I totally agree that we need better data on curriculum, and for the reasons you outline, it probably makes sense for the federal government to collect it. Although I have to say, I'm wary of having THIS administration collect the data, because the effort may be perceived by some states and districts (i.e., blue ones) as an attempt to police the concepts and texts that are being taught.
My other concern is that even in districts that have been using effective knowledge-building curricula, many teachers are apparently responding to data from benchmark testing by modifying those curricula so that they focus on superficial, skills-driven instruction. That's what a recent SRI study of several such districts found. (See my post at https://nataliewexler.substack.com/p/using-knowledge-building-curriculum). So you could have a database showing little progress in many districts using knowledge-building curricula, and the reason -- ineffective implementation -- would be obscured.
You make fair points, and I updated the post to note that this idea might get its best traction from Congressional action.
As for the part about implementation failure(s): those are real. They are happening now in districts across the country. But I still believe we'll see better outcomes in the aggregate with better programs. Louisiana and Tennessee send good signals (even if those states did many things to ensure implementation with fidelity, given their investments in and encouragement of strong PL.
If we don't see better evidence for better-crafted programs... well, I would want to know that, even if it challenged my beliefs.
Yes, I too want to know about evidence that challenges my beliefs. My concern isn't that the evidence would challenge my beliefs, but that the evidence would be misleading about what is working and what is not, and--most importantly--why.
Before the recent SRI study, I would have been more sanguine about a curriculum database. But that study found that even in districts that have been using effective knowledge-building curricula for years (CKLA, Wit & Wisdom, EL), TWO-THIRDS of teachers were modifying the lessons to put skills in the foreground, resulting in "superficial" instruction. That's a lot of teachers.
Still, I too would like to see better data on curriculum adoption. We just have to be clear that merely adopting a curriculum isn't enough to ensure its effectiveness.
Yes, that two thirds stat was sobering. The whole report was sobering.
I have always been clear-eyed about the high risk of implementation failure, especially because of the tendency of districts to underinvest in professional learning. Back in my Open Up Resources days, we found it was an uphill battle to get districts to invest in more than shallow professional learning when they purchased materials. We talked about how we needed to put a Surgeon General's Warning on the materials: Do Not Use Without PD.
Even when our 'sales people' (who were nearly all former teachers) begged district leaders to invest more in PD, it didn't usually happen. More than half of districts went ahead with no PD or sub-par PD. THAT stat stayed with me.
These districts did have PD -- apparently some good and some not-so-good. I think even good PD has an uphill battle against "benchmark" testing data focused on skills. To me, that's the next frontier -- getting school systems to stop placing so much weight on data that's telling them, "What your students really need is more practice making inferences," etc.
"the effort may be perceived by some states and districts (i.e., blue ones) as an attempt to police the concepts and texts that are being taught"
Yet the *reality* is that it is BLUE states like Oregon that have politicized the content, not RED states so much. My concern is that the "education establishment" is much too Leftward-biased [like Universities] to find the consilience needed.
Yes, Karen. Evaluating the curriculum is the first step to adopting the successful programs. The teacher training probably be in the mix. Good job advocating for our students and understanding metrics should the way to improve declining literacy in the United Stated.
Ms. Vaites, thanks for posting this idea. I've had your post sitting in a window in my browser for days, hoping to drop a comment. Sorry to be slow.
I like the idea of creating an objective set of records about the curricula being used in contemporary instructional efforts. Such a data base could be quite valuable. Having a clearly focused snapshot of what curricula are used by whom for what learners (age, SES, disability, etc.) would help mightily in understanding outcomes for our students.
Some thoughts (some of which have been addressed in other comments and in your original post):
(1) This would be a daunting project! Unless one can convince a very well-endowed organization to do spend the $millions it would require, government funding would be needed (despite the drawbacks some commenters noted...and, IES may not be functioning well enough right now or in the near future...sigh). Just the data-base hosting and programming would be expensive!
(2) Determining what data to collect and how to collect them presents some challenges! Sure, it’d be great to be able to say what commercial curricula are being implemented by schools. Which schools where are using, say, F & P, Success for All, Units of Study, Wilson Foundations, Journeys, etc. How do we know which? Do we ask the local education agencies’ Asst. Superintendents or Curriculum Coordinators? Do we ask individual schools’ principals? Do we send a survey to classroom teachers? I imagine that many LEAs (or other respondents) will want to report that they don’t actually depend on any one identified curriculum. “We use the best of all of them.” (Might need a way to probe for more detail when curricula are “eclectic?”)
(3) I wonder if it might be necessary to depend on something other than simply asking, “Which of these ‘methods’ do you use?” Maybe the data collection system needs to have some detailed codes for adoption (e.g., use as “core,” “supplement,” “background,” etc.). Could it be necessary to have trained observers visit classrooms and record what curricula were in use for what proportion of time? Maybe that would help get less ambiguous data about curricula use? Of course, collecting additional data presents an additional (and substantial) layer of research complexity (including costs).
