Natalie, this article is so needed. Thank you for bringing attention and careful consideration to this. The only basal you mentioned that I have direct experience with is myView, and it is, indeed, a bloated disaster.
You have highlighted important concerns. Here's mine related to these statements:
Instead of the meaty topics in knowledge-building curricula, like “the American West” or “Early American Civilizations,” the basals focus on broad “themes” like “What Is Friendship?” or “How Do We Build Community?”
“Themes don’t build knowledge logically,” said Consultant B. “They flit.”
I'm concerned that knowledge-building ELA curricula that don't align with the social studies and science standards of the adopting district will not build knowledge logically and make life more difficult for the classroom teacher as they juggle teaching multiple topics that may not be logically aligned. If we teach the CKLA second grade unit on the civil war, which students study in fifth grade social studies, is that the best use of integrated classroom instruction in the second grade? If our fourth grade social studies is centered around Native Americans, isn't that the best grade to have a corresponding ELA curriculum on "Early American Civilizations"?
I heard Steve Graham interviewed recently, and he restated the findings of his 2010 Carnegie Report about the importance of writing about social studies and science in order to improve reading comprehension. That part is clear. As always, its the implementation in the classroom that is far murkier.
Thank you for the shout out for our efforts to address the issues you summarize! Folks can follow our Substack here to get copies of our reports on six emerging and popular programs, coming soon.
Why is Karen Vaites quoted in an article about literacy “experts?” She has zero experience working in schools and in fact does not have any degrees in education. She calls herself a “curriculum evangelist,” and clearly has more of a “PR” role than anything resembling an actual educator. Referring to this individual as an expert undermines your own credibility, and makes us wonder about your motives.
I wrote a blog post about this back in 2019. I'm so happy that the flaws in EdReports are finally being exposed. Here's my post, which looks at a lesson in a green-rated curriculum and asks how you would rate it. I would be curious to hear what you think.
As a classroom teacher I created all of my own curriculum and taught my students how to learn which, I believe, is a missing ingredient in some classrooms. Our students learned how to be effective readers and writers, and demonstrated this in many ways including on state tests.
Later, as a literacy coordinator buying curricula for my school, I was appalled at the astronomical prices publishing companies were charging schools. That in itself sets up inequity. Our school could not afford the price tag and I had to fundraise to buy curriculum.
Now, as a literacy consultant, I see that the issue of so called "bloated" curriculum is all too real. I consult with a district using a good ("green") curriculum that has so much fluff it leaves teachers heads spinning and scratching their heads as to how they can "fit it all in" or "cover it all". Many lessons are too long and too unwieldy. Not to mention that most curricula are bias and do not advance culturally responsive teaching. And reading authentic literature? There is precious little time.
In my opinion, these big box curricula are all part of the "business" side of publishing houses, with the beneficiaries only being those publishing houses. Our money is better spent training teachers to deeply understand how children learn how to read, based on decades of research and science, give them ongoing coaching and support in implementing best practices aligned with that science, and then trusting them to select either the curriculum that best matches what they know is good teaching, or trust them to select the pieces of the curriculum they are handed and supplement where there are holes. They know their students. There is no one size fits all.
It's time to put trust, respect, and investment back into the TEACHERS. Take away an exceptional teacher and put an exceptional curriculum (whatever that is) into the hands of an unskilled educator and children will suffer. Put an exceptional teacher in front of children and let them teach, based on best practices founded in science and research, and they can take parts of any curriculum and turn their students into proficient readers, albeit with a lot of planning and supplemental resources. And there, too, is why teachers need guaranteed planning time built into their work days.
The conversations need to turn back to teachers and educator prep programs, rather than treating teachers as lemmings who can only follow a script that is handed to them. I appreciate this article, AND please - let's elevate the conversation to the training and support, trust and respect of the people teaching children how to read.
I can elaborate. However, since I do work in a school, I will come back to this after school hours. I would like to engage with the substance of the article as an educator. You must know how demoralizing it is to hear you say that one doesn’t need a degree in education to be an expert. Those of us on the ground have worked hard and made extensive sacrifices to earn the credentials to teach.
I wrote a blog post on this back in 2019. I'm so happy that people are finally talking about issues with EdReports. Here's my post, which illustrates the point by looking at a lesson from a green rated curriculum and I ask you to put on your rater's hat. You can reply with how you would rate this lesson!
In Indiana (which in the last fifteen years has become America's leader for bad ideas in public education) we have even bigger curricular problems. Republicans want to pass a bill to give parents $7000 to homeschool each child in their household with no restrictions on what is being taught or how. So a household of two homeschoolers would get $14,000 unrestricted, a household of three, $21,000 and so on. This money of course would be taken directly from the public schools.
Not to minimize the seriousness of the issues outlined in Natalie's very compelling article on EdReport Ratings. But I only wish we had problems of this size and nature to worry about here in the Hoosier State, where the walls of public education seem ready to collapse at any given legislative session.
Natalie, this article is so needed. Thank you for bringing attention and careful consideration to this. The only basal you mentioned that I have direct experience with is myView, and it is, indeed, a bloated disaster.
