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.
Perhaps in an ideal world the topics in knowledge-building ELA curricula would align with state social studies and science standards, but that's unlikely to happen because state standards are all different, especially in social studies. And almost all state social studies standards are pretty superficial in the early elementary grades, focusing on family and community and devoid of any historical topics. Kids love history and it's good for them to be exposed to it early, so following those standards would be a missed opportunity to build knowledge.
It's true that elementary teachers will need to figure out a way to shoehorn in topics from the standards that aren't covered in whatever knowledge-building curriculum they're using. But they have to do that even if they're using a regular content-light literacy curriculum too, which they spend the same amount of time on. And I definitely don't think it's a problem if students learn about the Civil War in second grade and then again in fifth grade. I think the fifth-grade teachers will be pleased to find that their students already have background knowledge on the topic and are able to approach it at a deeper level. It's not like you only have to learn about something like the Civil War once and you're done!
From the California Grade 2 social studies standard. What if we had text sets to go with this social studies curriculum? And a solid routine for teaching text analysis and summary/essay writing that could be applied to these texts? That would provide an integrated curriculum.
Standard:
Students understand the importance of individual action and character and explain how heroes from long ago and the recent past have made a difference in others’ lives (e.g., from biographies of Abraham Lincoln, Louis Pasteur, Sitting Bull, George Washington Carver, Marie Curie, Albert Einstein, Golda Meir, Jackie Robinson, Sally Ride).
There's an awful lot of knowledge in the world!
Grover and the Everything in the Whole Wide World Museum
That standard is better than "Students will learn about helpers in their communities," or whatever, but I'd say this is more of a "theme" than a "topic," and it suffers from the ahistoricism and fragmentation that is typical of most social studies standards.
Will second-graders really understand how Abraham Lincoln made a difference if they know nothing about the Civil War? Or how Golda Meir made a difference if they know nothing about Israel or the Middle East? So yes, there's content here, but if you stick with the standard it's almost inevitably going to be covered at a pretty superficial level, and the information and new vocabulary will be less likely to stick.
But hey, if someone out there wants to create text sets, etc., as you suggest, they should try doing it. I wouldn't hold my breath, though, because as I mentioned, state social studies standards are all different, so it's hard to come up with a curriculum based on them that can be marketed nationally.
Here's how I end my book, From Sound to Summary: Braiding the Reading Rope to Make Words Make Sense.
One thing is certain: teachers are time-strapped and rarely find themselves with too much time on their hands as they attempt to address all the physical, social, emotional, and academic needs of their students. For this reason, the authors of "Feeding Two Birds with One Hand: Instructional Simultaneity in Early Literacy Education'' (See Appendix D) recommend utilizing "instructional simultaneity"—the integration of multiple skills into one lesson. This is what this reading guide has attempted to do: emphasize the importance of integration throughout the literacy block. Practitioners can be stymied by choice overload, and the basal bloat in many programs only complicates our predicament. With everything thrown in—all but the classroom sink—plumbing the depths of these programs to tease out the core concepts and skills that really matter in reading instruction—and then developing routines to teach them—can be both daunting and debilitating. And just too darn time-consuming. But choose we must, so let’s simplify the process through intentional integration of literacy components whenever possible to maximize both efficiency and effectiveness.
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.
You don't seem to take issue with anything substantive in the piece--just the fact that I quoted someone you don't consider an expert. I'm puzzled why you feel that undermines my credibility--not to mention undermining "all of us," whatever that means. This seems to be essentially a personal attack, and I don't consider those appropriate for the comments section of this newsletter.
If you don't consider Karen Vaites a literacy expert, then you (and other readers) are free to disregard her comments. But she's only echoing what others quoted in the piece are saying--others that you presumably do see as experts--so I don't see why her comments contaminate the whole piece, as you allege. (I describe her in the piece, by the way, as a literacy "advocate.") But Vaites has worked for many years in the literacy curriculum field, and it's clear to me from speaking with her extensively that she knows a lot about it. I don't think you need a degree in a field to be able to speak about it with expertise.
