Natalie Wexler poses a provocative question: why did a radical shift in teaching methods succeed in England while the same approach floundered in the United States? The answer lies not in better politicians or more funding, but in a specific, science-aligned accountability system that the U.S. has yet to replicate.
The Science-Orthodoxy Clash
Wexler begins by dismantling a pervasive myth in American education: that students learn best by discovering knowledge on their own. She highlights a stark divergence between this long-held belief and what cognitive science actually proves. "In both countries, prospective teachers have been told they should serve primarily as facilitators, allowing children to direct their own education as much as possible through inquiry, discovery, and free choice," Wexler writes. This framing is crucial because it identifies the root cause of failure not as a lack of effort, but as a fundamental misunderstanding of how the brain works.
The author argues that this "education orthodoxy" has systematically disadvantaged vulnerable students while allowing those from educated families to thrive regardless of the system. As Wexler notes, "Cognitive science, on the other hand, indicates that when learners are new to a topic, what works best is explicit instruction that incorporates lots of teacher-directed interaction with students." This is a powerful correction to the narrative that teacher-led instruction is inherently oppressive or outdated. Critics might argue that explicit instruction stifles creativity, yet Wexler counters that without a foundation of knowledge, higher-order thinking is impossible.
The more information you have about a topic stored in long-term memory, the better able you are to understand a text on that topic or to think about it critically.
The Leadership Gap
The piece takes a sharp turn to analyze the political will required to implement these changes. Wexler contrasts the deep engagement of British officials with the superficiality often found in American policy circles. She points to Sir Nick Gibb, a former Schools Minister, who spent years studying cognitive science and engaging with authors like E.D. Hirsch Jr. before taking office. Wexler observes that Gibb and his predecessor, Michael Gove, "delved into complex education issues far more deeply than the vast majority of American politicians and policymakers are likely to do." This reference to Gove, who championed rigorous academic standards in the early 2000s, underscores a historical precedent for leadership that prioritizes curriculum over ideology.
In the U.S., Wexler suggests, even well-meaning philanthropists often defer to "education experts" who are entrenched in the very orthodoxy that science has debunked. The author writes, "It's rare to find someone in a position of power as willing as Gibb has been to buck orthodoxy and persevere despite vituperative pushback." This highlights a structural weakness in the American system: the lack of a mechanism for policymakers to deeply understand the mechanics of the classroom. Without this depth of knowledge, reforms remain superficial.
High Accountability, High Autonomy
Perhaps the most insightful section of Wexler's commentary is her analysis of the "high accountability, high autonomy" model used in England. Unlike the U.S., which often mandates specific curricula or instructional methods, the English government set the goal but allowed schools the freedom to determine the path. "For everything else, the mantra was 'high accountability, high autonomy'—or as Gove, the Minister for Education, put it, 'let a thousand flowers bloom,'" Wexler explains. This approach initially raised concerns about quality control, but the data quickly sorted the wheat from the chaff.
The mechanism for this sorting was the public release of test scores, which naturally favored schools using evidence-based methods. Wexler notes that "the low-scoring schools withered away or, in some cases, were shut down." This outcome mirrors the theory behind American charter schools, yet the results differ dramatically. Why? The author argues that the difference lies entirely in what was being measured.
The evidence that most teachers care about is what other schools are doing.
What You Measure Matters
Here, Wexler delivers her most damning critique of the American system. She argues that U.S. standardized tests, which focus on abstract reading comprehension skills, inadvertently punish schools that teach content-rich curricula. "In the U.S., we put great emphasis on standardized reading and math tests from third to eighth grade... On the reading side, these tests are supposed to measure abstract comprehension skills like 'making inferences,'" she writes. This focus forces schools to drill skills rather than build knowledge, a strategy that fails as students advance to higher grades where background knowledge becomes essential.
In contrast, England's "Progress 8" metric measures student growth across a broad range of subjects, including science and history, and accounts for prior achievement. Wexler points out that this system "reliably identify[s] schools that teach in a way that enables students to succeed." The result is a school like Michaela Community School, which serves low-income families and tops the rankings, proving that rigorous, knowledge-based instruction works for everyone. A counterargument worth considering is that high-stakes testing can still lead to "teaching to the test," but Wexler suggests that when the test measures broad knowledge, the instruction naturally becomes richer.
The U.S. measure, which is premised on the mistaken assumption that reading comprehension skills can be assessed in the abstract, has created a significant obstacle to aligning education to cognitive science—and condemned many students to failure in the process.
Bottom Line
Wexler's strongest argument is that the failure of American education reform is not due to a lack of scientific evidence, but a failure of measurement; we are measuring the wrong things, which drives the wrong behaviors. The piece's biggest vulnerability is its reliance on a centralized accountability model that may be difficult to replicate in the U.S.'s fragmented, decentralized system. The reader should watch for whether American states can move beyond phonics mandates to embrace the broader, content-rich accountability metrics that made England's reform stick.