Shanker Blog

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. 

Literacy Policy and NAEP

Over the past few years, the Shanker Institute has been tracking and analyzing reading legislation. After NAEP results were made public, colleagues and friends began asking for my take on the link between literacy policy and NAEP reading outcomes. While many experts in student assessment have written extensively about NAEP's dos and don'ts —here’s a recent example — I wanted to offer my perspective because, as Morgan Polikoff wisely cautioned in 'Friends Don’t Let Friends Misuse NAEP Data,' we must use the data responsibly. I understand the eagerness to see policy efforts make a difference for students; however, expecting too much too soon can be misguided and may even sabotage good policy efforts.

First and foremost, NAEP scores provide extremely valuable information about how U.S. students perform in various subjects in any given year. Using NAEP to advocate for improving academic outcomes makes a lot of sense. However, NAEP cannot specifically tell us why students are where they are or what can be done to improve their performance. And yet, raw NAEP scores are routinely misused—even at the highest levels — in this manner. 

Reflections on Belonging While in Pursuit of Accomplished Teaching

Our guest author, Yewande Lewis-Fokum, is a lecturer at The West Indies University in Jamaica and is also involved in teacher training and professional development at both the elementary and high school levels

As a visiting scholar at the Center for Research on Expanding Educational Opportunity (CREEO) at UC Berkeley for the month of May 2024, I was privileged to engage in rich conversations about teacher development with Drs. Travis Bristol and Jacquelyn Ollison, leading advocates for equity and justice in classroom practice. I also had the time, space, and library resources to write, research, and offer insight on the National Board Certification support CREEO offers.

National Board Certification, is "the most respected professional certification available in education designed to develop, retain, and recognize accomplished teachers and to generate ongoing improvement in schools nationwide.” It is a voluntary system, managed by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, where teachers document attainment of “high and rigorous standards for what accomplished teachers should know and be able to do.”

Diversity Makes America Great

Our guest author is Stanley Litow, a professor at Columbia University; author of Breaking Barriers: How P-TECH Schools Create a Pathway From High School to College to Career and The Challenge for Business and Society: From Risk to Reward; a columnist at Barron's; a Trustee at the State University of New York (SUNY); and a member of the Shanker Institute Board of Directors.

As someone who spent my career in government, business and education, I have become increasingly alarmed at the constant attacks on diversity, equity, and inclusion work.

Diversity finally became a U.S. priority over half a century ago, thanks to Martin Luther King, Jr. and other leaders in the Civil Rights movement when ending race discrimination was made a high U.S. priority. But interest and concern peaked again, after George Floyd's murder, when every sector of the economy pledged to address the critical disadvantages faced by people of color. Floyd's death was at the hands of the police, but his death exposed a problem that was much larger. While some improvements had been made, people of color were clearly under steep structural challenges, far beyond policing. The problem was apparent, in schools, colleges, and all sectors of the economy. In many high schools, data showed screened admission criteria to college prep classes were widespread, depriving many students of color fair access to school programs, like Advanced Placement courses. Data also showed colleges and universities used admissions screening to access their most competitive programs. Data made clear that faculty at all levels were under-represented so far too frequently students of color could not experience teachers or faculty of color, let alone in educational leadership. 

The Vital Importance of Academic Freedom in Education and Democracy

Speech by Randi Weingarten, President AFT and ASI before the CAUT and Education International Academic Freedom Conference 2025: Knowledge and Power: The International Struggle for Academic Freedom, February 8, 2025, Calgary, Alberta

Thank you for inviting me to speak to you about academic freedom and democracy at a moment when both are imperiled throughout much of the world. I have worn a few hats in my working life—lawyer, high school civics teacher and now, union president. But I am not steeped in the academic world the way you are. You are not going to get from me erudite ruminations about the academy. What you’ll get from me is my thinking on what we need to do to make sure that your academic work is protected.