News stories featured in Gadfly Bites may require a paid subscription to read in full. Just sayin’.
Only one clip to talk about today, but it’s a good one. Check it out: Kudos to the elected school board members at Elida Local who are attempting to remove their district from the voucher groucher lawsuit after three years of ponying up to pay expenses for other people’s lawyers. Among the insights leading to their bout of buyer’s remorse: “School tax dollars should not be used to fund lawsuits against the state,” “We’re giving more money away because we’re complaining we lost money,” “We’re being funded by people who don’t send their kids here” (as in, private school families still pay property taxes), and the realization that a successful court action “destroys a parent’s ability to choose unless they have money.” Congratulations on achieving enlightenment, your honors, and good luck in your effort. (LimaOhio.com, 7/9/24)
Did you know you can have every edition of Gadfly Bites sent directly to your Inbox? Subscribe by clicking here.
In July 2023, Governor DeWine and the General Assembly enacted bold literacy reforms that require Ohio elementary schools to follow the Science of Reading. These practices—well supported by research—emphasize phonics, background knowledge, and vocabulary—elements that have been shown to be critical for students’ reading development. Lawmakers also allocated $169 million over the current biennium to support scientifically-based reading instruction.
Passing these provisions was a necessary first step in improving literacy achievement in the Buckeye state. Yet strong implementation—at both the state and local level—is also crucial to the success of the initiative.
This report examines one of the key implementation steps: The creation of a state-approved list of high-quality literacy curricula and instructional materials. Read the report below for the findings, or download the full report (which includes appendices).
Glossary
DEW refers to the Ohio Department of Education and Workforce, formerly known as the Ohio Department of Education (ODE). This state agency implements most of Ohio’s K12 education laws.
Phonics refers to an instructional approach that involves teaching children to match sounds of spoken English with individual letters or groups of letters.[1]
Science of Reading refers to a body of research-based evidence that tells us how students learn to read, including phonological and phonemic awareness, phonics and word recognition, fluency, vocabulary, content knowledge development, and comprehension.[2] Ohio law contains a formal definition of the Science of Reading (see Appendix A.)
Three-cueing refers to an instructional approach that encourages students to rely on “cues”—e.g., a picture or the position of a word in a sentence—to read words. Three-cueing is not considered a scientifically based method of reading instruction and is often embedded in “balanced literacy” and “whole language” literacy programs.[3]
Executive summary
In January 2023, Governor Mike DeWine opened his annual state of the state address by proclaiming the “moral imperative” of providing a good education to all Ohio students. Then he turned to specifics about how to fulfill that obligation. After noting the large proportion of children struggling to read proficiently—two in five third graders—he declared a statewide goal of improving elementary-school literacy instruction:
Today, I am calling for a renewed focus on literacy—and on the way we teach reading in the state of Ohio. … Not all literacy curriculums are created equal, and sadly, many Ohio students do not have access to the most effective reading curriculum. In our budget, we are making sure that all Ohio children have access to curriculum that is aligned with the evidence-based approaches of the Science of Reading.[4]
True to his word, Governor DeWine shortly thereafter introduced sweeping literacy reforms via his budget plan (House Bill 33). These provisions, which lawmakers would approve that summer, require Ohio public schools to follow the Science of Reading starting in 2024–25. This approach to reading instruction emphasizes phonics to help students “decode” words, as well as knowledge- and vocabulary-rich content to help them comprehend what they’re reading. The bill also prohibits use of “three-cueing,” a widely used but discredited technique that prompts children to guess at words rather than sounding them out. Recognizing that extra resources were needed to transition schools successfully to the Science of Reading, lawmakers budgeted $169 million for better instructional materials, professional development, and literacy coaching.
To prepare schools for the transition, the Ohio Department of Education and Workforce (DEW) recently laid the groundwork for classroom-level implementation of scientifically based reading programs. This report focuses on three important steps the agency has taken since passage of HB 33 in July 2023:[5] (1) vetting and approving a list of high-quality instructional materials from which schools may choose; (2) collecting, via statewide survey, information about the English language arts (ELA) curricula used by Ohio schools prior to the recent reforms; and (3) allocating state funds to subsidize the purchase of new curricula and materials.
