The 鈥溾�� report, conducted by nonprofit research organization SRI, examined literacy instruction in districts in Texas, Maryland, North Carolina and Virginia that have been using materials rooted in the popular phonics-based literacy approach for at least five years. 

Through numerous classroom observations, teacher surveys and interviews with district officials in Aldine Independent School District, Baltimore City Public Schools, Guilford County Schools and Richmond Public Schools, researchers found a majority of reading lessons lacked 鈥渄epth鈥� 鈥� meaning foundational skills were mainly limited to working on single words rather than reading them in sentences. 

Comprehension lessons in later elementary grades also mainly focused on completing a task, such as identifying a main character, rather than using a text for discussion and understanding its purpose.

鈥淵ou’re not able to really think about the unpacking of a complicated sentence. You’re not thinking about really intentional vocabulary instruction or the building of kids鈥� word knowledge over time,鈥� said Dan Reynolds, one of the lead authors of the report. 鈥淯ltimately, how should we be framing kids to read? Are we teaching our K-4 kids that reading is just tasks? Are we teaching them that they just need to label stuff and fill out graphic organizers?鈥�

In recent years, has passed science of reading laws, including many that have limited the type of programming and instructional materials a school can use 鈥� a move that has drawn that it鈥檚 too restrictive and that the instruction faces its own limitations.

The report defined surface literacy skills as a student鈥檚 ability to complete tasks and understand texts based on their literal meeting while robust instruction would further push a child to understand, evaluate and synthesize what they had read for its significance. 

The study said its 鈥渃omprehension observations alone are more rigorous than nearly all studies conducted in the last 50 years.鈥� It鈥檚 not expected to be representative of reading instruction across the country, Reynolds said, but 鈥渨e have four big districts in four different states, and we saw this pattern happening in all four of them with three different curricula.鈥�

The study also found that teachers struggled with implementing comprehension-focused learning materials and said many times the curriculum was too dense, required substantial planning or may not have been developmentally appropriate. Professional development opportunities for these educators were also limited.

Researchers reported less than a quarter of observed comprehension lessons were engaging in robust learning. More than two-thirds of the lessons focused on 鈥渟urface-level鈥� comprehension. 

鈥淚t seems that these curriculums are designed to build knowledge and they don’t develop meaning, and so then why read about the Civil War or about insects?鈥� said Katrina Woodworth, director at SRI鈥檚 Center for Education Research & Improvement. 鈥淭he point is to both teach reading and to build students’ knowledge base so that they have more scaffolding for future learning of both content and meaning.鈥� 

The SRI researchers also found that many review tools that measure comprehension don鈥檛 make a distinction between surface-level and robust instruction and skills. So, while educators are tasked with meeting a baseline standard, like having a child compare and contrast a text, it may be 鈥渦nintentionally encouraging teachers to focus on surface-level goals,鈥� the report said.

Without distinction, it weakens instruction for students and can later manifest as a skills disadvantage, Reynolds said.

鈥淒istricts had done so much to get the kids all the way there [with literacy], but it was losing voltage in the end,鈥� Reynolds said. 鈥淚f we can actually shift the way that districts are thinking about improving their comprehension instruction, they can take that all the way home and deliver really high quality comprehension instruction because so many pieces are already in place.鈥�

Reynolds and one of his fellow co-authors, Sara Rutherford-Quach, said they saw glimpses of 鈥渕agic鈥� in the classroom when students understood a passage in wide-ranging contexts, which is the type of instruction they鈥檙e hoping to see districts incorporate more of in early grades.

鈥淭he kids were way more engaged,鈥� Rutherford-Quach said. 鈥淪urface-level is important and necessary in some cases, 鈥β燽ut it really is fundamentally different when you start talking about meaning and making it matter to the kids, and you see that they’re invested in it.鈥�

Reynolds added that it鈥檚 unlikely robust comprehension could make up 100% of lessons in the classroom, but 鈥渨e are thinking that if we can shift that needle from 24% robust lessons up to 50 or 60, then that would be a real catalyst for comprehension growth.鈥�

The report recommended district leaders create 鈥渁 shared vision for robust comprehension and define what it means for students, teachers, schools and the district,鈥� and align how to best measure the extent of learning. It also called for better professional learning structures that could help model and rehearse robust comprehension work. 

