On his second day of teaching at Wheatley High School in Houston, former food influencer Darius Williams faced a problem that has plagued U.S. classrooms for decades: his students couldn’t read or write on grade level. But he didn’t call a colleague or email a district literacy specialist. Instead, he posted a video.
In the clip, Williams sat in front of the camera, crying over the futures his students would be denied. "We have got to do something,” he wrote in the caption. “Something is broken somewhere. It has to be. To see this level of engagement with students who simply don't have literacy skills is completely disheartening. Whew. Yall did not prepare me for this."
To be sure, there are valid arguments about the decline of literacy skills in America. The Nation’s Report Card that provides national, state, and district-level data on student achievement has shown steady declines in math and reading. A Connecticut student sued her high school after alleging that she couldn’t read but still graduated with honors. The crisis is real, and the data confirms it. But data doesn’t go viral, despair does.
As a professor of literacy education, I have questions about how Williams reached his conclusion by day two. Assessing students’ literacy abilities takes diagnostic tools, time, and training he didn’t have. What he had was a seemingly unresponsive classroom and a camera. What he offered viewers was the performance of crisis, a tear-filled soliloquy that went viral within hours. Meanwhile, the teachers who have spent years speaking out about the need for literacy support have been largely ignored.
And they will continue to be ignored because the tedium of teaching isn’t “content-worthy.” Slow reading gains, small group interventions repeated for months, and a kid moving from a fifth-grade reading level to a seventh-grade one across a full school year–that’s the kind of progress that shows up across months of data, not a one-minute video or fifteen-second clip.
A crying man, a shocking statistic, and a school board meeting gone wrong travel because they’re fast and they’re finished. They’re single moments people can watch and feel something about. The solution can’t compete on those terms. The teacher who meets with a student every Wednesday and the curriculum change that won’t show results for three years are everyday solutions. But nobody claps for that. Nobody shares it. And that silence is the real crisis.
We’ve built an attention economy that pays out for despair and offers nothing for the sluggish work of fixing it. And it’s not new. Every generation gets its own literacy panic.
In 1955, Rudolf Flesch’s Why Johnny Can’t Read And What You Can Do About It accused American schools of abandoning phonics and set off a public panic over reading instruction that has lasted decades. In 1983, A Nation at Risk warned the public about the rising tide of mediocrity that threatened “our very future as a nation and as a people.” The country responded with new standards and tests. In 2001, No Child Left Behind promised to close the achievement gap through accountability, and schools have spent decades chasing test scores–tied to funding–instead of teaching kids to read. In 2022, a podcast called Sold A Story produced a narrative of failure in how children were taught to read, and it swung the pendulum back to Why Johnny Can’t Read’s phonics-first argument, treating the whole language model as the villain instead of one tool among several that a developing reader might need. The “science of reading” movement it helped launch is now repeating the same mistake: chasing a single fix and calling it science.
Each solution promised a reckoning. None of the solutions included funding tutors, ensuring smaller class sizes, increasing teacher pay, or supporting the years of unglamorous work literacy development actually requires. Not one addressed the intersecting issues: the difficulty of building a reading culture in a system of intense testing, the connection between literacy and poverty, the reality that each reader (struggling or not) needs individualized support. Because each of those fixes costs money, and money for education is, like the reading scores, consistently in decline.
I agree with Williams that something is broken, and we have to do something. But picking up our cameras to lament the literacy crisis isn’t it. Instead, we need to learn how to celebrate when a student writes one beautiful sentence, to cheer when a toddler writes their name correctly for the first time, to honor the young person who reads a book on their own for the first time. We need to give as much attention and support to the teachers who don’t run to social media to cry on camera–who choose, instead, to show up every day, struggle alongside their students, and do the actual, unexciting work of literacy education.
Sharing a viral video isn’t advocacy. It’s an emotional response that eventually passes. The real work won’t go viral.
Stephanie Toliver is a Public Voices Fellow and a member of the OpEd Alumni Project sponsored by the University of Illinois.




