We offer four key takeaways based on analyses of these activities:
1. Ohio has wisely kept notoriously weak ELA curricula off of its state-approved list. DEW has curated an approved list of core elementary (grades K–5) curricula that includes highly respected programs such as Core Knowledge Language Arts, EL Education, and Wit & Wisdom, while excluding less effective curricula that promote three-cueing, such as Fountas & Pinnell’s Classroom and Lucy Calkins’ Units of Study. In total, DEW approved fifteen core ELA curricula for use starting next school year (the full list of approved programs, as of May 24, 2024, appears here).
2. Just one-third of Ohio districts have been using core ELA elementary curricula fully aligned to new state requirements. Based on results from its statewide survey of curricula used in 2022–23, DEW grouped districts and charter schools into three categories: aligned, partially aligned, or not aligned to the state-approved materials list. The figure below indicates that districts statewide were evenly split among the three categories. Urban districts were more likely to have aligned curricula (42 percent), while suburban districts and charters were least likely (23 and 28 percent, respectively).
Figure ES-1: Districts and charters’ alignment (2022–23) to the state’s approved curricula list for 2024–25
Source: Ohio DEW, table titled “HQIM Subsidy Allocation Spreadsheet April 2024.” Note: DEW’s groupings are based on the ELA materials that districts and charters reported using in 2022–23 (pre-reform). The categories are as follows: aligned—used a state-approved core ELA curriculum; partially aligned—used a state-approved supplemental program (but not core); not aligned—did not use a state-approved core or supplemental program. For more on “core” and “supplemental” programs, see here; for more about the district typologies (e.g. rural or urban), see here.
Moving forward, schools with aligned ELA curricula may continue to use their existing programs, but those with partially or nonaligned programs will need to implement new ones. As discussed here, schools needing to adopt new curricula should consider those containing both solid foundational skills—e.g., phonics—and strong knowledge-building elements.
3. More than half of Ohio’s lowest-performing districts, based on third-grade reading proficiency, will be undertaking curriculum changes. When focusing on the lowest ten percent of districts as gauged by their students’ reading proficiency in third grade (n=60), the survey found that thirty-four used nonaligned or partially aligned curricula in 2022–23. Of those districts, thirteen reported using either a district-developed program or only a supplemental program, while another twenty-one used non-approved core curricula.
4. Districts and charter schools that previously used nonaligned curricula received more state financial support for new materials. Based on survey findings, DEW allocated most of the state’s $64 million set aside for instructional materials to districts needing to make more extensive curricula changes. Districts reporting use of nonaligned curricula in 2022–23 received on average $121 per PK–5 student[6] to purchase new materials, while those using partially aligned curricula received $101 per PK–5 student. Districts previously using approved materials—and thus not required to make substantial updates—received $37 per PK–5 student.
* * *
To its credit, Ohio is moving full speed ahead in implementing its literacy reforms. To keep the push going, the report offers five policy recommendations. In brief, they are as follows (more detail starts here):
Maintain a high bar for inclusion on the state-approved ELA materials list. As the curriculum landscape continues to evolve, DEW should maintain a strong gatekeeping role by approving high-quality programs and keeping weak ones off the list.
Continue state investments that support the Science of Reading. The previous state budget set aside generous sums to support the immediate needs of schools transitioning to the Science of Reading. Implementation will continue into the next biennium (FYs 2026 and 2027) and lawmakers should continue to allocate funds to sustain these efforts.
Increase transparency about which ELA curricula districts and individual schools are using. Parents and communities should have easy access to information about the curricula used by their local schools. To this end, DEW should create a user-friendly dashboard that displays each district and school’s ELA curricula (core, supplemental, and intervention).
Push especially hard for rigorous implementation in low-performing schools. Struggling readers stand to benefit greatly from these reforms, but that promise won’t be realized if implementation is poor. To ensure the strongest possible alignment of instruction to the Science of Reading in low-performing schools, lawmakers should require DEW to comprehensively review their literacy programs on an annual or biennial basis.
