My District Adopted A Basal Curriculum... Now What?

​So your district adopted a basal reader program?

No need to panic…. Yet.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the concept of reading and learning to read via an anthology of short passages. Research supports the need for students to dive into a variety of texts including complex short passages. (Timothy Shanahan has a great blog on short passages here although I do disagree with his lack of a more urgent need to also incorporate novels in upper grades specifically.)

So what is the problem then with popular basal readers currently being marketed as being aligned to the Science of Reading?

Well, the answer to that is complex.

First of all, the most glaring pain point teachers and parents bring up is the lack of novels. This article by The Atlantic gives a valid critique of one popular program, Into Reading and is worth reading for anyone curious to understand everything that can and will go wrong when no flexibility is given to teachers using basal programs.

But a basal reader isn’t inherently bad. Even Into Reading has points to celebrate. First of all, the consumable nature of the MyBook allows students to annotate directly in the text. Magic. There are many great stories in the program that my students and I were able to dive deeply into while reading. However, the overall program ended up creating more moaning and groaning during the ELA block than I have ever heard from students in my career. The overall critique from teachers seems to be that basal readers as a whole are not working for our kids. There are a lot of nuances that play into what can go wrong with a curriculum.... and we all need to be paying attention to those details. Even with some glaring faults, the basal curriculum can be used as a part of a healthy and yes, very aligned to science, classroom instructional routine…. when used with caution.


The Absence of the Novel
The glaring exclusion of novels from basal programs has left teachers, parents and students mourning their absence and is a major downfall. It also happens to be an easy fix. Just weave a novel into the whole class literacy block. This of course will mean letting go of some of the short stories, maybe even an entire three week “module” but/and this should be encouraged. Teachers can easily still follow the same scope and sequence, practice the same skills, and foster a deeper and more engaging experience by incorporating novels. There is absolutely nothing magical about the stories in a basal. Replacing some as needed and staying true to the skills in the scope and sequence will still hold integrity to the program if one wishes to do that… So districts- please- leave room for this. I am not arguing for a novels-only classroom in the same way I wouldn't argue for short passages only. There must be, dare I say... balance.

Integrity, Never Strict Fidelity
Teachers who began their career during the No Child Left Behind Era, are all painfully aware of the million and one things that can go wrong when a district forces strict fidelity of a basal program. There are well-documented accounts of “Open Court Police” in the Los Angeles Unified School District and surrounding districts where literacy coaches came in, looked at the clock and noted whether or not every single teacher in every single room was on the exact same page at the exact same time. This, very not surprisingly, caused pushback from teachers. Micromanaging to this degree was suffocating- and worse- there were truly faulty pieces to Open Court’s curriculum that needed to be addressed and adjusted. (I encourage you to read this article from 2011 that gives a historical perspective on the legacy left by Open Court and, arguably why it all failed.)

The main complaint of Open Court, and we are seeing the same complaints with this new generation of recycled basals… it was boring. The stories, aside from a few, felt like a drudge and it was difficult to get authentic buy-in from students. So, before the pendulum made a heavy swing toward Lucy in many areas, teachers started to let go of the rigid parts of the program that weren’t working. (Although notably, it’s estimated only 25% of the country used Units of Study and Calkins herself estimates a rather low percentage of the country bought into her)  Room was made for  whole class novels as well as cross-curricular units that wove together the reading and vocabulary of content area subjects like science and social studies into the reading block. This fully maximized time to later do the work of scientists and historians during the science and social studies block. All of this with of course the balance of short fiction passages and again... novels.

Teachers can hold true to the integrity of a program, following its scope and sequence to ensure skills are still being taught while also simultaneously weaving in different, more relevant texts (and novels.) The careful weaving of novels, short fiction and non-fiction passages, and cross-curricular units with writing, reading, science and/or social studies is, in my opinion, the best approach. Those days were the glory days of teaching for me. I would say this model (which is admittedly impossible to box and sell countrywide) really and truly addresses all of Scarborough's Rope.

Foundational Skills – Are they truly Aligned or not Aligned to Science – That is the Question
One would hope, at this point, given the longevity of methods like Orton Gillingham and the depth of knowledge we have on the importance of teaching foundational skills and decoding from the start, that most programs claiming to be aligned to science have this piece right in K-3.

And I think that is true, mostly. Unless it’s not. Luckily, most districts now having to adopt ELA programs from state-mandated short lists of boxed curriculum already had supplemental foundational skills programs in place for k-3 (like FUNdations or UFLI) and those programs are proving to be a stronger fit to how science suggests we should teach these skills than boxed curriculum attempting to do it all might suggest.