U.S. President Donald Trump boards Air Force One on August 14, 2026 at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland. Trump is traveling to Long Island to tour law enforcement facilities in Nassau County and rally support for local Republican candidates ahead of the upcoming midterm elections
Travel Far Enough, You Meet Yourself
Is it possible that our President has simply not traveled enough?
Born and raised in Queens and attending Fordham University in the Bronx, Donald Trump has no record of traveling outside New York until he was over 20, when he transferred to a college in the neighboring state of Pennsylvania. Were his formative years amiss, then, in his learning about other places and other people?
Is his view akin to the famous New Yorker cover by Saul Steinberg, an illustration of the United States with New York City as the epicenter of the country and the Hudson River the border of the known world? We can now at least add Washington, D.C., and Mar-a-Lago to the map of “the realm.”
Our President has now traveled some, but what we recommend is another kind of travel. Not a state-sponsored trip or a venture to scout locations for future Trump Towers. This would be a genuine travel experience, enriching and eye-opening, showcasing other cultures and ways of living.
It will extend far beyond viewing military parades, hobnobbing with such “understanding” world leaders as Kim Jong Un, or taking tea with the King.
WHERE, then, should the President go? As Elon Musk’s Starship spacecraft is not yet ready to take passengers to Mars, perhaps he could explore our own vast country?
Maybe he could travel to “flyover country,” the farming states, where his ying-yanging tariffs and trade restrictions have played havoc with rural economies. Or possibly to California, number one in homeless U. S. citizens, and while there, regale homeless veterans (approximately 32,500 nationwide) with tales of his brave exploits invading and bombing foreign countries.
Or he might tour the Great Lakes, and rename the other four?
WHEN should he go? This will be tough, as he is very busy building his ballroom and renaming bodies of water.
How about a trip in early November, around the midterm elections? Despite the long-discredited accusation of widespread voter fraud, it would be reassuring to know he might be so caught up divvying out ladles of soup in a soup kitchen somewhere that he wouldn’t remember to deploy the military for “election security.”
HOW will he travel? He should definitely not take his Qatari-donated, newly renovated 747, especially after last time, when he had to be smuggled off clandestinely in a catering truck. It’s unlikely any traveling companions, like the Secretary of State or of the Treasury, are going to fall for the ruse a second time. Besides, we may need those people. No more decoys!
Perhaps the President could fly commercially, although this likely would expose him to undue suffering. Without gold bathroom fixtures and maple wood floors, the trip will be no “Luxury Experience.” If only he still had his “Trump Shuttle,” bought with a massive loan he later defaulted on, saying then, “I’m smart. I got out at a good time.”
Considering the potential pitfalls, maybe it’s best the President travel incognito, disguised perhaps as an elderly woman wearing a lot of bronzer.
Wherever, whenever, however: our President needs a vacation.
Moreover, we need a vacation from him.
If the President refuses our travel suggestions, here’s another idea:
Let’s get him a pet! He has never owned a pet. As we know with our children, pets teach essential life lessons: compassion and empathy; they instill a sense of responsibility. There is a well-established connection between those who can care for a pet and those who can care for people.
So, which pet should we choose? A puppy? A kitten? A boa constrictor?
Imagine, the President may even decide he likes having a pet. After all, what is more obedient than a well-trained dog, besides possibly the Cabinet? And what is more docile than a sweet kitten, other than plausibly the Supreme Court?
The President may even become more mellow with a pet afoot and less likely to slap tariffs on our allies, or attempt to annex our neighbors, or bully our Congress. (Realizing, of course, a bully requires active participation from the bullied to maintain his status.)
Maybe we should do both: get the President a pet and devise a travel plan for him. (Do you think we could possibly convince him to leave his phone at home?)
Let’s go for it! After all:
Travel far enough, you meet yourself. (David Mitchell)
And for our President, that would likely be the most profound discovery of all.
Amy Lockard is an Iowa resident who regularly contributes to regional newspapers and periodicals. She is working on the second of a four-book fictional series based on Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice."