Education really is the classic case of “policy is not progress.”
The real work happens in the space between the statute and the classroom. That gap is where implementation, local capacity, and trust either compound into progress or kill good policy.
Coming from a world where we think a lot about institutions and state-level legitimacy, I’d add one layer: local context as a precondition for durable change. If a reform, however evidence-based, doesn’t speak to the lived reality of a state’s communities, its workforce needs, its culture, and its political rhythms, it will never earn the kind of broad coalition that can defend and sustain it - evidenced by leadership galvanizing deliberately in support.
In that sense, education really is “hyper‑local” at the point of contact, but it still has to be nested in a shared initiative/project that makes sense at the state level. The best plays I’ve seen pair non‑negotiable, research‑grounded practices (especially in early literacy) with a serious effort to co‑design the how with local educators, families, and civic leaders. That’s where you get both fidelity and buy‑in.
Have to treat implementation as a political and relational project, not just a technical one: build state-level consensus around the “why,” then invest deeply in local context so communities can see the work as theirs, not something being done to them.
I appreciate this perspective. Hopefully, we can all agree that implementation is critically more important than policy if we hope to change things for the better, particularly in a sustainable manner. I think the more challenging aspect of the issue is bound up in your observation that success has been realized when "strong leaders truly leaned into strong implementation..." The post references several aspects of leadership and the roles they play in enacting effective implementation.
But what happens when the state populace lives (and presumably dies) by mantras of "independence" and "local control?" In my state, it is common for the department of education to answer many (if not most) questions with "that's a local decision." Statewide initiatives are mostly offered and rarely required. When a program is proposed as mandatory, the pushback from LEAs and professional organizations can be immense. Heck, our state legislature outright banned Common Core as some sort of socialistic, New World Order plan to enslave our children and destroy our nation. As a result, we observe wide variance in curricular expectations, assessment methods, and, of course, instructional effectiveness--often even within a single school district.
Then comes the local level, where roughly half of our district leaders are in their first few years at central office. Some of them have fewer than five total years of experience in education. I can count on one hand the number of superintendents I know who have direct experience teaching literacy or numeracy to children. And for those who do have some level of CAI expertise, they are often overwhelmed with their many other daily duties--such as driving a school bus, overseeing the repair of asphalt on campus, or completing mandatory reports. All the platitudes on leadership establishing and enforcing priorities are nearly meaningless when you cannot afford to hire the hands necessary to keep the doors open.
Strong implementation resources like literacy coaches would be wonderful, but district budget leaders are struggling to survive in the face of a monumental financial downturn in the coming years coupled with a state legislature that is determined to reduce the already pitiful allocations of revenue to education. Few are looking to add instructional coaches; rather, they are trying to determine how many teaching positions can be absorbed through attrition without assigning 40 kindergartners to a classroom.
All of this is simply to note there are significant barriers to effective implementation. Many of these are rooted in a lack of resources. If our nation is going to get serious about strong academic achievement for all children, we are going to have to overcome our aversion to paying taxes. We will also need to embrace the reality that a standardized curriculum doesn't mean we are sliding into some form of communism. With our highly mobile population, consistent standards will be key to consistent outcomes.
Vaites makes good points, similar to Rachel Canter's piece on Th Atlantic today. But Racel Canter highlights accountability, often not popular but Mississippi was strong on accountability.
Education really is the classic case of “policy is not progress.”
The real work happens in the space between the statute and the classroom. That gap is where implementation, local capacity, and trust either compound into progress or kill good policy.
Coming from a world where we think a lot about institutions and state-level legitimacy, I’d add one layer: local context as a precondition for durable change. If a reform, however evidence-based, doesn’t speak to the lived reality of a state’s communities, its workforce needs, its culture, and its political rhythms, it will never earn the kind of broad coalition that can defend and sustain it - evidenced by leadership galvanizing deliberately in support.
In that sense, education really is “hyper‑local” at the point of contact, but it still has to be nested in a shared initiative/project that makes sense at the state level. The best plays I’ve seen pair non‑negotiable, research‑grounded practices (especially in early literacy) with a serious effort to co‑design the how with local educators, families, and civic leaders. That’s where you get both fidelity and buy‑in.
Have to treat implementation as a political and relational project, not just a technical one: build state-level consensus around the “why,” then invest deeply in local context so communities can see the work as theirs, not something being done to them.
I appreciate this perspective. Hopefully, we can all agree that implementation is critically more important than policy if we hope to change things for the better, particularly in a sustainable manner. I think the more challenging aspect of the issue is bound up in your observation that success has been realized when "strong leaders truly leaned into strong implementation..." The post references several aspects of leadership and the roles they play in enacting effective implementation.
But what happens when the state populace lives (and presumably dies) by mantras of "independence" and "local control?" In my state, it is common for the department of education to answer many (if not most) questions with "that's a local decision." Statewide initiatives are mostly offered and rarely required. When a program is proposed as mandatory, the pushback from LEAs and professional organizations can be immense. Heck, our state legislature outright banned Common Core as some sort of socialistic, New World Order plan to enslave our children and destroy our nation. As a result, we observe wide variance in curricular expectations, assessment methods, and, of course, instructional effectiveness--often even within a single school district.
Then comes the local level, where roughly half of our district leaders are in their first few years at central office. Some of them have fewer than five total years of experience in education. I can count on one hand the number of superintendents I know who have direct experience teaching literacy or numeracy to children. And for those who do have some level of CAI expertise, they are often overwhelmed with their many other daily duties--such as driving a school bus, overseeing the repair of asphalt on campus, or completing mandatory reports. All the platitudes on leadership establishing and enforcing priorities are nearly meaningless when you cannot afford to hire the hands necessary to keep the doors open.
Strong implementation resources like literacy coaches would be wonderful, but district budget leaders are struggling to survive in the face of a monumental financial downturn in the coming years coupled with a state legislature that is determined to reduce the already pitiful allocations of revenue to education. Few are looking to add instructional coaches; rather, they are trying to determine how many teaching positions can be absorbed through attrition without assigning 40 kindergartners to a classroom.
All of this is simply to note there are significant barriers to effective implementation. Many of these are rooted in a lack of resources. If our nation is going to get serious about strong academic achievement for all children, we are going to have to overcome our aversion to paying taxes. We will also need to embrace the reality that a standardized curriculum doesn't mean we are sliding into some form of communism. With our highly mobile population, consistent standards will be key to consistent outcomes.
Vaites makes good points, similar to Rachel Canter's piece on Th Atlantic today. But Racel Canter highlights accountability, often not popular but Mississippi was strong on accountability.