Previous reporting from 社区黑料 found the percentage of recent high school graduates who lack 鈥渞obust鈥� comprehension skills is the highest it’s ever been, according to 2023 data. The sooner districts can engrain literacy skills that go beyond just explicit tasks, the easier it will be as they continue through the K-12 system, Reynolds said.

鈥淚 see the distinction between surface level and robust comprehension as critical to comprehension in fifth grade, but I also see it in the kids when they’re in 12th grade. Surface level comprehension and robust comprehension is the difference between a two on the AP exam and a three,鈥� he said.

A lawsuit filed in Massachusetts state court accuses famous literacy specialists Lucy Calkins, Irene Fountas, and Gay Su Pinnell and their publisher Heinemann of pushing reading curriculums they knew didn鈥檛 work.

Adopting a consumer protection approach, the lawsuit charges the curriculum authors with 鈥渄eceptive and fraudulent marketing.鈥� The filing alleges they willfully ignored decades of research into more effective practices and used shoddy studies to prop up their own work, then charged school districts for updates when they were forced to admit their materials were not effective.

鈥淭hink about that: If your car is broken, and it鈥檚 the fault of the manufacturer, the manufacturer recalls the part and fixes it,鈥� said attorney Ben Elga, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs. 鈥淭hey do not charge you for their failure. It鈥檚 outrageous.鈥�

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for 社区黑料 Newsletter

The lawsuit also names Heinemann parent company HMH, previously known as Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, and Teachers College at Columbia University.

The plaintiffs, who are seeking class action status and inviting other families to join the lawsuit, are two Massachusetts families whose children struggled to learn to read. One of the parent plaintiffs, Karrie Conley, said in the lawsuit that due to her school district using Calkins鈥� Units of Study curriculum, she had to spend more on private school tuition and reading tutors for two of her children than she spent to send her older child to college.

鈥淣othing is more painful than trying to help them, but not knowing how,鈥� she said in a Wednesday press conference announcing the lawsuit. 鈥淪o many times I鈥檝e asked myself, How did it get like this? I trusted that when I was sending my children off to school, they were getting instruction that had been tested and proven effective. I trusted that these so-called experts were actually experts.鈥�

The lawsuit comes as many states are overhauling their approach to reading instruction to better align with decades of research into how children learn. What鈥檚 known as calls for explicit phonics instruction that helps students connect letters and sounds, as well as texts that help students build the background knowledge to understand what they read.

Calkins鈥� Units of Study curriculum and Fountas and Pinnell鈥檚 Leveled Literacy Intervention and other materials instead relied on exposure to books and promoted discredited methods such as three-cueing, in which students use the first letter of a word and various context clues, including pictures, to guess what a word might be.

These curriculums were widely used in American schools, with Calkins in particular achieving near legendary status among teachers. Critics say these instructional methods are largely to blame for American students鈥� low rates of reading proficiency. Journalist Emily Hanford鈥檚 and her podcast helped push these pedagogical debates into the public eye.

Calkins later and changed Units of Study to include more phonics instruction. But . Units of Study was once the , but the nation鈥檚 largest school system . Last year, Teachers College .

Fountas and Pinnell, meanwhile, have .

A lawsuit represents one perspective on a complaint. Representatives of Heinemann, Teachers College, and Calkins, Fountas, and Pinnell could not be reached for comment Wednesday. Heinemann has .

Dozens of states have adopted new curriculum standards that , but others, including Massachusetts, have not.

Elga, the lead attorney and founding executive director of , has a background in consumer protection and antitrust cases. He said he believes this is the first time that a consumer protection approach has been used to advance an education policy agenda.

鈥淐onsumer law is very broad, so there are a lot of cases that challenge products that don鈥檛 do what they say they should do or are marketed in a deceptive way,鈥� he said. 鈥淭his is the first case we鈥檙e aware of applying those laws to this type of product.鈥�

The lawsuit is seeking unspecified damages and injunctive relief, including that the defendants provide an early literacy curriculum that reflects the science of reading at no charge.

Families have previously sued states and school districts over rock-bottom literacy rates, alleging that government entities have failed in their obligation to meet students鈥� basic educational needs. These and that sent millions of dollars to districts with low reading levels but without mandates on how to teach reading.

