Representative John Lewis would have celebrated his 85th birthday last week on February 21st. In an essay published after his death, the civil rights icon urged us not to become "lost in a sea of despair" while also calling for action: "Ordinary people with extraordinary vision can redeem the soul of America by getting into what I call good trouble, necessary trouble."
As we celebrate Black History Month and the many achievements of Black individuals and communities, including Representative Lewis' legacy, we need to stir up some good trouble in another dimension of civil rights: The right to read. Being literate gives children and adults access to economic opportunity and prosperity, full participation and engagement in civic activity, community connection, and the simple joys of delving into a story.
There was a time in our nation when people of color were prohibited by states' anti-literacy laws from learning to read or write, and the offense was punishable by brutal violence, including death. Slave owners feared that if enslaved peoples learned to read and write, it would 'forever unfit him to be a slave.'1175 Literacy was a key to freedom.
In 2025, we still deny students the right to read—especially students of color, students living in poverty, and English learners—by promoting failed teaching methods. The NAEP reading results revealed reading scores are down nationally in both fourth and eighth grade, and no state saw reading gains in either grade. Reading scores have been declining for decades. More than half of Black fourth graders are not reading at the NAEP basic level. Because of our neglect, more than half of Black students likely could not recognize a description of a character's action that was explicitly stated in a story.
We can change these results by giving all students access to effective reading teachers. Giving teachers the knowledge, skills, and instructional materials (also called curriculum) they need to teach reading effectively is fundamental for improving life outcomes for all children and reversing historical patterns of inequity.
In fact, some parents are turning to the courts in an effort to protect children from instructional malpractice. Angry over the harm caused by poor instruction and frustrated with districts clinging to debunked teaching methods, Massachusetts parents are suing reading curriculum authors Lucy Calkins, Gay Su Pinnell, and Irene Fountas. The lawsuit also targets their publishers and Columbia University (where Calkins has been affiliated) for violating the state's consumer protection laws.
The parents allege the defendants ignored scientific consensus on the importance of including systematic phonics instruction in the curriculum. Instead, according to the lawsuit, they "peddled a raft of products and curricula that sought to diminish and even exclude systematic and daily phonics instruction. Defendants denigrated phonics at worst and paid mere lip service to phonics at best. In all events, Defendants failed to warn parents or school districts that their alleged literacy training products did not include meaningful phonics instruction, the one thing essential to literacy success." The parents are seeking damages and the order to provide a curriculum that aligns with the scientific research.
The lawsuit is groundbreaking. The consequences of the decision will be far-reaching. It may be a harbinger of what's to come if states do not pass reading policies and support strong implementation and if districts persist in choosing and using shoddy reading curricula.
Who will pay for the consequences?
This lawsuit—and other copycat lawsuits—call to question: Who will be owed damages, and who will have to pay? There are at least two important considerations that state and district leaders should be paying attention to.
First, the parents in this case have invited other parents to join them. In Massachusetts alone, there are nearly one million students and almost 400 school districts. That could mean hundreds—if not thousands—of families join this case. And what if the case sparks interest from parents in other states? Indeed, an investigative journalist in Atlanta has already reported that the same publisher sold the curriculum to the largest school district in Georgia, among others.
Second, what if parents set their sights beyond the current defendants, the curricula authors and publishers, onto the districts that adopted these low-quality curricula? What if plaintiffs decide to sue states that do not require districts to use high-quality curricula or do not vet and approve the curricula for use? This could be a costly proposition for states and districts.
While states potentially spend over one billion dollars on reading curricula, only nine states require districts to select high-quality reading curriculum materials, according to our recent report. We calculated that 85% of students—upwards of 40 million children—live in states that do not require districts to select high-quality reading curricula. This means that states allow districts to purchase whatever curricula they want, regardless of quality. The 41 states that lack requirements for reading curricula are failing to protect their consumers—students. Advocates would be wise to see if their states require districts to adopt and support the implementation of high-quality reading curricula, to determine if states publish the lists of the curriculum-in-use, and to interrogate those lists to see if the state is adequately protecting children from debunked practices.
Is there a precedent?
Black History Month offers a poignant reminder that our nation has a long history of turning to the courts to protect people's civil rights. This new case in Massachusetts takes one more step in establishing that right and holding to account those who knowingly and willfully stand in the way of every child learning to read. And if the parents are successful, this could catalyze sweeping lawsuits across the country with curriculum authors, publishers, states, and districts defending their action (or inaction).
Some of you may be thinking about the case, "It shouldn't have to come to this." I agree. Yet until states, districts, and teacher preparation programs comprehensively and coherently adopt and implement policies to improve student reading outcomes, desperate times may call for determined and innovative measures—in other words, "good trouble."
After all, if we continue to prohibit children in our nation from accessing their fundamental civil right to learn to read, we will continue to devastate their opportunities in life. This is even more true for children of color, English learners, and children living in poverty who routinely receive less access to effective teachers and experience debunked reading teaching. So, it may be high time to head to the courts and make some necessary "good trouble" while redeeming the soul of our nation with a vision: that every child, no matter their race, language, or economic status, learns to read.
