-
-
A Standards-Aligned Curriculum with Excellent Implementation is Still Not Enough
Posted May 1, 2019
Our most vulnerable students also require structured materials designed specifically to fill learning gaps
by Linda Diamond, President, CORE and author of the Teaching Reading Sourcebook and Assessing Reading: Multiple Measures
Back in September 2018 I wrote about the importance of selecting and fully implementing a great curriculum with excellent support and ongoing professional learning. This is a huge and important step in accelerating achievement for all students. But is that enough? The answer, unfortunately is “no.” A standards-aligned, high-quality curricula, while significantly improving outcomes for many students, will not be sufficient for those most at risk. Core curriculum is targeted at grade-level standards and will ensure all students have access to robust content, but it will not meet the needs of students who are significantly behind in their skills. Such students will still require a targeted or intensive intervention curricula that is well beyond what a standards-aligned core program can provide.
Don’t get me wrong, strong curriculum will significantly reduce the numbers of students needing tiered interventions, but older students, in particular, who did not have the benefits of best first teaching, will need extra support. This is also true for young students experiencing reading or math difficulty. A multi-tiered system of support will ideally address these needs. Yet few districts have successfully designed and implemented MTSS. When implemented fully, schools with multi-tiered systems recognize that in addition to solid core instructional materials, educators need to also identify, purchase and implement specialized, structured intervention materials that explicitly address students’ skills gaps. One curriculum will not be sufficient as it will not address the various tiers of instructional need at a school. Furthermore, not all of the vetted core curricula adequately address the early literacy foundational skills. This gap will likely require supplemental materials that more closely meet those described in the IES Practice Guide Foundational Skills to Support Reading for Understanding in Kindergarten Through 3rd Grade or follow Louise Spear-Swerling’s description of Structured Literacy (Structured Literacy and Typical Literacy Practices: Understanding Differences to Create Instructional Opportunities, Jan. 2018). Especially in the early grades, prevention of reading difficulty is the name of the game and most core curricula, while essentially meeting most standards, are not sufficient.
Without a doubt, we want all students to have access to standards-aligned curriculum and instruction, but what if specific foundational skills never are mastered? A 6th grade student who cannot decode single syllable words while able to participate actively in core instruction still needs to be taught how to decode. Where is the material to do that in a standards-aligned middle school core program? When a student with identified learning disabilities receives great instruction and scaffolded support in a general education classroom, he or she can participate, be engaged and will learn, but at some point the missing skills need to be directly taught. Such struggling students will not have scaffolded support when they leave school. We want these students to have the skills they require to be independent.
Too often we confuse equity with equality. Yes, giving all students equal access to high-quality curriculum and instruction is vital, but equity entails much more. Equality is treating everyone the same and the goal is to promote fairness. But that is only true if everyone starts from the same place. Equity, on the other hand, requires giving someone what they need to be successful.
We are on the right track with focusing on putting excellent core instructional materials into the hands of well-prepared and supported educators, but we also have to be aware that some students will also need targeted instruction with more appropriate and focused materials.
In education we have a habit of going for the silver bullet, of looking for a panacea that will turn things around. In recent years it was teachers writing their own units of study and having new common core standards; now, it is selecting and implementing a standards-aligned curriculum faithfully. I fear we will put too much stock in the power of a strong curriculum and be dreadfully disappointed when many of our most vulnerable learners do not improve sufficiently. I would like to think we can do two things at the same time—select and implement a strong standards-aligned core curriculum as core instruction for all students but at the same time identify and implement structured materials designed specifically to fill learning gaps for those students who need more targeted instruction and materials, so that we truly turn our schools into equitable institutions. Our schools should be places where all students thrive and those who need more get more.
References:
https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/practiceguide/21
http://www.readingrockets.org/content/pdfs/structured-literacy.pdf
6 responses to “A Standards-Aligned Curriculum with Excellent Implementation is Still Not Enough”
Share Your Thoughts
-
This is a aspirational message to be sure and districts and dyslexia committees across the country are dealing with how to ACTUALLY put this in motion. We are designing the academic side of an MTSS model having already built the PBIS/SEL/PBIS side. We are looking at a proposal for K-5 Core ELA using the new Fountas and Pinnell Classroom; K-3 pilot done and 4th and 5th pilot next year because they weren’t ready this year. This means we will be looking at a Balanced Literacy Core for Tier 1 and then Structured Literacy for Tier 2-3. In an affluent suburban district, current data shows we have 25% of our district not meeting standard overall. When we dive into data 40-55% of FRL, ELL and students of color not meeting standard with the existing Balanced Literacy approach. The new program (Balanced Literacy or some call it Responsive Teaching) has added Phonemic Awareness and Phonics to address gaps in including all recommendations of the National Reading Panel. They say it is taught explicitly but it isn’t clear that we share the same definition of “explicit.” There are no decodable readers for students to apply knew knowledge. Student progress is monitored with IRRs.
How do you view this scenario? What Tier 2-3 and Special Education curricula do you suggest? What approaches to deep professional development teachers need?
Bravo, Linda Diamond! Bravo! There is no silver bullet. Never has been, never will be.
Hi Aileen. I think we have to be careful in looking for any one so-called supplemental or intervention curricula. Rather we need to determine what skill gaps a student demonstrates and select what makes sense to fill those gaps. We have found that many multi-sensory programs (Wilson, Heggerty, Sonday, Barton, for example) certainly fill the need for many students, also SIPPS (Center for the Collaborative Classroom) or SIPPS Plus, Direct Instruction, Superkids, Language! Live, but there are many other options.
Hi Linda Diamond,
I service students who are different learners, so equity and access are my two favorite words. Thank you for addressing the difference between equity and equality. I like your statement, “When a student with identified learning disabilities receives great instruction and scaffolded support in a general education classroom, he or she can participate, be engaged and will learn, but at some point the missing skills need to be directly taught.” I agree, we cannot neglect the academic gaps, skill gaps or opportunity gaps for students who need additional resources.
Architects and urban planners design cities with universal design in mind. They build curbs that are leveled where pedestrians cross the street in order to provide access for people with wheelchairs. This universal design is flexible and provides access for others, such as people with baby carriages, people on bikes, skateboards, etc. Different learners, struggling learners and any student who is not accessing the curriculum need more supports and interventions. They need direct instruction, multiple ways of being assessed for knowledge acquisition and universal design for learning strategies. Consequently, these resources not only benefit our struggling learners, they benefit all learners.
In our schools, we must leverage our resources and interventions in a way that provide equity and access for learners who are not accessing the curriculum. Direct instruction, universal design for learning strategies, and multiple ways of assessing students require us to think more flexibly. Sometimes, it can be hard work, but is a great and mighty work. Together, we can meet the needs of ALL learners.
I couldn’t agree with you more, Katherine. It is indeed great and mighty work.
Thank you, Bj!