Evaluate the impacts of the literacy-reform effort. The legislature should require studies that gauge which specific curricula and programs are most effective. Results would help support school leaders as they continue to make decisions about which materials to put into teachers’ hands, and how best to support their work in the classroom.
Under the leadership of the DeWine administration, Ohio’s literacy reforms are off and running. Now the long-term work of classroom implementation begins. If state and local leaders stay patient and resolute—keep their eye on the ball—more students will become skilled readers, will progress through the upper grades without falling behind, and will leave high school ready for their next steps.
Ohio’s ambitious literacy-reform efforts
Ohio policymakers have long understood the critical role of literacy in helping students reach their full potential. Within the past two decades, they have enacted policies aimed at lifting reading standards and increasing proficiency. For example, under former governor John Kasich, Ohio enacted the Third Grade Reading Guarantee in 2012. This legislation requires schools to annually screen students in grades K–3 for reading deficiencies and develop improvement plans for those identified as off track. Lawmakers also included a mandatory retention policy to ensure that students who fell short of a state-defined target on a third-grade reading assessment received extra time and supports.
The Guarantee has pushed Ohio schools to prioritize early intervention, and data suggest that the policy moved the achievement needle.[7] Regrettably, one component of the guarantee, the retention provision, was weakened via the most recent state budget bill (House Bill 33, enacted in July 2023).[8] Yet in that very same legislation, lawmakers gave literacy a significant boost by enacting provisions that push for more effective reading curricula and instruction. Those are issues that the Guarantee had not fully addressed but have become ripe for change, as literacy experts and advocates, often parents themselves, have pressed harder for scientifically based reading practices in elementary schools. They have rightly pointed to decades of research demonstrating the superiority of phonics-based instruction and the critical role of background knowledge for reading comprehension,[9] while also raising concerns about the continuing use of ineffective methods such as three-cueing.[10]
Ohio’s latest initiative aims to move schools toward the Science of Reading in three ways:
High-quality instructional materials: HB 33 requires DEW to establish a list of core ELA curricula and intervention programs that are “aligned with the Science of Reading and strategies for effective literacy instruction.” It further stipulates that all public schools must use materials from the state-approved list starting in 2024–25. With limited exceptions, these materials cannot include three-cueing to teach children to read.[11] DEW was also tasked with fielding a baseline survey of schools’ pre-HB 33 ELA curricula and collecting annual information about ELA curricula in future years.
Professional development (PD): To support effective implementation of new curricula, HB 33 requires educators to complete a PD course in the Science of Reading unless they’ve already completed similar training. Upon course completion, stipends of $400 or $1,200 are provided to teachers, depending on which grade and subject they teach. The course must be completed by June 30, 2025. HB 33 also calls for literacy coaches that support educators serving in the state’s lowest-performing schools as gauged by students’ reading proficiency. Roughly 100 coaches will be deployed to provide more intensive, hands-on PD for teachers in those schools.
Teacher preparation: State lawmakers also took steps to ensure that colleges of education adequately prepare prospective teachers in the Science of Reading. Per HB 33, the Ohio Department of Higher Education (ODHE) must implement an audit process that reviews preparation programs’ alignment to the Science of Reading. ODHE will begin these audits in January 2025. The bill also requires the chancellor of ODHE to revoke program approval if a review uncovers inadequate alignment to the Science of Reading and the deficiencies are not addressed within one year.
As shown in table 1, Ohio lawmakers set aside substantial funds to support these efforts. In total, the state will spend $169 million in FYs 2024 and 2025 to support the initiative, with the largest portion going toward teachers’ PD stipends ($86 million) and subsidies to purchase new curricula and materials ($64 million). Another $18 million will support literacy coaches, and $1 million is allotted to help teacher-preparation programs transition to the Science of Reading (of which $150,000 supports the ODHE audits).
Table 1: State funding set aside for literacy reforms, combined amounts for FY24 and FY25
Source: Ohio Legislative Service Commission, Analysis of Enacted Budget for the Ohio Department of Education and Workforce (DEW) and the Ohio Department of Higher Education (ODHE).