As we celebrate Black History Month and the many achievements of Black individuals and communities, including Representative Lewis' legacy, we need to stir up some good trouble in another dimension of civil rights: The right to read. Being literate gives children and adults access to economic opportunity and prosperity, full participation and engagement in civic activity, community connection, and the simple joys of delving into a story.
There was a time in our nation when people of color were prohibited by states' anti-literacy laws from learning to read or write, and the offense was punishable by brutal violence, including death. Slave owners feared that if enslaved peoples learned to read and write, it would 'forever unfit him to be a slave.'1175 Literacy was a key to freedom.
In 2025, we still deny students the right to read—especially students of color, students living in poverty, and English learners—by promoting failed teaching methods. The NAEP reading results revealed reading scores are down nationally in both fourth and eighth grade, and no state saw reading gains in either grade. Reading scores have been declining for decades. More than half of Black fourth graders are not reading at the NAEP basic level. Because of our neglect, more than half of Black students likely could not recognize a description of a character's action that was explicitly stated in a story.
We can change these results by giving all students access to effective reading teachers. Giving teachers the knowledge, skills, and instructional materials (also called curriculum) they need to teach reading effectively is fundamental for improving life outcomes for all children and reversing historical patterns of inequity.
In fact, some parents are turning to the courts in an effort to protect children from instructional malpractice. Angry over the harm caused by poor instruction and frustrated with districts clinging to debunked teaching methods, Massachusetts parents are suing reading curriculum authors Lucy Calkins, Gay Su Pinnell, and Irene Fountas. The lawsuit also targets their publishers and Columbia University (where Calkins has been affiliated) for violating the state's consumer protection laws.
The parents allege the defendants ignored scientific consensus on the importance of including systematic phonics instruction in the curriculum. Instead, according to the lawsuit, they "peddled a raft of products and curricula that sought to diminish and even exclude systematic and daily phonics instruction. Defendants denigrated phonics at worst and paid mere lip service to phonics at best. In all events, Defendants failed to warn parents or school districts that their alleged literacy training products did not include meaningful phonics instruction, the one thing essential to literacy success." The parents are seeking damages and the order to provide a curriculum that aligns with the scientific research.
The lawsuit is groundbreaking. The consequences of the decision will be far-reaching. It may be a harbinger of what's to come if states do not pass reading policies and support strong implementation and if districts persist in choosing and using shoddy reading curricula.
Who will pay for the consequences?
This lawsuit—and other copycat lawsuits—call to question: Who will be owed damages, and who will have to pay? There are at least two important considerations that state and district leaders should be paying attention to.
First, the parents in this case have invited other parents to join them. In Massachusetts alone, there are nearly one million students and almost 400 school districts. That could mean hundreds—if not thousands—of families join this case. And what if the case sparks interest from parents in other states? Indeed, an investigative journalist in Atlanta has already reported that the same publisher sold the curriculum to the largest school district in Georgia, among others.
Second, what if parents set their sights beyond the current defendants, the curricula authors and publishers, onto the districts that adopted these low-quality curricula? What if plaintiffs decide to sue states that do not require districts to use high-quality curricula or do not vet and approve the curricula for use? This could be a costly proposition for states and districts.
While states potentially spend over one billion dollars on reading curricula, only nine states require districts to select high-quality reading curriculum materials, according to our recent report. We calculated that 85% of students—upwards of 40 million children—live in states that do not require districts to select high-quality reading curricula. This means that states allow districts to purchase whatever curricula they want, regardless of quality. The 41 states that lack requirements for reading curricula are failing to protect their consumers—students. Advocates would be wise to see if their states require districts to adopt and support the implementation of high-quality reading curricula, to determine if states publish the lists of the curriculum-in-use, and to interrogate those lists to see if the state is adequately protecting children from debunked practices.
Is there a precedent?
Black History Month offers a poignant reminder that our nation has a long history of turning to the courts to protect people's civil rights. This new case in Massachusetts takes one more step in establishing that right and holding to account those who knowingly and willfully stand in the way of every child learning to read. And if the parents are successful, this could catalyze sweeping lawsuits across the country with curriculum authors, publishers, states, and districts defending their action (or inaction).
Some of you may be thinking about the case, "It shouldn't have to come to this." I agree. Yet until states, districts, and teacher preparation programs comprehensively and coherently adopt and implement policies to improve student reading outcomes, desperate times may call for determined and innovative measures—in other words, "good trouble."
After all, if we continue to prohibit children in our nation from accessing their fundamental civil right to learn to read, we will continue to devastate their opportunities in life. This is even more true for children of color, English learners, and children living in poverty who routinely receive less access to effective teachers and experience debunked reading teaching. So, it may be high time to head to the courts and make some necessary "good trouble" while redeeming the soul of our nation with a vision: that every child, no matter their race, language, or economic status, learns to read.