It's interesting to me that since this post went up on Forbes and then on my Substack, the only criticisms I have gotten go not to its substance but rather to attempts to undermine my credibility. In a comment on the Forbes post I have been accused, falsely, of being a "paid speaker" for Open Up Resources and an employee of the companies mentioned in the piece. Meanwhile, I have gotten many emails and comments telling me that the criticism of EdReports in my piece is right on target. Some have told me it extends to their reviews of math and science curricula as well.
Natalie, surely you must be aware that we (educators who work in schools) are inundated with the opinions and “expertise” of onlookers these days. The SOR era has championed reporters, advocates, politicians and social media influencers who have but a superficial understanding of the complexities of teaching. Sure, everyone has a stake in the game and cares about schools, and maybe it’s possible to become knowledgeable on a topic by reading, but there is no knowledge as deep as the knowledge we have from experience. When you are a teacher in a room with 28 children—all of whom are unique—and you are given 45 minutes to teach a subject, you have an intimate understanding of the potential of a CURRICULUM to either advance your goals or become an obstacle. Your defensiveness as I question the background of your sources is telling, and makes my point even more salient: educator voices are not being respected in these conversations. I do agree, of course, that Ed Reports is flawed on many levels…many more levels than you mention in this article. The sheer limitations on how much of a program is reviewed is problematic, as well as the lack of any meaningful analysis of implementation, student outcomes, availability of PD with the program, culturally responsive instruction, and more. In other words, outside forces posing restrictions on an educational landscape such as a curriculum is misaligned. A curriculum is an active experience that includes human teachers and students and is much deeper and more dynamic than what can be reviewed on a page.
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.
I think you're right on target with your criticisms--except that, as I say in my post, it probably wouldn't have helped for EdReports to rate the curriculum you're talking about for usability, since they've given greens for usability to curricula that aren't actually usable.
The writing lesson you highlight is totally unrealistic for the vast majority of first graders, but unfortunately it's not unusual, from what I've seen and heard. If you haven't heard of The Writing Revolution, you might be interested. It's the title of a book I co-authored and also the name of a nonprofit that offers training in the method. The book really focuses on grades 3 and up, but the organization offers a course in adapting the method for K-2. Briefly, for kids in K-2, much of the writing instruction should be oral and collaborative.
Yes, I am very familiar with Judith’s work and I have all her materials and I’ve also read The Writing Revolution! I have also authored a writing curriculum based on 20 years of trial and error in my own k-2 classrooms as a teacher. I’ve trained with Anita Archer so the focus is the most necessary content, design, and delivery. You can check it out here www.growingwriters.org. Within it there is a lot of flexibility for teachers to give their own prompts so it fits with core knowledge as well as starting at the most very basic skills so that dyslexic and novice writers aren’t left out.
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 agree with some of this. But I think at the very least there should be one curriculum per state, and exactly what kids topics the kids are learning each year needs to be standardized. That way kids learn all the topics they need to.
Moreover, now you can actually test on content to see if the kids learned what they were supposed to.
In college I took a course where on the first day of class the professor handed out a list of ALL the possible questions on the mid term and final (all essay questions). Then he proceeded to teach on each topic.
To get an A in the class all you had to do was learn each topic, and then demonstrate that knowledge in essay form. Simple but not easy.
I think that's what we need more of. There should be no mystery on what content is needed to learn. And teachers shouldn't be picking through 3 years of topics to try and shove into 1 year of class. They should be focused on teaching the curriculum not building it.
NCLB took the emphasis off content on put it onto ELA and Math standards that could supposedly be applied in any state test. So your issue is with policy, not curriculum. What gets tested gets taught.
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.
Maybe I'm a bit biased, but this sounds like a great idea to me.
Disclosure, my wife had a minor of education, then went on to get her MBA. But when we had kids she decided to stay home and home school them. We shoot for 240 to 250 school days a year. My daughter was reading Harry Potter on her own during 3rd grade, and the Hobbit in 4th. My son took a bit longer, but now at 6 he's definitely reading past a 2nd grade level.