While all elements of the literacy-reform package are crucial, this report focuses on the early implementation of the high-quality curricula requirement. Within the past year, DEW has completed key actions in this area, including the creation of an approved instructional materials list, release of its pre-reform curricula survey results, and the allocation of funds for instructional materials. DEW released the initial list of approved core ELA curricula and survey results on March 1, 2024. I cover the state-approved list first, as it helps interpret the survey findings. The allocation of materials funds is covered last, as it occurred several weeks later.
Identifying high-quality instructional materials
As discussed above, state lawmakers tasked DEW with creating a catalog of high-quality instructional materials that are aligned with the Science of Reading from which schools must select. Starting in 2024–25, all public schools must use “core” ELA curricula—programs designed for use in general education settings—in grades K–5 from this state-approved list. To meet this requirement, schools must use either a core comprehensive program or a coherent set of core and supplemental programs.[12] The box provides definitions that distinguish core comprehensive curricula from the hybrid—core plus supplement—option.
Curricula terminology
Elementary ELA curricula are typically categorized as: (1) core comprehensive; (2) core, no foundational skills; or (3) supplemental foundational skills.
Core comprehensive curricula cover all grade-level ELA standards.
Core, no foundational skills curricula cover most grade-level ELA standards such as comprehension and speaking and listening, but do not include foundational skills such as phonics and print concepts.
Supplemental foundational skills programs are designed to complement a core ELA curriculum that does not adequately cover foundational skills.
To develop state-approved lists of ELA curricula (both core and supplemental), DEW implemented a vetting process that took advantage of the widely used curricula ratings published by EdReports. Since 2015, this national, independent nonprofit has evaluated hundreds of ELA curricula to determine if they align with high-quality academic standards.[13] For each program, EdReports provides an “alignment” rating along three tiers:[14] Meets, Partially Meets, and Does Not Meet. These ratings, though sometimes debated by literacy experts,[15] often serve as an initial screening tool for states and local districts,[16] and DEW leveraged this system to approve, or not, both core and supplemental foundational skills curricula in the following way.[17]
Top-rated Meets curricula received a streamlined review, in which the publisher attested in writing to DEW that the program aligns to the Science of Reading.[18] Curricula approved through this pathway include Core Knowledge Language Arts (grades K–5) and Wit & Wisdom (grades 3–5).
Curricula receiving a Partially Meets rating underwent a more extensive review in which DEW examined materials and assessed their alignment with the Science of Reading. Programs approved through this process include Bookworms (K–5) and Open Court (K–5).
Poorly rated Does Not Meet curricula were not eligible for approval. This prohibited Fountas & Pinnell’s Classroom and Lucy Calkins’ Units of Study curricula from approval, along with several others.
This process yielded Ohio’s list of approved ELA curricula for grades K–5. The top part of Table 2 displays fifteen approved core comprehensive curricula, while the bottom panel shows two additional grades K–2 curricula in the category of “core, no foundational skills” that were state-approved but must be paired with a supplemental program to meet the statutory requirements.
Table 2: State-approved core ELA curricula, grades K–5
Source: Ohio Department of Education and Workforce, “Approved List of Core Curriculum and Instructional Materials” (webpage, last accessed May 24, 2024). Note: (*) Districts implementing one of these programs must pair it with a state-approved supplemental foundational skills program (that list appears in Appendix B). Bold: Curricula presented in bold have been identified by the Knowledge Matters Campaign as having particularly strong knowledge-building elements (see sidebar below).
The vetting process removed ineffective and outdated curricula—a significant step forward in a state where many schools have used inferior programs, as detailed in the next section of this report. Yet even within the state-approved curriculum list, there likely remains some variation in quality. Going beyond Ohio’s state-approved (and EdReports-driven) list are several ELA curricula that the Knowledge Matters Campaign identifies as having especially strong vocabulary- and knowledge-building elements that support reading comprehension (see the importance of knowledge-building in the sidebar below). Those programs are in bold in Table 2. Meanwhile, though meeting Ohio’s baseline requirements, some literacy experts have questioned whether several of the non-bolded curricula—sometimes called “basal readers”—are too light on knowledge-building.[19] Nevertheless, despite ongoing discussion about what precisely constitutes a high-quality curriculum, DEW has given its stamp of approval to a relatively small number of core ELA programs, especially in light of the dozens of curricula options available.
