the reclamation of all freedoms that humans deserve. They broke away from a deep-rooted history of accepting the inevitable rulership of kings. The Founders of the United States saw something greater for the future of this country. They pictured a republic where power can be held accountable. In this democracy, power is the responsibility of us all. It is now the responsibility of Americans to preserve and protect the democracy the Founders and colonists curated for us. 

The Path from Subjects to Citizens

The transformation from colonial subjects to democratic citizens was a relentless fight. Through decades of struggle, compromise, and refinement, the United States was able to form and assert our guiding values— life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These democratic ideals forged through historic events included the Boston Tea Party, the Continental Congress, and the fierce revisions of the Constitution. In these critical moments, Americans consistently chose self-governance over a king.

However, democracy requires more than the absence of a king. The framers of the Constitution understood this well and formulated institutional safeguards against the concentration of power. The checks and balances, branches of government, and federalism system creates a division between any individual or group from gaining control of this democracy. In fact, the Bill of Rights aims to ensure these safeguards by protecting individual freedoms from the reach of the government, despite political pressure or opinion.

Science of Reading Laws: Let’s Begin with the Facts

In the past five years, virtually every state has enacted legislation aimed at improving reading instruction—a wave of reform the Shanker Institute has been (and still is) following closely. The legislation is far from perfect. Some laws lack clarity or feel clunky — somewhat misaligned with the complexity of teaching and learning to read. Others are overly rigid, and have unenforceable mandates that do little to inspire educators' trust. 

These are all valid critiques—ones we at the Institute have raised ourselves. But because we’ve taken the time to read and code these laws, we also take issue with how some of the criticisms are framed. Often, sweeping generalizations dominate the public conversation, misrepresenting both the content and intent of these laws. In this commentary, we address several of the most common misconceptions.

But before jumping in, here is some context: a total of 118 laws in 23 states and the District of Columbia use the expression “science of reading” in at least one piece of legislation passed between 2019 and 2024. By contrast, language invoking the use of "evidence" and "research" appears in virtually all states. As we noted in our 2023 report, states vary significantly in how they define “science of reading” – a topic we may tackle separately. 

Howard University School of Law Presidential Charge to the Class of 2025

Our guest author is Jaden Alexander Cody, a 2025 graduate of Howard University School of Law in Washington, D.C. and the 70th Student Bar Association President of Howard University

Good afternoon everyone, it is a delight to share this space and this air with you all today. To President Vinson, to Provost Wutoh, to Dean Fairfax, Senator Alsobrooks, faculty, staff, esteemed alumni and guests, families and loved ones, I bring you greetings, but most importantly to the reason we are all here today, the class of 2025! Good afternoon, to you!

My name is Jaden Alexander Cody, I am a graduating Third-Year Law student here at the University from Atlanta, Georgia and I have had the esteemed privilege of serving as the 70th Student Bar Association President of Howard University and thus Student Body President of Howard University School of Law.

Before I continue, I want to just take a moment and class if you would join me I’m gonna need you… Because as much as we like to think it’s us and our brilliance, hard work and grit that got us to this seat, I’m sure those who filled the seats around us and online would disagree. All of us are here because someone or a lot of someones ensured that we had what we needed to graduate today, whether it be prayers, calls, textbooks, outlines, food, a roof over our head and or money, we are here because of a village behind us, so I want us to thank the villages that have convened here today for their part in ensuring that JD is about to follow our names. Lets thank the fathers, sisters, aunts, uncles, grandmothers and grandfathers, friends, spouses, children, linebrothers and linesisters. And of course, because our celebration shares a weekend with a special day, the mothers and mother-like figures that have impacted us, class, if you would join me in thanking them for all they have done for us.

