It’s Time For An Honest Conversation About Curriculum

I’m watching teachers who were excited about the Science of Reading a year ago begging for help because the basal programs their districts adopted are garbage.

Lately, as I listen to curriculum conversations, I keep thinking of a Taylor Swift line: "I think I've seen this film before, and I didn't like the ending."

I’m watching teachers who were excited about the Science of Reading a year ago begging for help because the programs their districts adopted are garbage. Virtually every time I see this happen, the programs in question are basals from big publishers. Yes, even the recently-updated versions that claim to align to the Science of Reading.

Teachers using basal programs complain about random excerpts from books, a lack of whole novels, ridiculous word work activities like crosswords, coloring worksheets for vocabulary, and missing fluency practice. I don’t hear them talking about student excitement from learning about, and writing about, science and history topics – which tells me that the magic of knowledge-building curriculum isn’t happening in their classrooms. 

These teachers have been told that they have been given high-quality curriculum, but it seems like they have been given bloated, choose-your-own-adventure programs with excessive fluff, as literacy experts have warned us about basals.

Today’s basals are designed to excel in curriculum adoption processes, not classrooms. They are stuffed with enough manuals, materials, tech gizmos, and bells and whistles to check all the boxes at a surface level, which may also explain how some pulled off all-green ratings from EdReports. The publishers even claim this as a virtue, and market themselves as programs that will meet the needs of all students, through a variety of different activities and/or materials. Lost in the conversation: the high share of materials with low instructional relevance.

It’s heartbreaking. And defeating. It makes me feel like the Science of Reading movement is going backwards.

I honestly don’t hear the same concerns from teachers who are given genuinely excellent materials, the ones actually aligned to the Science of Reading. To be clear, none of those programs are perfect, nor easy to implement. But they simply elicit a very different response, provided teachers are also given time to plan and prepare, plus PD.

There would seem to be a simple solution: make sure schools adopt better programs! Unfortunately, the opposite is trending. Many state adoption lists are long on basals and short on high-quality options. When I see these state lists, I wonder whether educators had a voice in the decision, because I literally don’t know any educators who are enthusiastic about the basals. Yet every state seems to be.

I think this is a real risk for the Science of Reading and high-quality curriculum movements. When teachers are given materials that are supposedly high-quality but are actually garbage,  many teachers will tune out, or assume they are living another pendulum swing. They won’t blame the curriculum choice, they will chalk up their challenges to an educational fad. It will also allow those who were never on board to say, "see, told you so...".

Is anyone really working to help districts tell the difference between the better and worse options with an all-green blessing? It doesn’t seem like it. This is why I have been working to bring the Curriculum Insight Project to life. I want a place where educators can say the quiet part loud (even as anonymous reviewers!). How do the fine print and minutiae of a program affect its actual quality, and the ability to use it successfully?

We should be able to have honest conversations about curriculum, so the companies creating them can continue to improve. Isn't that what we want? Shouldn’t “know better, do better” apply to curriculum companies? To EdReports?

The Science of Reading movement is a fight for better outcomes for children, but it’s also a fight for better resources for teachers. Better teacher preparation programs, more worthy curriculum, TIME and preparation to carefully unpack the shifts in practice, initial and ongoing training and professional development. Without all of these ingredients, we are heading for a pendulum swing. 

I have had it with those, as have my peers at the Curriculum Insight Project. Educator friends, if you have share our concerns about basals – or other curricula – I hope you will join our effort.

– Abby Boruff, nineteen-year teacher, grades preK-2nd