We've spent more than a decade arguing about how children learn to read. The center of gravity has shifted toward phonics, stronger instructional materials, early screening, and more support for teachers. But the question underneath that fight never went away. Once a child can decode, what do we hand them, and why?

Two weeks ago, I wrote about Rose Horowitch's argument in The Atlantic that America is becoming "postliterate." People can still decode words; they're losing the habit, and perhaps the capacity, to follow a sustained argument or lose themselves in a book.

Two stories this week bring that problem inside the classroom and answer it in opposite directions.

In WIRED, Megan Greenwell visits Mississippi, the national model for early reading gains. In 2013, the state ranked 49th out of 50 on the NAEP. By 2024, it ranked ninth in the country in fourth-grade reading. Mississippi invested in phonics, stronger materials, teacher training, literacy coaches, and a consequential third-grade reading test. It demonstrated that poverty doesn't make academic progress impossible.

But the miracle fades as students get older.

Inside one eighth grade English classroom, reading means short passages, adaptive software, test-preparation drills, and comprehension questions treated as a subject unto themselves. Students practice identifying main ideas, analyzing tone, and making inferences. They don't read books; there isn't time to finish the testing curriculum. Their teacher says she can't get them interested in reading, and can't find anyone who knows how to fix it. As Kevin Smith, an education scholar quoted in the piece, puts it: students are reading more than they ever have, but in snippets, not books. The state got so good at measuring reading that the reading fell out of the room.

In The New York Times, Texas tries the reverse. Worried that whole books are disappearing from classrooms, the state has prescribed a common canon for its 5.4 million public school students, beginning in 2030: Goldilocks and the Three Bears in kindergarten, The Outsiders and Night in middle school, and Animal Farm, Great Expectations, Fahrenheit 451, The Scarlet Letter, Hamlet, and Pride and Prejudice in high school.

It's a real answer to a real problem. Texas wants students reading complete books again, preferably on paper.

It also raises a harder question. Who decides which books constitute a shared inheritance? The list includes biblical passages in every grade beginning in fourth, leans heavily on older white and male authors, and contains no high-school book published in the past 50 years.

A National Council of Teachers of English report from last year adds context. Its survey of more than 4,000 secondary English teachers found that the country's 10 most frequently taught texts were all written by white authors and published more than 60 years ago. Six had also appeared on the last major national list, compiled in 1989. The English curriculum changed more between 1964 and 1989 than it did in the 35 years since.

Beneath the politics, Mississippi and Texas are fighting over the same question. What is the English classroom for?

Is it supposed to produce a passing reading score? Cultivate a love of literature? Prepare students for the reading they'll do at work and as citizens? Hand down a common set of cultural references? Mississippi has quietly answered "test scores." Texas has answered "the canon." Did anyone answer "a kid who reads?"

While educators debate Hamlet versus excerpts, the labor market is broadcasting its own answer to what high school is for. In Fortune this week, Jamie Dimon points to shipbuilding as a version of the new American Dream: work that often doesn't require a four-year degree and can pay six figures after a few years of training. The maritime industry expects to need another 200,000 to 250,000 workers over the coming decade.

Set that opportunity in front of a sixteen-year-old, and English class has to make a case for itself.

If Texas wants students reading classics and Dimon wants them working in shipyards, maybe the compromise writes itself: assign Moby-Dick and call it career preparation.

The real story is less tidy. Shipyard work can mean long shifts in extreme heat, cold, and rain, with attrition historically running between 20 and 22 percent and climbing above 30 percent in some skilled trades. Former Navy Secretary John Phelan put the challenge plainly: workers can earn comparable wages at Amazon or Buc-ee's without enduring the same conditions. A large salary doesn't create a workforce any more than assigning Hamlet creates a reader. In both cases, adults are clearer about the outcome they want than about the experience that would make a young person want it.

A welding certificate is a real path to a good life, and we should say so without flinching. But preparing students for work and preparing them to read closely, follow an argument they disagree with, and make up their own minds are not competing missions. A shipyard worker needs those capacities too, as an employee, a citizen, and a person.

Mississippi has prioritized measurable proficiency. Texas has prioritized cultural inheritance. Dimon has prioritized economic opportunity. Each is defensible. None is an education. The next decade of high-school reform comes down to whether we can build a school that does all three and mistakes none of them for the whole job.

— Thomas

Looking for your next opportunity in education? W/A Jobs features 3,500+ career opportunities from 300+ organizations across the education industry.