Besides giving up the 6 figure income my wife could be making with her MBA, we spend a good amount on schooling supplies such as the Core Knowledge books as well as other workbooks.
Why shouldn't some of that tax money that I pay go back to help pay for my kids education? And probably more importantly all the other home schoolers that are giving up income to make sure their kids actually get an education, and not indoctrinated into whatever the fad of the week is.
Yes, I'm sure there are some people that do a poor job home schooling their kids, but certainly no worse than the millions and millions of kids that public schools fail.
For example, in neighboring Illinois only 32% of 4th graders were proficient or above
The real crime seems to me to keep throwing good money after bad with our public schools. Meanwhile we ignore proven ways to fix them. See for example, Roland Fryers efforts in Houston
When you refer to students being taught in public schools as being "indoctrinated in the fad of the week", then yes, you are definitely showing more than a bit of bias.
Your wife seems to have the educational background to do a good job of homeschooling children, but she would be the exception rather than the rule. Remember that this new law would pay literally anyone to homeschool their own children with no oversight at $7000 a head. And why should my tax money go to that?
I also want to say that my adult children have gone on to be a chemical industry lab inspector, a registered nurse, and a special education teacher, and they were all educated in inner-city public schools which you call "failing".
And I apologize to the other readers for bringing the discussion off the track with my original post. I'm just frustrated that some states have the luxury of discussing the best ways to have standards, while in Indiana we are battling the effort to do away entirely with standards.
If 29% of public school kids can't even hit basic proficiency, and 68% can't meet proficiency standards, that's a REALLY low bar for home schoolers too beat.
Moreover, I would argue that you don't need a fancy degree to be a good home school teacher. At the lower grades I think the biggest thing is individual instruction.
Teaching the kids to read (which I did a good share of) is mainly spending 15-20 minutes a day. Of course that's with one on one instruction. I imagine trying to teach a class of 20 kids to read would be a real nightmare.
Same with reading practice. Maybe 30 minutes to an hour tops of reading each day. But again it's that individualized instruction that matters. I would assert that as long the teacher has a good high school education, they are going to be fine with that.
Same would apply to basic math instruction.
As you get to higher grade levels, there are numerous online resources that can provide the instruction needed if the parents grasp of that topic is a little shaky.
Note none of this is to say we shouldn't have standards. If I was education czar, I would standardize curriculum. I would decide exactly what kids need to know in each grade, teach them that information, and then test them on it to make sure they learned it. This would include and end of the year test, fail to pass that test, repeat the grade.
And I'm ok with mandating periodic testing for home school students as well. But if we are shutting down home schools that don't pass the test, we should be doing the same for public schools right?
Bottom line the tax money going to home schoolers is probably going to be a LOT more effective in actually educating kids.
"The home-educated typically score 15 to 25 percentile points above public-school students on standardized academic achievement tests"
No one has said anything about shutting down homeschools. I doubt you can find anyplace where it's even been done, though a few rare instances might exist somewhere.
I'm sure that as an economist, you can appreciate what I mean when I say that our exchange in this forum has reached the point of diminishing returns. But I did want to note that, even with all your admitted bias that the public schools are failing, you also imply that anyone with a good high school education can be an effective teacher of the K-12 curriculum (even with all the various levels and subjects involved). This, Mathew A., is a solid endorsement of the success of America's public schools, and as a retired public school teacher, I thank you for that compliment.
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.
If you have meaningful experience with MyView, we invite you to join our curriculum review teams! Natalie Wexler discussed our work in her piece.
More info here, including links to get in touch:
https://curriculuminsightproject.substack.com/p/introducing-the-curriculum-insight
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.
Perhaps in an ideal world the topics in knowledge-building ELA curricula would align with state social studies and science standards, but that's unlikely to happen because state standards are all different, especially in social studies. And almost all state social studies standards are pretty superficial in the early elementary grades, focusing on family and community and devoid of any historical topics. Kids love history and it's good for them to be exposed to it early, so following those standards would be a missed opportunity to build knowledge.
It's true that elementary teachers will need to figure out a way to shoehorn in topics from the standards that aren't covered in whatever knowledge-building curriculum they're using. But they have to do that even if they're using a regular content-light literacy curriculum too, which they spend the same amount of time on. And I definitely don't think it's a problem if students learn about the Civil War in second grade and then again in fifth grade. I think the fifth-grade teachers will be pleased to find that their students already have background knowledge on the topic and are able to approach it at a deeper level. It's not like you only have to learn about something like the Civil War once and you're done!
From the California Grade 2 social studies standard. What if we had text sets to go with this social studies curriculum? And a solid routine for teaching text analysis and summary/essay writing that could be applied to these texts? That would provide an integrated curriculum.
Standard:
Students understand the importance of individual action and character and explain how heroes from long ago and the recent past have made a difference in others’ lives (e.g., from biographies of Abraham Lincoln, Louis Pasteur, Sitting Bull, George Washington Carver, Marie Curie, Albert Einstein, Golda Meir, Jackie Robinson, Sally Ride).
There's an awful lot of knowledge in the world!
Grover and the Everything in the Whole Wide World Museum
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U15HH9EknOY
That standard is better than "Students will learn about helpers in their communities," or whatever, but I'd say this is more of a "theme" than a "topic," and it suffers from the ahistoricism and fragmentation that is typical of most social studies standards.
Will second-graders really understand how Abraham Lincoln made a difference if they know nothing about the Civil War? Or how Golda Meir made a difference if they know nothing about Israel or the Middle East? So yes, there's content here, but if you stick with the standard it's almost inevitably going to be covered at a pretty superficial level, and the information and new vocabulary will be less likely to stick.
But hey, if someone out there wants to create text sets, etc., as you suggest, they should try doing it. I wouldn't hold my breath, though, because as I mentioned, state social studies standards are all different, so it's hard to come up with a curriculum based on them that can be marketed nationally.
I hear you!
Here's how I end my book, From Sound to Summary: Braiding the Reading Rope to Make Words Make Sense.
One thing is certain: teachers are time-strapped and rarely find themselves with too much time on their hands as they attempt to address all the physical, social, emotional, and academic needs of their students. For this reason, the authors of "Feeding Two Birds with One Hand: Instructional Simultaneity in Early Literacy Education'' (See Appendix D) recommend utilizing "instructional simultaneity"—the integration of multiple skills into one lesson. This is what this reading guide has attempted to do: emphasize the importance of integration throughout the literacy block. Practitioners can be stymied by choice overload, and the basal bloat in many programs only complicates our predicament. With everything thrown in—all but the classroom sink—plumbing the depths of these programs to tease out the core concepts and skills that really matter in reading instruction—and then developing routines to teach them—can be both daunting and debilitating. And just too darn time-consuming. But choose we must, so let’s simplify the process through intentional integration of literacy components whenever possible to maximize both efficiency and effectiveness.
This is exactly my issue. Alignment would make so much more practical sense.
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.
PS — she isn’t a researcher either. Her only degree is a BA in Poli-SCI. You undermine all of us with this citation.
You don't seem to take issue with anything substantive in the piece--just the fact that I quoted someone you don't consider an expert. I'm puzzled why you feel that undermines my credibility--not to mention undermining "all of us," whatever that means. This seems to be essentially a personal attack, and I don't consider those appropriate for the comments section of this newsletter.
If you don't consider Karen Vaites a literacy expert, then you (and other readers) are free to disregard her comments. But she's only echoing what others quoted in the piece are saying--others that you presumably do see as experts--so I don't see why her comments contaminate the whole piece, as you allege. (I describe her in the piece, by the way, as a literacy "advocate.") But Vaites has worked for many years in the literacy curriculum field, and it's clear to me from speaking with her extensively that she knows a lot about it. I don't think you need a degree in a field to be able to speak about it with expertise.