Elga said he sees school districts as victims alongside students.

鈥淚t鈥檚 our contention that one of the major problems here is that the school districts have been the victims of this faulty marketing,鈥� he said. 鈥淪o we wanted to bring a case that challenged the people who were actually distributing these types of materials.鈥�

This story was originally published by Chalkbeat. Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools. Sign up for their newsletters at .

Oregon鈥檚 highest needs schools that are focused on revamping literacy instruction and boosting student reading proficiency will get federal financial help next year.

The U.S. Department of Education announced last week that it will send Oregon schools $11.5 million next school year, and could potentially allocate up to $57 million over the next five years to help the state鈥檚 Early Literacy Success Initiative. That initiative was passed by the Legislature in 2023 with an investment of $120 million in state dollars.

An investigation by the Capital Chronicle found the state has spent more than $250 million in the past 25 years to improve reading instruction in schools. But that money has failed to help more than a generation of students, with many teachers not using methods that work to teach reading. Many, the investigation found, were not taught effective reading instruction in the state鈥檚 public colleges of education.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for 社区黑料 Newsletter

Over the last 25 years, nearly two in five Oregon fourth graders and one in five eighth graders have scored 鈥渂elow basic鈥� on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, often referred to as the nation鈥檚 report card. That means they struggle to read and understand simple words.

Schools can use the federal dollars for teacher development, reading tutors and specialists, literacy coaches and new reading curriculum, according to the news release from the U.S. Department of Education. Most Oregon schools are using one of the 15 reading curriculum on the state Board of Education鈥檚 approved materials list, but about 30% are not, , director of education initiatives for Gov. Tina Kotek鈥檚 office.

About 95% of the federal money will be funneled to districts through a competitive application process via the Oregon Department of Education, according to Marc Siegel, a spokesperson for the department. Precedence will go to schools with a high proportion of historically underserved students, including multilingual students and students with disabilities.

The rest of the federal money will help fund a comprehensive statewide literacy plan, Siegel said.

Oregon received the second highest award among the 23 state grants. Only the New Mexico Department of Education received more 鈥� about $11.9 million.

is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Oregon Capital Chronicle maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Lynne Terry for questions: info@oregoncapitalchronicle.com. Follow Oregon Capital Chronicle on and .

State officials are looking to hire workers 鈥� teachers and non-teachers alike 鈥� to teach elementary and middle school students how to read this summer.

The New Mexico Summer Reading Program will provide reading instruction in small group, four-hour classes of children ranging in age from those becoming kindergarteners to ninth graders.

People hired to help children read will start the program in June and continue for four to six weeks through July, according to a news release.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for 社区黑料 Newsletter

The deadline to apply is May 24; however, the state is encouraging people to apply by May 17 so they can start in June.

More information and the application can be found at . The program鈥檚 website shows 42 summer reading locations across New Mexico.

Three state agencies, the New Mexico Public Education Department, the Higher Education Department and the Early Childhood Education and Care Department said Monday they need 鈥渉undreds of additional instructors鈥� for the program, which has a goal to serve 10,000 students.

鈥淵ou do not need to be a licensed teacher to become a literacy instructor, but we encourage retired educators and educators on summer break to consider joining this historic statewide literacy effort,鈥� said Public Education Secretary Arsenio Romero.

Summer reading instructors would make $35 per hour, according to the news release. That鈥檚 significantly higher than the in New Mexico of $20 per hour.

People would have to commit to working for at least 25 hours per week.

The weeklong training will be paid at the same rate $35 per hour rate.The specialized training will be done by literacy experts prior to the program, at the end of May or the beginning of June.

New Mexico ranks 50th in literacy with 79% of fourth grade students reading below grade level, to the children鈥檚 literacy nonprofit Reading is Fundamental.

is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Source New Mexico maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Shaun Griswold for questions: info@sourcenm.com. Follow Source New Mexico on and .

Standards are not curriculum. And yet, far too many ELA curricula in use today have put them at the center of literacy instruction, with disappointing results. How did we get here?

I want to shoulder some of the blame. I served as a co-author of the Common Core State Standards in English Language Arts, published in 2010. We developed those standards by identifying the progression of specific skills and competencies students should master in each grade across four domains: reading, writing, speaking/listening, and features of language like grammar and vocabulary.