Knowledge-rich curricula and reading comprehension
So far, phonics has dominated the discussions about the Science of Reading, perhaps because of its strong contrast with three-cueing (and the “balanced literacy” and “whole language” programs that promote it). Yet scholars have also long recognized the need to go beyond phonics to help students become proficient readers. In 2001, the National Reading Panel made vocabulary and comprehension two of its five “pillars” of effective reading (along with phonemic awareness, phonics, and fluency). Similarly, the “Scarborough Rope” model of literacy instruction emphasizes both word recognition and language comprehension skills, which are driven by vocabulary and background knowledge.[20] E.D. Hirsch, a prominent literacy scholar, has stressed the importance of vocabulary and background knowledge for reading comprehension.[21] A recent “gold standard” experimental study of the Core Knowledge Language Arts curriculum, which was developed under Hirsch’s leadership, demonstrated remarkable learning gains for students attending schools using the program.[22]
Launched in 2015, the Knowledge Matters Campaign, a national nonprofit group, has spearheaded an organized push for knowledge-rich literacy curricula. Guided by an impressive group of scholars, it has identified eight ELA curricula as having exemplary, content-rich material. In grades K–5, these programs include ARC Core, Bookworms, Core Knowledge Language Arts, EL Education, Fishtank ELA, and Wit & Wisdom, programs that are all bolded in Table 2 above.[23] To distinguish these curricula from other state-approved programs, the analyses that follow in the next section of this report also highlight those recommended by the Knowledge Matters Campaign.
Schools’ prereform curricula, and financial support for change
Ohio has not historically required schools to report their curricula publicly, so there’s not been much information about which programs schools have been using. Seeking a systemwide picture of existing literacy curricula, state lawmakers in HB 33 directed DEW to gather information via a statewide survey. In September 2023, DEW fielded the survey, which garnered near-universal response rates (99 percent of districts and charters). Schools were asked about the core ELA curricula (grades K–5) and intervention programs (grades K–12) that they used in 2022–23, just prior to enactment of the state’s literacy reforms. The department released results in spring 2024.[24]
Table 3 displays the most commonly used core ELA elementary programs among traditional school districts. We see a wide range of curricula in use as well as variation in their quality, as indicated by whether DEW has since approved the program and whether the Knowledge Matters Campaign has recommended it. The survey also revealed widespread use of ineffective and nonapproved curricula such as Classroom and Units of Study (they were the fourth and sixth most frequently cited programs). Other nonapproved curricula such as the 2017 edition of Reading Wonders[25] and Journeys were also common. At the bottom of the table, we see that another forty-nine districts reported use of only a district-developed program. (Under the new legislation, they will need to adopt an approved curriculum.)
More positively, we find signs that some districts have been using high-quality programs. The most-used core ELA program was the state-approved 2020 edition of Reading Wonders. The most common programs that are both state-approved and Knowledge Matters-recommended were Core Knowledge Language Arts and Wit & Wisdom. Districts using approved curricula in 2022–23 will be able to continue their use of these programs.
How to read the tables
This section displays results from DEW’s statewide survey of core ELA curricula used in 2022–23. To aid interpretation, the following color coding is used: Dark green indicates that the curriculum is on both DEW’s approved materials list and Knowledge Matters’ list of recommended curricula; light green indicates that the curriculum is only on DEW’s approved list; no shading indicates that the curriculum is on neither list.
Table 3: Most frequently used core ELA curricula (grades K-5) in 2022–23, Ohio districts (n=604)
Source: Author’s analysis of DEW survey question regarding districts’ core (aka, “tier 1”) ELA curricula for grades K–5. Notes: This table includes any core curricula that were reported by five or more districts; it excludes supplemental or intervention materials that districts reported in response to the “Tier 1” survey question. Districts could report use of multiple core curricula, and many did so. The vast majority of districts reported curricula at the district level, not for individual schools.
