Who Do You Trust? What Really Moves the Needle in K-12 Learning

Headline
A 2026  Deseret News report indicates that nearly half of Utah’s K–3 students (approximately 48%–53%) are not reading at grade level, signaling significant early literacy challenges.

In our current era of educational reform and constant federal, state, and local mandates, schools are on the lookout for strategies that can improve instruction and student learning—but only from sources they trust. From federal programs such as No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), to Utah’s Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI) designations and school report cards, we see continual measuring, labeling, and sorting of schools based on reading and math achievement data.

Headlines like the one above raise doubt and concern about our school system. Yet underneath the data is a more complex story—one the public, legislators, parents, and opponents of public schools may not be ready to hear.

As schools dodge the inevitable fiery darts of mixed truths, teachers are left to wonder: How do we raise student achievement scores? Districts spend millions of dollars annually on comprehensive literacy and math curricula. Teachers work in collaborative teams to increase teacher efficacy and student learning. Administrators devote hours to professional development and staff training and send teachers to conferences to deepen instructional toolboxes. Schools strive to teach social and emotional skills alongside job‑ready preparation. Many districts provide each school with an instructional coach; others add an additional coach for innovative learning and technology strategies.

But are all these efforts making a difference? And if so, which variables are truly high‑leverage—the strategies schools with limited resources can realistically fund and sustain?

Researchers often state that they have found the silver bullet if schools would just read and follow the manual. Teachers, on the other hand, look to Teachers Pay Teachers and other peer‑created curricula and are skeptical of district‑purchased materials marketed as “evidence‑based.” The distrust between K–12 teachers and research materials produced by non‑classroom educators—or, worse, non‑educators—prevents the adoption of new resources and instructional strategies, to everyone’s detriment. “Key finding: Practitioners and policymakers frequently determine the value of research evidence and whether they will use it based on whether they trust the person or organization providing the evidence.” 

Bringing together the two worlds of researchers and teachers is essential if we are to increase student learning. It will take outsider perspectives combined with the nuanced understanding of daily work in the trenches to infuse K–12 education with improved curricula and better pedagogy and strategies. It will take the best of both worlds to produce the best outcomes.