(4) Efforts to accomplish somewhat similar tasks might be instructive. The late Jane Stallings (Stanford, as I recall) used a lot of different methods to describe implementation in the historic Follow Through project. (Indeed, the idea of knowing what was going on in classrooms of that era was an important underlying factor in the early observational work of Barak Rosenshine, too.)
Sarah Schwartz reported some survey data about popularity of curricula a few years ago. Here’s a link:
The side note when learning to read smaller is definitely better.
The ideal situation is learning to read one on one. That's how I taught my kids to read. You can fit there with them and spend as much time as you need. But really it should only take fifteen or twenty minutes a day.
Of course.Not all kids are lucky enough to have that
One on one is best small groups. Next and then larger classes.
I think stubenville, ohio is a great example of how effective small groups can be
Is there any reason we aren’t leaning more on organizations like the International Dyslexia Association (IDA) and the Knowledge and Practice Standards for Teachers of Reading they’ve already established? They have a validated program and intervention lists they’ve vetted. If we really believe the research that 95% of students can learn to read, then it seems wise to pay attention to the groups whose whole mission is to evaluate what actually works for the lowest performers. Sometimes it feels like we keep trying to reinvent the wheel, when a solid, evidence-based framework exists. Structured literacy is non-negotiable for students with dyslexia, aligning with IDA’s standards just makes sense. Is this something you've ever looked at?
Standards and frameworks aren’t curriculum… and at some point, some set of informed people needs to translate the standards into a set of materials aligned to those materials. That’s where things have been messy, as I have written here:
Further, the IDA standards focus on foundational skills, and we need curricula that help teachers with both foundational skills and the other side of the reading rope (comprehension), as well as writing.
The other problem with letting the feds do this is… have you seen treasurydirect.gov or the freefilefillableforms or the National hurricane center site, or…
In many cases, the tech had not been updated since the early 2000’s.
The gov takes forever to build; does it poorly, then abandons.
I just had a great conversation with Linda Diamond, the author of Teaching Reading, the CORE sourcebook. A list of curriculum is being compiled. She is more than happy to help.
Linda is lovely and passionate, but I don't think people involved in the authoring of curricula are the people to tap on these efforts. Conflicts of interest should be avoided, I suspect the field would agree.
I totally agree that we need better data on curriculum, and for the reasons you outline, it probably makes sense for the federal government to collect it. Although I have to say, I'm wary of having THIS administration collect the data, because the effort may be perceived by some states and districts (i.e., blue ones) as an attempt to police the concepts and texts that are being taught.
My other concern is that even in districts that have been using effective knowledge-building curricula, many teachers are apparently responding to data from benchmark testing by modifying those curricula so that they focus on superficial, skills-driven instruction. That's what a recent SRI study of several such districts found. (See my post at https://nataliewexler.substack.com/p/using-knowledge-building-curriculum). So you could have a database showing little progress in many districts using knowledge-building curricula, and the reason -- ineffective implementation -- would be obscured.
You make fair points, and I updated the post to note that this idea might get its best traction from Congressional action.
As for the part about implementation failure(s): those are real. They are happening now in districts across the country. But I still believe we'll see better outcomes in the aggregate with better programs. Louisiana and Tennessee send good signals (even if those states did many things to ensure implementation with fidelity, given their investments in and encouragement of strong PL.
If we don't see better evidence for better-crafted programs... well, I would want to know that, even if it challenged my beliefs.
Yes, I too want to know about evidence that challenges my beliefs. My concern isn't that the evidence would challenge my beliefs, but that the evidence would be misleading about what is working and what is not, and--most importantly--why.
Before the recent SRI study, I would have been more sanguine about a curriculum database. But that study found that even in districts that have been using effective knowledge-building curricula for years (CKLA, Wit & Wisdom, EL), TWO-THIRDS of teachers were modifying the lessons to put skills in the foreground, resulting in "superficial" instruction. That's a lot of teachers.
Still, I too would like to see better data on curriculum adoption. We just have to be clear that merely adopting a curriculum isn't enough to ensure its effectiveness.
Yes, that two thirds stat was sobering. The whole report was sobering.
I have always been clear-eyed about the high risk of implementation failure, especially because of the tendency of districts to underinvest in professional learning. Back in my Open Up Resources days, we found it was an uphill battle to get districts to invest in more than shallow professional learning when they purchased materials. We talked about how we needed to put a Surgeon General's Warning on the materials: Do Not Use Without PD.
Even when our 'sales people' (who were nearly all former teachers) begged district leaders to invest more in PD, it didn't usually happen. More than half of districts went ahead with no PD or sub-par PD. THAT stat stayed with me.
These districts did have PD -- apparently some good and some not-so-good. I think even good PD has an uphill battle against "benchmark" testing data focused on skills. To me, that's the next frontier -- getting school systems to stop placing so much weight on data that's telling them, "What your students really need is more practice making inferences," etc.
Yes, that’s a common refrain these days. I have a half-written piece about this… I ought to finish it
"the effort may be perceived by some states and districts (i.e., blue ones) as an attempt to police the concepts and texts that are being taught"
Yet the *reality* is that it is BLUE states like Oregon that have politicized the content, not RED states so much. My concern is that the "education establishment" is much too Leftward-biased [like Universities] to find the consilience needed.