Table 4 displays patterns by district typology, a way of grouping schools based on their geographic characteristics. It shows that urban districts were more likely to have implemented state-approved programs prior to the legislative reforms. Suburban districts, on the other hand, were more likely to cite use of nonapproved curricula, notably Units of Study and Classroom. Rural and small-town districts reported significant use of Reading Wonders (2017 and 2020 editions), which helps explain their appearance atop the statewide list in Table 3, as more districts are represented in those typologies.
Table 4: Most frequently used core ELA curricula (grades K–5) in 2022–23, Ohio districts by typology
Note: This table displays the five most frequently reported core ELA curricula by DEW’s district typologies.
The next table displays public charter schools’ most commonly used curricula. We again see a range of programs in use, with some less-frequently cited curricula among districts being more common among charters (e.g., Imagine It! and Reading Mastery). Two state-approved programs, Into Reading and Core Knowledge Language Arts, were the two most widely used by charters in 2022–23.
Table 5: Most frequently used core ELA curricula (grades K-5) in 2022–23, Ohio public charter elementary schools (n=222)
While all students will gain from the use of more effective ELA curricula, those struggling to read stand to benefit most. Table 6 displays the specific programs used by the districts with the lowest third-grade ELA proficiency rates in 2022–23. (The “Ohio Eight” urban districts are in bold.) Thirty of these sixty districts reported use of a state-approved core ELA curricula and eleven of them reported the use of a program that’s also recommended by the Knowledge Matters Campaign. The other half used non-approved published curricula, district-developed curricula, or did not report a core ELA curriculum on the survey.[26] As discussed in Appendix C, low-performing districts using a state-approved curriculum seem to slightly outperform those using nonapproved curricula on the state’s value-added growth measure. But for reasons discussed in that section, this conclusion is tentative, and further research is needed to rigorously evaluate the impacts of curricula decisions, both statewide and in struggling schools.
Table 6: Core ELA curricula (grades K–5) used in 2022–23 among the lowest 10 percent of Ohio districts in third-grade reading proficiency
Notes: This list includes districts in the lowest 10 percent of districts statewide as gauged by their students’ third-grade ELA proficiency in 2022–23; the Ohio Eight big-city districts appear in bold. CKLA = Core Knowledge Language Arts. Wonders (no date) indicates a district “wrote in” the program in response to the survey item but did not provide a publication year. (*) Cleveland is the only district on this table that reported more than two core ELA curricula. It was one of just a few districts that reported school-level curricula; EL Education was used in the majority of its buildings.
Survey results confirm both the heavy lift the state is undertaking to transition schools away from weaker curricula and the wisdom of investing significant dollars to support new ELA programs. As noted earlier, one of the largest funding elements for the initiative is $64 million to subsidize the purchase of instructional materials. For the purposes of allocating funds to districts and charter schools, DEW divided them into three categories based on their survey responses about which programs they used in 2022–23. The categories are as follows:
Aligned: Reported use of a state-approved core ELA curricula.[27]
Partially aligned: Reported use of only a state-approved supplemental foundational skills program.
Not aligned: Did not report use of a state-approved core or supplemental program.
Figure 1 shows the breakdown of districts and charters by these three categories. Statewide, districts were split evenly among the three categories, with urban districts—perhaps sensing a greater urgency to upgrade curricula—being more likely to be in the aligned category (39 percent), while suburban districts and charters were less likely to be aligned (23 and 28 percent, respectively). Table 7 displays the corresponding number of districts and charters in each of the categories.
Figure 1: District and charters’ alignment (2022–23) to the state’s approved curricula list for 2024–25
Table 7: Number of districts and charters by their alignment (2022–23) to the state’s approved curricula list for 2024–25
Based on this grouping methodology, DEW then steered more dollars to nonaligned schools. Table 8 shows that nonaligned districts and charter schools received just under half of the total allocation—$31 million of the $64 million set aside—while those deemed partially aligned and aligned received $23 and $10 million, respectively. On a per-pupil basis (grades PK–5), these sums amount to $121, $100, and $37 for nonaligned, partially aligned, and aligned districts and charters, respectively. Dollars must be used to purchase state-approved instructional materials,[28] whether core ELA curricula, supplemental materials, or intervention programs.
