Why American Schools Fall for Fads

From Whole Language to Anti-Racism and Literacy Movement, Experimental Desires for 'Change' Come at the Expense of Our Most Vulnerable: Children

The American education system is often captivated by charismatic leaders, bold ideas, and sweeping narratives that promise to revolutionize learning. From Whole Language instruction in the 1980s to Lucy Calkins’ Reading and Writing Workshop, and now to Social-Emotional Learning (SEL), Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), and anti-racist education, the cycle is familiar. But have these created the meaningful impact they claim to? These movements frequently gain traction before sufficient evidence supports their efficacy, often to the detriment of the students they aim to serve. This article examines why we are drawn to such trends, the risks of sidelining research-based practices, and the lessons that can be learned to ensure innovation leads to meaningful change.

The American Education System’s Quest for Innovation

To its credit, American education often seeks innovative solutions to address the challenges of teaching an increasingly diverse student population. From the desire to close achievement gaps to fostering more inclusive and socially aware classrooms, the motives behind these movements are often noble. The problem lies in the implementation of these ideas, which are frequently underpinned by anecdotal evidence, ideological fervor, or cultural pressures rather than rigorous research.

New initiatives often promise transformative change but may fail to address the complexity of teaching and learning. Instead, they tend to oversimplify problems and offer one-size-fits-all solutions. The result is a cycle in which schools embrace the next big idea only to move on when the promised results fail to materialize. 

Whole Language: The First Big Spell

The Whole Language movement, championed by influential figures like Frank Smith and Kenneth Goodman, surged in the 1980s and 1990s. Rooted in progressive ideals, Whole Language posited that children learn to read best by being immersed in rich, authentic texts, without the need for explicit instruction in phonics or decoding skills. Goodman’s description of reading as a "psycholinguistic guessing game" captivated educators who wanted to make learning more natural and engaging.

The Problems:

- Research eventually showed that many students, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds or with learning disabilities, struggled to decode words without explicit phonics instruction. 

- The National Reading Panel (2000) conclusively found that systematic phonics was critical for developing early reading skills, exposing the shortcomings of Whole Language.

While the movement’s emphasis on student engagement and meaningful texts was valuable, its lack of focus on foundational skills led to decades of reading struggles for millions of children.

Lucy Calkins and the “Balanced Literacy” Movement

Lucy Calkins built on the ideas of Whole Language with her Reading and Writing Workshop model, emphasizing creativity, student choice, and exposure to high-quality literature. Her charismatic leadership, institutional backing from Columbia University’s Teachers College, and well-organized professional development workshops helped her methods gain widespread adoption.

Calkins’ approach, however, repeated many of the mistakes of Whole Language. By downplaying the importance of explicit phonics instruction, her curriculum left many students without the foundational decoding skills necessary for reading fluency (Hanford, 2019). Yet, districts were drawn to her compelling narrative of fostering a love of reading, often overlooking the lack of evidence supporting her methods.

Current Trends: DEI and Anti-Racist Teaching

Today, similar dynamics are at play in the widespread adoption of DEI, and anti-racist education. While these initiatives say they address urgent societal concerns, their implementation often mirrors the pitfalls of past fads and ill-fated, tragic revolutions - or devolutions.

Social-Emotional Learning (SEL) 

Prominent voices have championed SEL as a way to improve student behavior, emotional regulation, and academic performance. SEL’s focus on teaching students skills like empathy and self-awareness is laudable, but research on its long-term impact remains mixed. While some studies suggest modest benefits, others question whether SEL programs consistently lead to improved academic outcomes (Mahoney et al., 2018). Critics also argue that SEL can sometimes overstep its bounds, encroaching on instructional time for core subjects. That said, SEL when done in partnership with families and communities, appears to be a fantastic way forward, especially considering new technological innovations.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)  

DEI programs aim to create inclusive school environments, with theoretical thought leaders like Robin DiAngelo (of White Fragility fame and recently the inadvertent star of Am I Racist) and Ibram X. Kendi (How to Be an Antiracist) shaping the discourse. While their ideas may have sparked much needed conversations, the frameworks they propose are often ideologically rigid and lack empirical validation. Schools adopting DEI initiatives sometimes implement them as box-checking exercises rather than substantive efforts to address in-school inequities, consuming exorbitant resources without delivering measurable benefits (Alvarez, 2020). How will success be measured with these programs?

“Anti-Racist” Teaching  

Anti-racist education, championed by prominent figures, promotes the dismantling of many western systems through classroom practices and curricula. While the goals are considered important by a powerful fringe, the methods prioritize activism, destruction, and struggle sessions over evidence-based instruction. When I questioned the research supporting these principles in a school district, not only was I provided no evidence, but I was also scoffed at for asking. This dismissal of skepticism discourages critical inquiry and risks alienating educators who might otherwise support these efforts if they were grounded in data.

The Role of Charismatic Leaders

A common thread across these movements is the role of charismatic leaders who wield significant influence and finances. Many figures often present compelling narratives that resonate with educators’ ideologies, values, and assumptions. Their charisma can overshadow the need for rigorous research, making it difficult to critically evaluate their ideas without seeming antagonistic. Sadly, activism has in many cases overwhelmed critical thought.

Why We Keep Falling for Fads

Several systemic issues perpetuate the cycle of educational fads:

1. Cultural Pressures: Broader societal movements heavily influence what schools prioritize, sometimes at the expense of academic rigor.

2. Desire for Rapid Change: The pressure to address achievement gaps, inequities, or behavioral issues leads to the adoption of unproven solutions.

3. Fragmented Decision-Making: The decentralized nature of American education allows districts to adopt programs independently, often without proper vetting.

4. Marginalization of Skepticism: Educators who question these initiatives are often dismissed or accused of being resistant to progress.

The Cost of Ignoring Evidence

The consequences of prioritizing fads over research are significant. In literacy, for instance, decades of ignoring the science of reading have left millions of students without foundational skills, disproportionately harming those from disadvantaged backgrounds. Similarly, poorly implemented SEL, DEI, and anti-racist programs risk alienating educators and students even further, destabilizing families, and consuming time and resources without delivering meaningful benefits.

Breaking the Cycle: A Balanced Approach

While the desire for innovation is commendable, schools must adopt a more thoughtful and evidence-driven approach to reform. To move beyond the cycle of fads, education leaders should:

1. Demand Evidence: Programs should be piloted at a small-scale and evaluated rigorously before widespread adoption.

2. Empower Skepticism: Schools must foster a culture where questioning new initiatives is seen as constructive, not obstructive.

3. Balance Ideals with Pragmatism: Movements addressing equity and inclusion must be grounded in measurable outcomes and evidence-based practices.

4. Invest in Teacher Training: Equip educators with the tools to critically evaluate programs and implement research-based methods effectively.

Conclusion: A Call for Critical Innovation

The American education system’s quest for innovation reflects a genuine desire to improve outcomes for all students. However, this well-intentioned pursuit often leads to the adoption of ill-conceived programs that lack empirical support. From Whole Language to Lucy Calkins, and now to SEL, DEI, and anti-racist education, schools must balance their aspirations with a commitment to research and evidence.

By fostering a culture of critical inquiry and prioritizing proven methods, we can ensure that innovation in education serves its ultimate purpose: equipping every student with the tools they need to succeed.

References

Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. MIT Press.

Alvarez, C. (2020). Equity in education: Beyond the buzzwords. Education Policy Journal, 34(2), 45–62.

Foorman, B. R., et al. (2016). Foundational skills to support reading for understanding in kindergarten through 3rd grade. Institute of Education Sciences.

Hanford, E. (2019). Why aren't kids being taught to read? *American Public Media Reports*.  

Mahoney, J. L., et al. (2018). The impact of social and emotional learning interventions on student performance and behavior. Child Development, 89(2), 395–412.