While we're waiting, Natalie, how about a little seed, and some faith in our SoR network?
The seed: https://bennie.vercel.app
Next steps?
Yes, Karen. Evaluating the curriculum is the first step to adopting the successful programs. The teacher training probably be in the mix. Good job advocating for our students and understanding metrics should the way to improve declining literacy in the United Stated.
Ms. Vaites, thanks for posting this idea. I've had your post sitting in a window in my browser for days, hoping to drop a comment. Sorry to be slow.
I like the idea of creating an objective set of records about the curricula being used in contemporary instructional efforts. Such a data base could be quite valuable. Having a clearly focused snapshot of what curricula are used by whom for what learners (age, SES, disability, etc.) would help mightily in understanding outcomes for our students.
Some thoughts (some of which have been addressed in other comments and in your original post):
(1) This would be a daunting project! Unless one can convince a very well-endowed organization to do spend the $millions it would require, government funding would be needed (despite the drawbacks some commenters noted...and, IES may not be functioning well enough right now or in the near future...sigh). Just the data-base hosting and programming would be expensive!
(2) Determining what data to collect and how to collect them presents some challenges! Sure, it’d be great to be able to say what commercial curricula are being implemented by schools. Which schools where are using, say, F & P, Success for All, Units of Study, Wilson Foundations, Journeys, etc. How do we know which? Do we ask the local education agencies’ Asst. Superintendents or Curriculum Coordinators? Do we ask individual schools’ principals? Do we send a survey to classroom teachers? I imagine that many LEAs (or other respondents) will want to report that they don’t actually depend on any one identified curriculum. “We use the best of all of them.” (Might need a way to probe for more detail when curricula are “eclectic?”)
(3) I wonder if it might be necessary to depend on something other than simply asking, “Which of these ‘methods’ do you use?” Maybe the data collection system needs to have some detailed codes for adoption (e.g., use as “core,” “supplement,” “background,” etc.). Could it be necessary to have trained observers visit classrooms and record what curricula were in use for what proportion of time? Maybe that would help get less ambiguous data about curricula use? Of course, collecting additional data presents an additional (and substantial) layer of research complexity (including costs).
(4) Efforts to accomplish somewhat similar tasks might be instructive. The late Jane Stallings (Stanford, as I recall) used a lot of different methods to describe implementation in the historic Follow Through project. (Indeed, the idea of knowing what was going on in classrooms of that era was an important underlying factor in the early observational work of Barak Rosenshine, too.)
Sarah Schwartz reported some survey data about popularity of curricula a few years ago. Here’s a link:
https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/the-most-popular-reading-programs-arent-backed-by-science/2019/12. Might that report be of use in developing a data base?
I wonder if the SubStack comments form is going to accept a comment of this length....I hope the observations are helpful.
Immensely helpful — as always.
My post was sent off before proofread it. Hahaha.
I love this idea.
The side note when learning to read smaller is definitely better.
The ideal situation is learning to read one on one. That's how I taught my kids to read. You can fit there with them and spend as much time as you need. But really it should only take fifteen or twenty minutes a day.
Of course.Not all kids are lucky enough to have that
One on one is best small groups. Next and then larger classes.
I think stubenville, ohio is a great example of how effective small groups can be
https://www.apmreports.org/story/2025/02/20/steubenville-ohio-reading-success-for-all
Is there any reason we aren’t leaning more on organizations like the International Dyslexia Association (IDA) and the Knowledge and Practice Standards for Teachers of Reading they’ve already established? They have a validated program and intervention lists they’ve vetted. If we really believe the research that 95% of students can learn to read, then it seems wise to pay attention to the groups whose whole mission is to evaluate what actually works for the lowest performers. Sometimes it feels like we keep trying to reinvent the wheel, when a solid, evidence-based framework exists. Structured literacy is non-negotiable for students with dyslexia, aligning with IDA’s standards just makes sense. Is this something you've ever looked at?
Standards and frameworks aren’t curriculum… and at some point, some set of informed people needs to translate the standards into a set of materials aligned to those materials. That’s where things have been messy, as I have written here:
https://www.karenvaites.org/p/our-curriculum-review-landscape-is?r=wsgsa&utm_medium=ios&triedRedirect=true
Further, the IDA standards focus on foundational skills, and we need curricula that help teachers with both foundational skills and the other side of the reading rope (comprehension), as well as writing.
The other problem with letting the feds do this is… have you seen treasurydirect.gov or the freefilefillableforms or the National hurricane center site, or…
In many cases, the tech had not been updated since the early 2000’s.
The gov takes forever to build; does it poorly, then abandons.
I just had a great conversation with Linda Diamond, the author of Teaching Reading, the CORE sourcebook. A list of curriculum is being compiled. She is more than happy to help.
Linda is lovely and passionate, but I don't think people involved in the authoring of curricula are the people to tap on these efforts. Conflicts of interest should be avoided, I suspect the field would agree.