Very good informative article.
The type of deep dive that is needed, but sadly too few will read
You have highlighted important concerns. Here's mine related to these statements:
Instead of the meaty topics in knowledge-building curricula, like “the American West” or “Early American Civilizations,” the basals focus on broad “themes” like “What Is Friendship?” or “How Do We Build Community?”
“Themes don’t build knowledge logically,” said Consultant B. “They flit.”
I'm concerned that knowledge-building ELA curricula that don't align with the social studies and science standards of the adopting district will not build knowledge logically and make life more difficult for the classroom teacher as they juggle teaching multiple topics that may not be logically aligned. If we teach the CKLA second grade unit on the civil war, which students study in fifth grade social studies, is that the best use of integrated classroom instruction in the second grade? If our fourth grade social studies is centered around Native Americans, isn't that the best grade to have a corresponding ELA curriculum on "Early American Civilizations"?
I heard Steve Graham interviewed recently, and he restated the findings of his 2010 Carnegie Report about the importance of writing about social studies and science in order to improve reading comprehension. That part is clear. As always, its the implementation in the classroom that is far murkier.
Thank you for the shout out for our efforts to address the issues you summarize! Folks can follow our Substack here to get copies of our reports on six emerging and popular programs, coming soon.
More info here, including links to get in touch:
https://curriculuminsightproject.substack.com/p/introducing-the-curriculum-insight
Why is Karen Vaites quoted in an article about literacy “experts?” She has zero experience working in schools and in fact does not have any degrees in education. She calls herself a “curriculum evangelist,” and clearly has more of a “PR” role than anything resembling an actual educator. Referring to this individual as an expert undermines your own credibility, and makes us wonder about your motives.
I wrote a blog post about this back in 2019. I'm so happy that the flaws in EdReports are finally being exposed. Here's my post, which looks at a lesson in a green-rated curriculum and asks how you would rate it. I would be curious to hear what you think.
growingwriters.org/blog/ed-reports-has-it-backwards
As a classroom teacher I created all of my own curriculum and taught my students how to learn which, I believe, is a missing ingredient in some classrooms. Our students learned how to be effective readers and writers, and demonstrated this in many ways including on state tests.
Later, as a literacy coordinator buying curricula for my school, I was appalled at the astronomical prices publishing companies were charging schools. That in itself sets up inequity. Our school could not afford the price tag and I had to fundraise to buy curriculum.
Now, as a literacy consultant, I see that the issue of so called "bloated" curriculum is all too real. I consult with a district using a good ("green") curriculum that has so much fluff it leaves teachers heads spinning and scratching their heads as to how they can "fit it all in" or "cover it all". Many lessons are too long and too unwieldy. Not to mention that most curricula are bias and do not advance culturally responsive teaching. And reading authentic literature? There is precious little time.
In my opinion, these big box curricula are all part of the "business" side of publishing houses, with the beneficiaries only being those publishing houses. Our money is better spent training teachers to deeply understand how children learn how to read, based on decades of research and science, give them ongoing coaching and support in implementing best practices aligned with that science, and then trusting them to select either the curriculum that best matches what they know is good teaching, or trust them to select the pieces of the curriculum they are handed and supplement where there are holes. They know their students. There is no one size fits all.
It's time to put trust, respect, and investment back into the TEACHERS. Take away an exceptional teacher and put an exceptional curriculum (whatever that is) into the hands of an unskilled educator and children will suffer. Put an exceptional teacher in front of children and let them teach, based on best practices founded in science and research, and they can take parts of any curriculum and turn their students into proficient readers, albeit with a lot of planning and supplemental resources. And there, too, is why teachers need guaranteed planning time built into their work days.
The conversations need to turn back to teachers and educator prep programs, rather than treating teachers as lemmings who can only follow a script that is handed to them. I appreciate this article, AND please - let's elevate the conversation to the training and support, trust and respect of the people teaching children how to read.
I can elaborate. However, since I do work in a school, I will come back to this after school hours. I would like to engage with the substance of the article as an educator. You must know how demoralizing it is to hear you say that one doesn’t need a degree in education to be an expert. Those of us on the ground have worked hard and made extensive sacrifices to earn the credentials to teach.
I wrote a blog post on this back in 2019. I'm so happy that people are finally talking about issues with EdReports. Here's my post, which illustrates the point by looking at a lesson from a green rated curriculum and I ask you to put on your rater's hat. You can reply with how you would rate this lesson!
growingwriters.org/blog/ed-reports-has-it-backwards
In Indiana (which in the last fifteen years has become America's leader for bad ideas in public education) we have even bigger curricular problems. Republicans want to pass a bill to give parents $7000 to homeschool each child in their household with no restrictions on what is being taught or how. So a household of two homeschoolers would get $14,000 unrestricted, a household of three, $21,000 and so on. This money of course would be taken directly from the public schools.
Not to minimize the seriousness of the issues outlined in Natalie's very compelling article on EdReport Ratings. But I only wish we had problems of this size and nature to worry about here in the Hoosier State, where the walls of public education seem ready to collapse at any given legislative session.