天美麻豆

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

If I had a dollar for every time a district asked me for research on our program鈥檚 efficacy, I could fund a randomized controlled trial by now. While that joke is one only researchers will understand, this is a truth that impacts everyone across the education ecosystem, from publishers to educators, administrators, and students. 

Districts are asking the right questions. They want proof before investing tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in materials, subscriptions, training, and ongoing professional development. And they鈥檙e right to demand it. The conversation around literacy has shifted dramatically in recent years. We鈥檝e moved away from a once-universally accepted balanced literacy approach that, frankly, didn鈥檛 deliver the results kids needed, toward a science of reading movement that is rooted in decades of research and evidence. 

Today, purchasing a curriculum without proven, evidence-based research is essentially taking someone鈥檚 word for it 鈥� and in a time where literacy outcomes matter more than ever, that鈥檚 a gamble no district can afford. The programs districts adopt must prove they actually work for their students 鈥� not just sound good in a sales pitch. Evidence is no longer a 鈥渘ice-to-have.鈥� It鈥檚 the foundation for trust and impact. 

And that鈥檚 fair. In fact, that鈥檚 what my whole job is about: building and sharing that evidence. But here鈥檚 the tricky part. 

The same school systems that request research often lack the capacity to participate in it. 

We鈥檙e living in the age of evidence-based everything. ESSA tiers. State-approved lists. Instructional audit checklists. Curriculum reviews. The pressure is real, and research has rightfully taken center stage. 

But here鈥檚 the rub. While districts want the receipts, most don鈥檛 have the bandwidth or resources to help create them. 

And it鈥檚 not because they don鈥檛 care. It鈥檚 because they鈥檙e stretched. Schools are still recovering from pandemic whiplash. Teachers are overloaded. Leaders are managing competing priorities. Just the thought of one more thing can feel like a nonstarter. 

So when we invite a district into a formal research study 鈥� even a light-lift, no-cost one 鈥� we usually hear some version of: We love the idea, but maybe next year.

When districts say 鈥渘o鈥� to participating in research, the entire field misses out. We lose opportunities to learn, measure, and improve 鈥� not just as curriculum publishing companies, but as an industry that鈥檚 trying to do right by students. 

It can seem like only the 鈥渂ig鈥� curriculum companies end up with robust studies, but even they face the same roadblocks as the newcomers or the niche solutions. Getting real-world classrooms to open their doors for data collection is challenging for everyone. Unfortunately, the current landscape essentially creates a 鈥渞ich get richer鈥� cycle, where companies with existing evidence appear more attractive. At the same time, newer or evolving programs struggle to gather the data needed to prove their impact 鈥� regardless of how effective they might be. 

The result? We all end up with a shallow pool of evidence that doesn鈥檛 fully reflect what works best for students. And that鈥檚 not the kind of ecosystem any of us need. 

In my role at , I鈥檓 empathetic to the undeniable challenges across the education system. Administrators, curriculum directors, and educators are juggling more than ever, and participating in a research study can feel like one more ask on a pile of existing asks. 

And I don鈥檛 blame them. Traditional curriculum research models are often heavy lifts for districts. They require hours of teacher surveys, multiple layers of classroom observations, endless data pulls, and little to no ongoing support from the vendor. It鈥檚 no wonder districts hesitate 鈥� they simply don鈥檛 have the time, capacity, or trust that their effort will be worth it. 

The research model needs a seismic shift that鈥檚 more of a partnership and less of a researcher-subject relationship 鈥� a model that鈥檚 built to make research doable and beneficial for everyone involved. 

This model should prioritize: 

• A single point of contact to guide the process from start to finish
• Quick touchpoints to help define goals and stay aligned
• Light classroom observations that are short, purposeful, and unobtrusive聽
• One short teacher survey that takes minutes, not hours
• Built-in coaching and check-ins so teachers feel confident and supported throughout
• Custom reports schools can actually use, with data that tells their stories聽

It鈥檚 not just 鈥渄o this for us.鈥� It鈥檚 鈥渓et鈥檚 do this together.鈥� If we want to raise the bar on curriculum quality, we all must work together 鈥� school districts, publishers, and researchers. We need each other to help weed out the ineffective solutions and elevate the proven ones. 

So here鈥檚 my ask to any superintendents, curriculum directors, principals, or other education leaders out there: Say yes to research.

Not just as a consumer of evidence, but as a co-creator. It鈥檚 an opportunity to tell your school鈥檚 story clearly and credibly鈥� grounded in student outcomes. 

The next generation of evidence-based programs won鈥檛 come from ivory towers or glossy marketing decks. 

They鈥檒l come from classrooms like yours. 

Did you use this article in your work?

We鈥檇 love to hear how The 74鈥檚 reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers.