I was pleased to participate last Friday in an Education Week webinar on the Future of the Science of Reading (🔗 https://edw.link/u55), in part because my preparation caused me to reflect on a matter that needs discussing: the amount of curriculum “supplementation” happening, and the threat that it poses to the literacy curriculum cause. This month, two organizations published compelling research that draws attention to this problem (my word, not theirs). RAND analyzed teacher surveys on their use of instructional materials and found that “on average, teachers reported regularly using two curriculum materials and five supplemental materials.” Meanwhile, the The Center for Education Market Dynamics (CEMD) reported that nearly half of districts in their dataset (which focuses on districts with the highest percentage of underserved students) are using more than one ELA program. 🔗 RAND: https://lnkd.in/eVXQxrG8 🔗 CEMD: https://lnkd.in/er56bU7r Reporting on the RAND results, Sarah Schwartz provides a list of explanations—such as teachers worrying their HQIM is too rigorous, or that it doesn’t contain the scaffolds needed for the diverse set of learners in their classroom—none of which I doubt (🔗 https://lnkd.in/e36y6hsm). I also know, from visiting almost 50 school districts we’ve celebrated as part of the Knowledge Matters Campaign School Tour, that answers to the struggles teachers face CAN be found in a strong curriculum, if district leadership supports learning and understanding the curriculum well enough to find them. I know of no stronger instructional leader than Scott Langford, Superintendent of Sumner County Schools. In a recent webinar sponsored by the Knowledge Matters Campaign (min 40:00-44:00 🔗 https://lnkd.in/e84kf_NN), Scott said, “I would argue, before we start deviating from the curriculum, ask questions about lesson internalization, unit internalization, and the quality of student work…I believe teacher voice is very important but I think it needs to play out within the structure of our curriculum…” The RAND report tells us that curriculum policies and supports play a big role in how “by-the-book” educators are of the materials given to them, and the CEMD briefs note that “when supplemental products are layered on top of core programs without a clear rationale or strong alignment, they can interfere with the implementation of HQIM.” Teachers are less likely to substantially modify instruction or create or curate their own materials when their schools and districts ensure they have what they need to use them with fidelity. As summer turns to back-to-school season, it’s time to put those supports well in place.
