Natalie Wexler challenges a deeply entrenched assumption in American education: that drilling reading skills in isolation is the only path to literacy. Instead, she presents a counterintuitive data point that could reshape how schools allocate their most precious resource—time. The argument is not merely that history is good for the soul, but that it is the engine of reading comprehension itself.
The Marginalized Subject
Wexler opens by dismantling the status quo, noting that history has long been treated as the "red-headed stepchild of the American education system." She argues that this neglect is not accidental but structural, driven by a misguided belief that teaching history to young children is "developmentally inappropriate." This framing is crucial because it exposes how policy decisions are often based on intuition rather than evidence. In schools where test scores lag, the reaction is predictable: cut social studies to double down on reading practice. Yet, Wexler points to a surprising finding from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute that upends this logic.
"When students spend an additional half hour per day on social studies in elementary school, their reading scores are higher by fifth grade," she writes. "An extra half hour on reading, on the other hand, is not linked to higher reading scores."
This evidence suggests that the "skills-based" approach to reading—focusing on making inferences without context—is a dead end. The likely mechanism is that social studies provides the specific vocabulary and background knowledge required to decode complex texts. Without this foundation, students are like runners trying to sprint on a track they've never seen. Critics might argue that standardized tests are flawed proxies for real learning, but the correlation between content knowledge and test performance is too strong to ignore.
An extra half hour on reading, on the other hand, is not linked to higher reading scores.
The Curriculum Gap
The article then pivots to the practical hurdles of implementation. Even if schools want to prioritize social studies, they face a fragmented market. Unlike math or science, there is no unified national standard for social studies, making it difficult for publishers to create scalable curricula. Wexler observes that state standards often introduce similar topics at different grade levels, creating a disjointed learning experience.
To solve this, she highlights states like Louisiana, Massachusetts, and Kentucky that have taken the initiative to create their own curricula. Kentucky, for instance, partnered with the Core Knowledge Foundation to adapt a K-8 history curriculum. The state department of education explicitly linked this move to literacy goals, noting that "deep knowledge in civics, economics, geography and history strengthens students' reading comprehension, vocabulary, and academic language."
This state-led approach is a pragmatic solution to a market failure. However, it raises a question of equity: will resource-poor districts have the capacity to implement these new standards effectively without significant support? Wexler hints at this by emphasizing the need for professional development, suggesting that a curriculum document alone is insufficient.
The Power of Engagement
Perhaps the most compelling section of the piece focuses on the "We the People" program, which uses simulated congressional hearings to teach civics and history. Wexler describes a recent event in Delaware where teachers themselves participated in these hearings, grappling with the deficiencies of the Articles of Confederation and the balance of power between state and federal governments.
"We are all teachers of literacy," remarks Micki Marinelli, Kentucky's chief academic officer, a sentiment Wexler embraces as a guiding principle. The program's strength lies in its high-stakes format, which forces students to internalize information rather than merely memorize it. Wexler notes that a study by the Civics Education Research Lab found the program boosted civic knowledge by 31 percent, with the strongest gains among historically disadvantaged students.
The "Literacy for We the People" initiative takes this a step further by integrating explicit literacy routines. The goal is to move beyond rote memorization to a deep understanding where students can defend their positions on historical issues. This aligns with the broader argument that engagement drives retention. As Wexler puts it, "Like debate, a simulated congressional hearing is a way of attaching high enough stakes to learning that students expend the effort required to absorb and retain the information."
Like debate, a simulated congressional hearing is a way of attaching high enough stakes to learning that students expend the effort required to absorb and retain the information.
A Science of Learning for History
Finally, Wexler introduces the "Four Question Method," a new curriculum framework that seeks to bring the rigor of the "science of reading" movement to history instruction. The creators, Jon Bassett and Gary Shiffman, argue that social studies has been held back by ineffective pedagogical practices, much like reading instruction was before recent reforms.
"It's time," they wrote, "for the field of social studies to have its 'Sold a Story' moment—following the lead of the 'science of reading' movement in rejecting ineffective practices in favor of those grounded in the science of learning."
This comparison is powerful. It suggests that the same evidence-based principles that are revolutionizing reading instruction—systematic, knowledge-rich, and structured—can and should be applied to history. The curriculum's focus on primary sources and narrative engagement offers a blueprint for how history can be both rigorous and accessible. While the article notes that knowledge-building interventions take time to show results on standardized tests, the immediate benefit is a classroom where students are actually thinking about the past, not just filling in bubbles.
Bottom Line
Wexler's argument is a compelling call to reorient education policy around the symbiotic relationship between content knowledge and literacy. The strongest part of her case is the empirical evidence showing that more social study time directly correlates with higher reading scores, challenging the prevailing drill-and-kill mentality. The biggest vulnerability lies in the implementation gap: without robust teacher training and a shift in assessment culture, even the best curricula may fail to take root. The reader should watch for how states like Kentucky and Delaware scale these programs, as their success could finally force a national reckoning with the value of history in the classroom.