Table 8: Funding allocations to districts and charter schools for instructional materials, by alignment category
Note: A small sum ($0.5 million) was distributed to joint vocational districts, charter schools, and STEM schools that do not serve students in grades K–5. They received funds to support the purchase of intervention materials in the upper grades.
Conclusion and recommendations
With literacy reforms solidly on the books and implementation off the ground, Ohio is moving smartly toward more effective reading instruction. But to achieve the intended results of the initiative—higher reading proficiency statewide—Ohio policymakers will need to keep the pedal to the floor, while also exercising patience and resolve when the going gets tough. They must keep in mind that transitioning hundreds of schools to new curricula and instructional practices won’t happen overnight. As literacy expert Robert Pondiscio has noted, learning to read “is the long game,” requiring time and persistence from both teachers and students.[29] To maintain a strong and sustained push toward better literacy instruction, we conclude with five recommendations for Ohio leaders:
Maintain a high bar for inclusion on the state-approved ELA materials list. Publishers will inevitably update existing curricula and bring new programs to market. Some will be high-quality and adhere to the Science of Reading, while others will not be as strong. As the curriculum landscape evolves, DEW should maintain a strong gatekeeping role and approve only high-quality materials. In future review cycles, the agency should take into account any new evidence about the effectiveness of specific programs as well as developments in third-party curricula reviews, including at EdReports.[30]
Continue state investments that support the Science of Reading. Implementation that yields results for students will require time, commitment, and resources. To their credit, lawmakers made a significant down payment on these literacy reforms in the previous biennial budget. The next General Assembly should follow their lead and preserve set-asides for literacy in the upcoming state budget. While the precise uses of dollars should evolve to match the changing needs of schools, additional investments in professional development, literacy coaching, and high-quality materials can help solidify and sustain implementation.[31]
Increase transparency about which ELA curricula districts and individual schools are using. In addition to the baseline survey of curricula described in this report, state lawmakers directed DEW to collect annual information about ELA curricula moving forward. Yet they did not explicitly require the agency to report this information publicly. In the coming years, DEW should make this information available to the public in a user-friendly format. Akin to Colorado’s “curriculum transparency dashboard,”[32] Ohio should create a centralized site that displays core, supplemental, and intervention programs used by each school. Information at an individual building level is important for parents seeking to understand their local schools’ curricula (which could vary within a larger district).
Push especially hard for rigorous implementation in low-performing schools. To ensure that struggling readers receive the best possible instruction, state leaders should press for rigorous implementation of high-quality core instruction and interventions in the lowest-performing schools. In addition to maintaining extra support for teachers via literacy coaches, DEW should also begin to conduct, with the support of literacy experts, on-site reviews of the literacy programs in low-performing elementary schools.[33] These more in-depth reviews would go beyond basic compliance checks and also gauge the quality of implementation, provide feedback and suggestions for improvement, and identify additional supports that may be needed.
Evaluate the impacts of the literacy-reform effort. As implementation moves forward, research will be critical to identify strengths and weaknesses. State policymakers should commission studies that examine success of the reform package as a whole as well as various aspects of it, such as which specific state-approved curricula are most effective and what types of teacher PD provide the biggest boost. Analyses like these would support school leaders as they continue to make decisions about which materials to put into teachers’ hands and how best to support instruction. They would also help guide state leaders as they steer the initiative forward.
Literacy is job number one for Ohio’s elementary schools. State leaders are right to insist that all classroom teachers have the curricula, materials, and training needed to do the job right. A wealth of evidence demonstrates that programs aligned with the Science of Reading are most effective at helping children become strong readers—the more so when those programs are also rich in knowledge. With strong implementation in the years ahead, Ohio will have more proficient readers in schools today and a more literate citizenry tomorrow.
Acknowledgments
I wish to thank my Fordham Institute colleagues Michael J. Petrilli, Chester E. Finn, Jr., Chad L. Aldis, Jessica Poiner, and Jeff Murray for their thoughtful feedback during the drafting process. Special thanks to Kathi Kizirnis, who copy edited the manuscript, and Andy Kittles who created the design. Funding for this report comes from the Charles and Lynn Schusterman Family Philanthropies and our sister organization, the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.