Upper-grade foundational skills continue to be another pain point when teachers are discussing concerns over popular programs and how they are seeing SoR roll out. There simply is very little out there that addresses the needs of upper-grade students. And this is bad news.

As kids grow, there should be a shift from basic phonics to more age-appropriate morphology study. This simply isn’t happening in the way research or evidence suggests we should proceed in upper-grades and it's leading to a plethora of problems- especially for our struggling students still needing support with grade-level decoding. There needs to be a shift from short and long vowel spellings to word study on the morpheme level and that simply isn’t happening in most boxed curricula and if it is happening, it is so surface-level and brushed over it simply doesn’t count as direct or explicit instruction.

I do not know one teacher in the two states and three districts that I have worked in that have a problem with phonics or morphology. In fact, they all love it. The problem we all have is seeing it done wrong over and over again- especially in the upper-grades.

Realistic Time Expectations
Basal readers- both old and new are notorious for being time suckers. In the early 2000s Open Court days, teachers expressed desperate concern over how to fit it all in with voices loudly sounding alarms over science and social studies being squeezed out of the day. This is a huge problem, and I imagine is the biggest pain point of all that led to a pendulum swing to balanced literacy for so many districts. (No I am not arguing for balanced literacy and no I will not address all the issues we all know existed there because that conversation is old, we have talked about it all, and we need desperately to move into the here and now. The here and now is how we ensure we are implementing science correctly this time)

Despite this clear and real historical failure, we are seeing the same mistakes repeated. Programs like Into Reading give teachers a wealth of resources to choose from. There are more modules than one can possibly get through in a year (unless of course, you taught only Into Reading all day every day to finish every writing prompt, worksheet and assessment available) From everything I have been told from trainers and representatives it was never meant to be used that way anyway. So again, what's the problem then?

The problem lies in the huge push to blame teachers and take away autonomy from all. While some argue taking away autonomy will even the playing field and ensure all students are receiving the most top-notch education possible, in reality, it's leading districts to decide to push strict fidelity of programs that weren't ever meant to be used that way. And as we have seen in the past, that simply doesn’t work.

So What’s a Teacher to Do?
Carefully evaluate the program you have.
What are popular complaints being said out loud on social media and in news articles? How can those issues be addressed (If the main complaint is lack of novels, just throw out a module and do a novel instead. Still following the comprehension skills and strategies suggested by the program) A curriculum that is largely disapproved of doesn’t have to be the end of the world. If teachers are given the room, it can be adapted into something good, maybe even great. If not, The Atlantic article will be come your district's reality.

Look closely at the foundational skills progression.
Is it developmentally appropriate? Is the scope and sequence something that looks to be rooted in evidence-based best practice? If you're an upper-grade teacher, regardless of the boxed curriculum you have, I urge you to carefully evaluate the foundational skills portion. If it isn't shifting to a heavy focus on morphology, replace that entire piece with something like Morpheme Magic. Morpheme Magic aint perfect but it's maybe as close to it as I have seen and it is worlds better and far more aligned to what science suggests upper grade level kids need.

Consider the consequences of Over-Testing
With a large selection of resources comes a large selection of assessments. Testing fatigue and anxiety are real issues and it's hard to find any evidence or any literature that would support giving kids weekly tests that mimic what they would see on standardized state tests. It's simply too much. Instead, research supports more time spent learning with direct, explicit instruction and less time assessing. Progress monitoring is of course crucial but educators need to be intentional about how and when we are doing this. Here is another great post by Shanahan to further discuss this issue.

What to do about writing?!
Writing is the most sadly neglected area of any boxed curriculum I have ever seen. I do not even know what advice to give here, it took me years to refine my writing instruction and my writing units were always best when they were integrated with other subject/content area material.

NoRedInk is a great supplement resource for the forever neglected grammar piece. For composition, looking for a resource that provides engaging, explicit and direct instruction is hard. Lean on master teachers here for what tried and true approaches they use in your school. I love sharing what I have, if you're in 4th grade, give me a shout-out and I will see how I can help.

Where does that leave us now?

In the end, we are at a crucial turning point with the Science of Reading movement. A moment in time where we need to move forward promptly with course corrections to ensure we are all successful. Our students depend on it.

No program is perfect, basal or not. We must empower teachers with the training and knowledge needed to implement any curriculum they have in a way that is best fit for the students in front of them. And yes, this means allowing for autonomy and trust to let experts in the classroom be just that. The experts.

**Note I use Into Reading as it is the district adopted curriculum so brought that program up because of familiarity. There are other issues with it I didn't discuss here, like its failure to be culturally responsive and its inclusion of some culturally destructive texts. Districts need to intentionally think about these things, and these faults.... well leave perfect space to cut out the bad and incorporate novels.