The Lexington Problem
Should literacy laws apply equally to everyone, or just the lowest performers?
With Massachusetts passing its version of a science of reading bill this week, I took to The 74 to write about what I dubbed The Lexington Problem:
If a district has low reading scores and uses instructional practices that are inconsistent with what has been well documented about how children learn to read, the case is clear for switching to an evidence-based science of reading approach.
But Lexington’s young readers are not struggling. They have relatively strong test scores. So, perhaps not surprisingly, the prospect of being forced to change their literacy practices hasn’t sat well with Lexington’s leaders.
What should a state do with respect to districts like this? Lexington is a wealthy district, and it’s reading scores are… fine? On one hand, you could note that only 44% of the district’s low-income 3rd grade students scored proficient in reading last year, and only 25% of its students with disabilities did so. On the other hand, it’s also worth noting that each of these subgroups outperformed their peers statewide by a fair margin.
Could the district be doing even better? Probably, especially if it did a better job of teaching foundational skills in reading.
But should the state micro-manage a district like Lexington? That’s where I’m less convinced. As Rachel Schechter pointed out on LinkedIn, this district happens to have a knowledge-rich social studies curriculum in grades K-5, which may be helping to boost its reading scores. Other readers have noted that it’s quite possible the district’s wealth is contributing to its reading outcomes, not necessarily anything the district is doing instructionally. Regardless, I’d personally rather the state use carrots and financial incentives and tools like a phonics check for 6-year-olds as a way to ensure that all kids were learning how to decode, rather than the state imposing a list of reading programs. To my mind, it’s the student outcomes that matter, not the inputs.
I can see arguments either way here. So go read my full piece, and then weigh in in the comments!
Reading List
Learning Science Design: It’s the Instructional Design, Stupid
InsideHigherEd: Brown Professor Suspects Majority of His Class Used AI to Cheat
Bill DeBaun: Class of 2026 Sets FAFSA Completion Record
Samantha Musacchia: The edtech lesson hiding in Toy Story 5
Chad — normally a big fan of your work, but this one misses the mark.
This is a case where straight data analysis obscures more than it reveals. If you only look at MCAS proficiency and give Lexington "credit" for beating state averages, you can't see what's actually producing that gap. You can't see how many Lexington parents are spending large sums of their own money — completely outside the district's ledger — first to make sure their kids arrive at kindergarten already reading, and later on tutoring (Orton-Gillingham, Lindamood-Bell) the moment their kid shows signs of struggling. The state doesn't publish kindergarten screener data broken out this way, which is itself telling. The input that's actually driving the outcome is invisible in the numbers you're citing.
We don't have to guess at this, though — parents (from Lexington and elsewhere) made up a large portion of the Mass Reads Coalition ( http://massreads.org/, and highlighted this in their Right to Read Act testimony. One Lexington mom testified that by the time her two kids finish middle school, she'll have spent "over half a million dollars" outside the district's curriculum — Carroll School tuition for one, $300/week in private tutoring for the other — for "something their public school should have done from the start." That's not the curriculum working. That's wealthy families quietly buying their way around a program EdReports rates "Does Not Meet Expectations."
The district gets the credit in the data. But the input isn't Lexington's curriculum — it's families' checkbooks. If "the subgroups outperform the state average" is enough to conclude the curriculum is fine, we're not evaluating the curriculum at all — we're endorsing a model where kids whose parents can afford $300/week tutors dodge the negative impacts of a low quality curriculum, and everyone else — including Lexington's students from low-income families and those who learn differently — is left to the curriculum alone. And if you believe that 95% of students can learn to read (as I do) then citing 44% and 25% proficient as acceptable for "these students" is shameful. That's not the premise of public education. That's a private-school system with public-school branding.
We know from the research that reading difficulties affect the entire population regardless of race, ethnicity or socio-economic-status. The fact that the higher SES Lexington school has better scores means that some of those parents have spend a lot of money and tutored (Orton Gillingham, LindaMood-Bell) their way to proficiency for their kids. The disputed curriculum consistently fails those students. If you want to set a high bar by which schools and district are left alone - why not 95% - case in point - Steubenville, Ohio. The Ohio district is a good example of what the science says - that 95% of the student population should be able to read at average (and above levels). Why settle for less when we know what is possible? I agree with you on the issue of background knowledge and vocabulary. Isabel Beck and others have done solid research on the Matthew effect and it is very much part of the literacy discussion.. However, as I'm sure you are aware of the reporting, schools have also gone into the "book light" mode swapping out entire books for passages, chapters and summaries. It is certainly not the answer to building a strong vocabulary and background knowledge. Love your reporting, but on this, I think the bar should be higher and adults should be held accountable to teach all of their students well. I've been at this a while on the policy making end locally and the state level. And as you know - it's a long road, but we are finally moving the needle. Next for reform - the schools of education. It astounds me the damage that they have done to both the teacher candidates and their future students. keep up the great work!