While today we are ending a chapter as students of Howard University School of Law, we are entering a time of urgency, a time that scholars are noting already feels eerily similar to what many of us have learned about during our educational careers. We are standing in the days in which our children and their children will look back and either view our actions fondly, speaking our names proudly or question our complicity as we do those in Germany in the 30s, South Africa in the ’40s, 50s, and 60s or honestly, how we view peoples inaction in the face of injustice at any other point in American history. How will people be able to answer where you, where we, where the HUSL class of 2025 stood in history, how did we impact this field, that is so rapidly changing? How are we living out the mission of our University? How are we making the lives of minorities everywhere better? That is what I am here to welcome you to, welcome to a lifelong commitment to service, a lifelong commitment to justice, a lifelong commitment to equity, even when it makes some feel uncomfortable. That is what is expected of a Howard University School of Law lawyer.

Public Funds to Private Schools Will Leave Students with Disabilities Behind

Our guest authors are the National Center for Learning Disabilities, The Arc of the United States, the Council for Exceptional Children, and the Center for Learner Equity.

Just 50 years ago, in 1975, Congress enacted the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in order to ensure that students with disabilities have the opportunity to a free and appropriate education, like all children deserve. Thanks to generations of advocates the US House and US Senate passed IDEA and President Gerald Ford signed it into law.

Last week the US House Ways & Means Committee marked up a budget reconciliation bill that will include a $20 billion proposal diverting public funds to private schools via the Educational Choice for Children Act (ECCA). While the bill includes new language about so-called “protections” for students with disabilities, it is insufficient in providing meaningful, enforceable protections for students with disabilities and their families. As the nation’s leading student advocacy organizations, the National Center for Learning Disabilities, along with the Council for Exceptional Children, the Center for Learner Equity, and The Arc of the United States, are staunchly opposed to this bill. 

Consider this math: ECCA is estimated to fund private school tuition for about 1 million children for $5 billion a year (averaging $5000 per child). By contrast, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) currently serves 7.5 million children and receives $14.6 billion in federal funding a year, averaging less than $2000 per child. This funding level is about 10% of the average per-pupil expenditures. Instead of fully funding IDEA, a promise Congress has never fulfilled, this Congress chooses to fund vouchers, which ultimately benefit the wealthy instead of investing in educating students with disabilities, the overwhelming majority of whom attend public schools.

Beyond Scripts: Why Structured Adaptations Are Key to Scaling Literacy Programs

During National Teacher Appreciation Week, we showcase guest author Susan B. Neuman, who is Professor and Chair of the Teaching and Learning Department at the Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development at New York University and a Shanker Institute Board Member.

I’ve had a front-row seat to decades of curriculum reforms—each promising to close gaps, accelerate learning, and transform instruction. I’ve seen the excitement of a new initiative, the careful design of pilot studies, and the early gains that spark real hope. But I’ve also seen something else: how quickly that promise can fade when programs meet the messy, beautiful, and unpredictable reality of classrooms. Curricula do not teach students to read - teachers do. Without supporting teachers, even the most evidence-aligned programs won't be able to deliver on their promise. 

The truth is, many of our most effective interventions never make it beyond the lab or the pilot stage—not because they don’t work, but because they weren’t built to meet the learning environments they were designed to help. In fact, one of the biggest challenges we face is how to take successful small-scale interventions and implement them across dozens—or even hundreds—of classrooms without losing their impact. This is especially true for vocabulary-building programs designed to reduce opportunity gaps for children in low-income communities. 

But here’s the big question: How do we maintain fidelity to a program’s core while allowing room for teacher voice and expertise to address classroom realities? The answer lies in something called structured adaptation—and it might be the missing link in making good programs great at scale. But what is structured adaptation?

Structured adaptation is a middle path between a rigid, word-for-word scripted curriculum and a loosely guided one. Think of it as a soft script: teachers are provided with clear objectives, key vocabulary, and suggested questions—but they’re also empowered to adapt the language, pacing, and delivery based on the needs of their students.

Why Are Some Methods to Teach Reading Still Popular—Even Without Enough Evidence to Support Them?

This is a question that baffles me. If there’s one thing I’m sure of, it’s that most teachers are doing their very best for students. So, there must be a (student-centered) reason teachers use the methods they do.

In conversations with colleagues, some have noted that certain instructional practices appear to produce faster results. Teachers may adopt them to help students catch up quickly, hoping this will allow them to engage more fully in core instruction and boost their confidence and motivation. That made a lot of sense to me. And yet, it is possible that some strategies offer quick wins but don’t stick or scale—because they’re shortcuts.

It’s a bit like teaching a child to swim freestyle by having them mimic the motions they see. They might manage to get across the pool, which gives the appearance of success. But without learning proper technique—how to rotate their body, coordinate breathing with strokes, or maintain a high elbow during the pull—they’ll tire quickly, develop inefficient habits, and hit a performance ceiling they can’t easily overcome. The shortcut lets them move forward, but it doesn’t lay the foundation for becoming a strong swimmer over time.

Then I came across this research reference in Claude Goldenberg’s Substack – which is a treasure trove of insight; well worth a look if you are interested in literacy research and policy. 

What is Next For the Science of Reading?

A unique gathering of educators, researchers, and advocates took place on March 1, 2025 at Planet Word in Washington, DC, as part of Emily Hanford’s Eyes On Reading series. This event featured Mark Seidenberg and Maryellen MacDonald under the provocative title, “What is Next for the Science of Reading?” The take-home message was undeniably powerful, though it may have left some educators searching for more specific connections to their classroom realities. I write this blog in the spirit of extending this conversation, as getting down to the specifics will depend on the joint work and ongoing dialogue between researchers and educators.

Fighting Back Against Musk’s War on Workers: The Department of People who Work for a Living will Hold DOGE Accountable

Our guest author is Elizabeth "Liz" Shuler, President of the AFL-CIO, the democratic federation of 63 national and international unions that represent more than 15 million working people. She is also a Shanker Institute board member.

A government that works for billionaires will never work for the people. Yet, under the guise of “efficiency,” that’s exactly what’s happening. Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is gutting Essential public services slashing jobs, undermining the livelihoods of hard working Americans, all while consolidating power in the hands of the ultra-wealthy. This isn’t about making government work better; it’s about making it work for the elite. 

Stand Up for Reading Research

Guest authors Kata Solow and Callie Lowenstein are two of the leading voices of the stand up for reading research movement. Kata and Callie are former classroom teachers who believe meaningful change in education must be collaborative and teacher-led.

Step back and think about it: the Science of Reading Movement is extraordinary, and very unusual. 

Since 2019 -- and in spite of huge political differences -- teachers, parents, journalists, and researchers have worked together and driven the passage of over 430 bills aimed at aligning literacy instruction with research, in all states and the District of Columbia. 

This is a remarkable outcome for any movement, let alone one that lacks formal structure, organization, and leadership. We are a powerful movement. Our strength derives from our drive and passion to learn, drawing insights from our students, our peers, and the rich, expansive research that we refer to as the Science of Reading. 

But where does this research come from? Much of it comes out of a small division of the US Department of Education called the Institute of Education Sciences (IES), which, among other things, funds high-quality research into what works in education. 

Our movement owes so much of our success to the IES. But now this progress is being threatened, as funding and personnel cuts have ground essential research to a halt and upended the IES, as we know it.  

Do you use UFLI, Think SRSD, or Reading Simplified, to name three incredible literacy programs? These programs–that teachers across the country are using to help countless students–were developed as a direct result of funding from the IES. 

Today’s cuts means that the next effective reading program will never get into the classroom. We can’t let that happen.  

How Would Cutting Federal Aid to Schools Affect Student Achievement?

There is indication that the current administration may dismantle the U.S. Department of Education (USED). It is still unclear what any such plan, if implemented, would entail. Although K-12 education policy is largely controlled by states, USED performs numerous very important roles in the education sphere. Arguably, the most important of these is the administration of federal funding for public schools, which constitutes roughly 10 percent of all K-12 revenue. 

In this post, we simulate, for each school district, what could happen to student achievement if this federal aid were removed entirely. We also simulate the impact of a second, “block grant” scenario, described below. 

Our results, in short, indicate that eliminating federal funding would cause irreparable harm to the overwhelming majority of students, regardless of poverty, race, or urbanicity.