Opinion: ‘Sold A Story’ Season 2: Teachers And Schools Matter. We Should Act Like It.

TL;DR

For listenersOffer from Amazon

Turn the school run and nap time into listening time

• Thousands of audiobooks, podcasts and originals
• Listen on your phone, tablet or Echo — also offline
• Cancel anytime

Try Audible free →Free trial for new members

As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.Hide

The first two episodes of the second season of APM Reports’ “Sold a Story” were released on the day described in The 74’s opinion article. The season examines why teaching practices supported by research have not been consistently adopted in schools, including the history of the federal Project Follow Through. The article argues that school effectiveness and teaching matter alongside poverty, health and other factors affecting children.

The first two episodes of “Sold a Story” Season 2 were released on the publication day described in an opinion article at The 74, shifting the podcast’s focus from early-reading instruction to a broader question: what happened to teaching? The new season examines why research on effective instruction did not translate into widespread school practice, a debate with implications for educators, families and education policy.

Emily Hanford, the podcast’s creator and an APM Reports journalist, builds the new season around research and examples spanning different periods and settings, according to The 74’s contributor. These include high-poverty schools in Houston, teaching experiments in Illinois and federal research projects that the article describes as largely forgotten. The reporting asks what kinds of instruction help students and why schools may not use methods supported by research.

One focus is Project Follow Through, a federal initiative launched in 1968. Hanford describes it in the podcast as “one of the largest educational experiments in the history of the world,” according to the article. The project asked what works in education and how schools could better help children move out of poverty. The opinion writer says the effort produced information that could have influenced American education but did not.

The season also brings up Direct Instruction, developed by Zig Engelmann, and the HighScope early-education program. The latter is associated with the Perry Preschool Project, a long-term study cited in the article for finding wide-ranging benefits among participants. These examples are part of the season’s inquiry into teaching and research; the source article does not provide episode-by-episode findings or a full account of the evidence.

Why Teaching Practices Reach Students

The season’s central issue is whether evidence about effective instruction reaches classrooms. The opinion writer argues that schools matter because students can be affected by the quality of teaching, how schools evaluate their work and whether families receive an honest account of academic progress. Those are the writer’s conclusions, not a quantified finding presented in the article.

The stakes extend beyond a debate over one reading curriculum. If research is produced but not adopted or communicated, schools may miss opportunities to improve instruction. The article also cautions against treating school practices as the sole explanation for student outcomes: poverty, health and nutrition, among other structural conditions, also shape children’s development. The argument is that both those conditions and school effectiveness deserve attention.

The podcast’s first season had an impact on public discussion of literacy, the writer says. The article points to families pressing a school to replace a curriculum associated with Lucy Calkins, state laws requiring reading instruction grounded in the science of reading, and federal legislative activity. It reports that the U.S. House had sent the Senate a bill to align federal literacy funding with that approach. The source does not identify the bill or provide its status beyond that point.

From Reading Instruction to Teaching

Hanford’s earlier reporting included “Hard Words,” an article about reading instruction, followed by the first season of “Sold a Story.” As summarized by The 74, that season examined why some teachers continued using whole-language approaches despite research supporting other early-literacy methods. It focused on the gap between research findings and classroom practice, including the influence of curriculum authors and teacher-training programs.

The second season broadens that inquiry from literacy to instruction more generally. Its first episodes revisit research efforts and advocates from earlier decades, including Gene Glass and Doug Carnine, while asking why findings did not reshape the education system. The 74’s contributor writes that the series is likely to prompt competing interpretations, including arguments about charter schools or the No Child Left Behind law. The article’s own reading is narrower: its main point is that effective teaching and school performance should not be dismissed while discussing structural inequality.

““What happened to teaching?””

— Emily Hanford, “Sold a Story” creator, as quoted in The 74’s article

What the Episodes Have Yet to Show

The source describes the first two episodes and the season’s themes but does not provide a full episode guide, release schedule or detailed account of the studies’ results. It is not clear from the article how many episodes the season will include, how later episodes will develop the argument, or what specific policy changes the reporting may prompt.

The article also does not independently assess the research discussed in the podcast or settle disagreements about which teaching methods work best across different students and settings. Hanford’s reporting and the contributor’s interpretation should be distinguished: the podcast investigates the evidence and its history, while the opinion article argues that schools and teachers should receive greater attention in public debate.

Further Episodes and Policy Debate

Listeners can expect the season to continue examining research on instruction, the schools and programs that put it into practice, and the reasons findings have not consistently shaped public education. The source gives no dates for later episodes, so their timing is not confirmed.

The release is also likely to feed into ongoing discussions about reading instruction and federal literacy policy. The 74 says the House had sent a literacy-funding bill to the Senate, but does not report a later vote or outcome. The next developments to watch are the podcast’s subsequent reporting and any verified action on the legislation, alongside how schools respond to evidence about teaching.

Key Questions

What is “Sold a Story” Season 2 about?

Its first two episodes broaden the podcast’s focus from early literacy to a larger question about effective teaching: what research says works and why schools have not consistently adopted it.

What is Project Follow Through?

It was a federal education initiative launched in 1968. Hanford’s reporting examines what it sought to learn about effective education and why its findings did not, according to her quoted assessment, shape American education as they might have.

Does the article say schools are the only influence on student outcomes?

No. The opinion writer says that poverty, health and nutrition also affect children, while arguing that school effectiveness and teaching practices matter too.

Did the first season affect literacy policy?

The 74’s contributor says the first season helped spur public attention, family advocacy and changes to state literacy laws. The article also reports that the House had sent the Senate a bill on federal literacy funding, but does not give the bill’s later status.

When will the next episodes be released?

The source article does not provide a schedule for later episodes. It confirms only that the first two episodes were released on the day described in the article.

Source: rss