It's interesting to me that since this post went up on Forbes and then on my Substack, the only criticisms I have gotten go not to its substance but rather to attempts to undermine my credibility. In a comment on the Forbes post I have been accused, falsely, of being a "paid speaker" for Open Up Resources and an employee of the companies mentioned in the piece. Meanwhile, I have gotten many emails and comments telling me that the criticism of EdReports in my piece is right on target. Some have told me it extends to their reviews of math and science curricula as well.
Natalie, surely you must be aware that we (educators who work in schools) are inundated with the opinions and “expertise” of onlookers these days. The SOR era has championed reporters, advocates, politicians and social media influencers who have but a superficial understanding of the complexities of teaching. Sure, everyone has a stake in the game and cares about schools, and maybe it’s possible to become knowledgeable on a topic by reading, but there is no knowledge as deep as the knowledge we have from experience. When you are a teacher in a room with 28 children—all of whom are unique—and you are given 45 minutes to teach a subject, you have an intimate understanding of the potential of a CURRICULUM to either advance your goals or become an obstacle. Your defensiveness as I question the background of your sources is telling, and makes my point even more salient: educator voices are not being respected in these conversations. I do agree, of course, that Ed Reports is flawed on many levels…many more levels than you mention in this article. The sheer limitations on how much of a program is reviewed is problematic, as well as the lack of any meaningful analysis of implementation, student outcomes, availability of PD with the program, culturally responsive instruction, and more. In other words, outside forces posing restrictions on an educational landscape such as a curriculum is misaligned. A curriculum is an active experience that includes human teachers and students and is much deeper and more dynamic than what can be reviewed on a page.
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
I think you're right on target with your criticisms--except that, as I say in my post, it probably wouldn't have helped for EdReports to rate the curriculum you're talking about for usability, since they've given greens for usability to curricula that aren't actually usable.
The writing lesson you highlight is totally unrealistic for the vast majority of first graders, but unfortunately it's not unusual, from what I've seen and heard. If you haven't heard of The Writing Revolution, you might be interested. It's the title of a book I co-authored and also the name of a nonprofit that offers training in the method. The book really focuses on grades 3 and up, but the organization offers a course in adapting the method for K-2. Briefly, for kids in K-2, much of the writing instruction should be oral and collaborative.
Yes, I am very familiar with Judith’s work and I have all her materials and I’ve also read The Writing Revolution! I have also authored a writing curriculum based on 20 years of trial and error in my own k-2 classrooms as a teacher. I’ve trained with Anita Archer so the focus is the most necessary content, design, and delivery. You can check it out here www.growingwriters.org. Within it there is a lot of flexibility for teachers to give their own prompts so it fits with core knowledge as well as starting at the most very basic skills so that dyslexic and novice writers aren’t left out.
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 agree with some of this. But I think at the very least there should be one curriculum per state, and exactly what kids topics the kids are learning each year needs to be standardized. That way kids learn all the topics they need to.
Moreover, now you can actually test on content to see if the kids learned what they were supposed to.
In college I took a course where on the first day of class the professor handed out a list of ALL the possible questions on the mid term and final (all essay questions). Then he proceeded to teach on each topic.
To get an A in the class all you had to do was learn each topic, and then demonstrate that knowledge in essay form. Simple but not easy.
I think that's what we need more of. There should be no mystery on what content is needed to learn. And teachers shouldn't be picking through 3 years of topics to try and shove into 1 year of class. They should be focused on teaching the curriculum not building it.
NCLB took the emphasis off content on put it onto ELA and Math standards that could supposedly be applied in any state test. So your issue is with policy, not curriculum. What gets tested gets taught.
Agree with Deb. And she has the experience to give her opinion teeth.
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.
Maybe I'm a bit biased, but this sounds like a great idea to me.