Perhaps not surprisingly, this design had the unintended consequence of standards alignment overpowering nearly all other considerations 鈥� including how the standards were being taught. Too often, schools and teachers directed to 鈥渕eet the standards鈥� responded by teaching ELA as a mechanical series of content-agnostic, skill-based activities. And curriculum vendors retooled their offerings to put standards at the center, especially after reviews by EdReports and others revealed the vast differences among curricula in their alignment to standards.

Those ratings have helped redefine instructional quality and brought a much broader range of curriculum developers to the fore. But they rely on a blunt metric. An ELA curriculum can earn a positive rating if it lines up with discrete, grade-level standards. While valuable, these reviews are incomplete. They fail to account for an important admonition contained in the Common Core State Standards we made sure to include:

In fact, the Standards mention the importance of knowledge-building more than 100 times.

Fortunately, a handful of publishers took this guidance to heart and created a new generation of ELA curricula unparalleled in their potential to drive reading success. They are designed to go deep on content. In the knowledge-based classrooms that use them, students are learning to read through the joyful exploration of reading to learn.

These best-in-class, knowledge-rich reading curricula ground instruction in high-interest topical units, based on that literacy and knowledge go hand in hand. Through coherent, thoughtfully sequenced activities, these curricula teach phonics and core literacy skills while growing student knowledge about the natural and human world. They use complex texts and scaffolding supports that grant all students access to grade-level content. The knowledge they build is like an interest-bearing savings account: the more students know, the faster they learn and the better readers they become.

Systematically growing knowledge is an essential equity investment. Beginning in the earliest grades, knowledge-building is a vital strategy to accelerate learning and grant all students access to grade-level content. And it sets the stage for a lifetime of critical inquiry and analysis.

Sadly, these content-rich ELA curricula are not yet used in enough American classrooms to make a real dent in our national reading crisis 鈥� an especially urgent goal given the persistent adverse effects of pandemic-related school closures.

Let me be clear. While standards can and should set the bar for annual learning targets, they shouldn鈥檛 be used to define the particulars of daily classroom instruction. Fluent reading is built on skills, yes, but it is ultimately fueled by curiosity and the desire to make meaning. Nobody picks up a text to practice finding the main idea of a paragraph. Rather, they learn to find the main idea by engaging with a text because it鈥檚 interesting, opens a window into new knowledge or offers a unique insight. What if, instead of foregrounding skills, students were learning about dinosaurs, butterflies, or the American Revolution, and mastering reading skills along the way?

That鈥檚 the crucial difference between high-quality, knowledge-based reading curricula and curricula that are merely standards-aligned and only touch on texts and topics that don鈥檛 add up to building a coherent body of knowledge.

A new curriculum review tool, recently published by the Knowledge Matters Campaign, is designed to help states and school districts differentiate between the two. It arrives at an important moment for reading teachers and education leaders nationwide. have passed 鈥渟cience of reading鈥� laws in recent years, most requiring districts to use curricula that have been vetted and approved by their state education departments. While existing tools can be used to assess whether a curriculum covers essential foundational skills, until now nothing has existed to help states and educators identify content richness 鈥� the other essential component of literacy.

The Knowledge Matters Review Tool looks at 26 separate criteria across eight dimensions, selected from the rich body of research on what works best in reading classrooms. That includes whether texts are intentionally organized to build topic knowledge and if classroom activities include regular communal readings of rigorous, grade-level texts. It assesses curricula based on the depth of knowledge-building discussions, a volume of reading and writing on conceptually connected texts, and the availability of targeted supports for students who need acceleration to get to grade level.

As a field, we鈥檝e taken significant steps toward providing all students with the excellent, equitable, rigorous reading instruction they deserve. But we鈥檙e not there yet. There is real reason for hope and a clear opportunity to improve, with a rising tide of renewed focus, energy, and mandates for change. Better yet, we know more now than ever about the power of high-quality curriculum. And with this new tool, educators can be sure that curricula both meet standards and build student knowledge. If we can get this right, I believe we鈥檙e on the cusp of reshaping literacy instruction and supporting a new generation of excellent readers.