Disclosure, my wife had a minor of education, then went on to get her MBA. But when we had kids she decided to stay home and home school them. We shoot for 240 to 250 school days a year. My daughter was reading Harry Potter on her own during 3rd grade, and the Hobbit in 4th. My son took a bit longer, but now at 6 he's definitely reading past a 2nd grade level.
Besides giving up the 6 figure income my wife could be making with her MBA, we spend a good amount on schooling supplies such as the Core Knowledge books as well as other workbooks.
Why shouldn't some of that tax money that I pay go back to help pay for my kids education? And probably more importantly all the other home schoolers that are giving up income to make sure their kids actually get an education, and not indoctrinated into whatever the fad of the week is.
Yes, I'm sure there are some people that do a poor job home schooling their kids, but certainly no worse than the millions and millions of kids that public schools fail.
For example, in neighboring Illinois only 32% of 4th graders were proficient or above
https://www.isbe.net/Documents/2022-Il-State-Report-Reading-Grades-4-8.pdf
With 29% not even scoring BASIC!!!
The real crime seems to me to keep throwing good money after bad with our public schools. Meanwhile we ignore proven ways to fix them. See for example, Roland Fryers efforts in Houston
https://www.econtalk.org/roland-fryer-on-educational-reform/
But of course actually fixing them would piss a lot of people off in particular teachers unions
When you refer to students being taught in public schools as being "indoctrinated in the fad of the week", then yes, you are definitely showing more than a bit of bias.
Your wife seems to have the educational background to do a good job of homeschooling children, but she would be the exception rather than the rule. Remember that this new law would pay literally anyone to homeschool their own children with no oversight at $7000 a head. And why should my tax money go to that?
I also want to say that my adult children have gone on to be a chemical industry lab inspector, a registered nurse, and a special education teacher, and they were all educated in inner-city public schools which you call "failing".
And I apologize to the other readers for bringing the discussion off the track with my original post. I'm just frustrated that some states have the luxury of discussing the best ways to have standards, while in Indiana we are battling the effort to do away entirely with standards.
If 29% of public school kids can't even hit basic proficiency, and 68% can't meet proficiency standards, that's a REALLY low bar for home schoolers too beat.
Moreover, I would argue that you don't need a fancy degree to be a good home school teacher. At the lower grades I think the biggest thing is individual instruction.
Teaching the kids to read (which I did a good share of) is mainly spending 15-20 minutes a day. Of course that's with one on one instruction. I imagine trying to teach a class of 20 kids to read would be a real nightmare.
Same with reading practice. Maybe 30 minutes to an hour tops of reading each day. But again it's that individualized instruction that matters. I would assert that as long the teacher has a good high school education, they are going to be fine with that.
Same would apply to basic math instruction.
As you get to higher grade levels, there are numerous online resources that can provide the instruction needed if the parents grasp of that topic is a little shaky.
Note none of this is to say we shouldn't have standards. If I was education czar, I would standardize curriculum. I would decide exactly what kids need to know in each grade, teach them that information, and then test them on it to make sure they learned it. This would include and end of the year test, fail to pass that test, repeat the grade.
And I'm ok with mandating periodic testing for home school students as well. But if we are shutting down home schools that don't pass the test, we should be doing the same for public schools right?
Bottom line the tax money going to home schoolers is probably going to be a LOT more effective in actually educating kids.
"The home-educated typically score 15 to 25 percentile points above public-school students on standardized academic achievement tests"
https://www.nheri.org/research-facts-on-homeschooling/
No one has said anything about shutting down homeschools. I doubt you can find anyplace where it's even been done, though a few rare instances might exist somewhere.
I'm sure that as an economist, you can appreciate what I mean when I say that our exchange in this forum has reached the point of diminishing returns. But I did want to note that, even with all your admitted bias that the public schools are failing, you also imply that anyone with a good high school education can be an effective teacher of the K-12 curriculum (even with all the various levels and subjects involved). This, Mathew A., is a solid endorsement of the success of America's public schools, and as a retired public school teacher, I thank you for that compliment.