— Aaron Churchill
Ohio Research Director, Thomas B. Fordham Institute
The Thomas B. Fordham Institute promotes educational excellence for every child in America via quality research, analysis, and commentary, as well as advocacy and charter school authorizing in Ohio. It is affiliated with the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, and this publication is a joint project of the Foundation and the Institute. The Institute is neither connected with nor sponsored by Fordham University.
[5] Teacher professional development, literacy coaching, and teacher-preparation reform are also crucial elements of the overall literacy reform package and will be reviewed in future analyses.
[6] Though not the focus of this report, the state will also require district- or charter-operated preschools to use state-approved reading curricula; this is why the amounts are reported on a PK–5 enrollment basis.
[9] National Reading Panel, Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and Its Implications for Reading Instruction (April 2000): https://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/pubs/nrp/smallbook and Anne Castles, Kathleen Rastle, and Kate Nation, “Ending the Reading Wars: Reading Acquisition from Novice to Expert,” Psychological Science in the Public Interest vol. 19, no. 1 (June 2018): https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1529100618772271.
[11] Three-cueing may be allowed if it appears in a special-education student’s IEP, or if DEW approves a school’s request to use three-cueing with a particular student (provided he or she is not on a reading improvement plan).
[14] For core ELA programs that achieve a Meets “alignment” rating, EdReports also includes a “usability” rating. DEW, however, relied strictly on the “alignment” ratings to develop its approved materials list. For more about its ratings and review process, see EdReports, “Our Process” (webpage, last accessed May 21, 2024): https://edreports.org/process#intro.
[17] Provided it receives a satisfactory review from by another state, a curriculum not rated by EdReports could apply for DEW approval as well. Description of the review process and rubric is available at Ohio Department of Education and Workforce, High-Quality Instructional Materials in English Language Arts: PreK-Grade 5 Core Curriculum and Instructional Materials Approved List: Vendor Guidance and Request for Applications (2023-24):https://education.ohio.gov/getattachment/Topics/Learning-in-Ohio/Englis….
[18] If a core, no-foundational-skills curricula had a Meets rating, it was automatically approved by DEW. There were two such programs that met this criterion (Wit & Wisdom, grades K-2, and Fishtank ELA, grades K-2).
[21] E. D. Hirsch, “The Case for Bringing Content into the Language Arts Block and for a Knowledge-Rich Curriculum Core for all Children,” American Educator (Spring 2006): https://www.aft.org/ae/spring2006/hirsch.
[25]Wonders was one of only a few curricula for which DEW reported a particular publication year.
[26] The districts marked as “none reported” reported only supplemental or intervention materials in the survey question about core ELA curricula.
[27] This could either be a core comprehensive or a combination of state-approved core, no foundational skills curricula and state-approved supplemental foundational skills curricula.
[28] A district or charter school may apply these funds to a previous purchase of state-approved curricula, provided it occurred after July 1, 2023.
[31] For more about how lawmakers could support the literacy initiative in the next budget, see Aaron Churchill, “Education priorities for Ohio’s next biennial budget, part 1: Sustained investment for literacy reform,” Thomas B. Fordham Institute (blog, April 17, 2024): https://fordhaminstitute.org/ohio/commentary/education-priorities-ohios….
[33] Such schools could be those that have been assigned a literacy coach (they serve in the lowest-performing schools in statewide proficiency in ELA), or elementary schools that are formally identified for “comprehensive support and improvement” under federal law.
For the past six months, Columbus City Schools leadership has mulled the closure of multiple school buildings. In February, district superintendent Angela Chapman convened a task force that explored school closures, and—after much discussion—the group released in late June its final report, which includes a recommendation to close nine schools and one administrative building.
The need to evaluate its facilities footprint comes as the district has experienced enrollment declines in recent years—it’s lost 10 percent of enrollment since 2015—leaving some schools severely underenrolled. An analysis by Ohio State University professor Vlad Kogan found that the district now has more facilities (118) than other similarly-sized districts nationally. According to projections, the district would save some $90 million over the next decade if the task force plan goes into effect. These dollars could shore up district finances and perhaps help avert yet another ballot issue to raise local taxes. (Even after recent passage of a massive $100 million per-year levy, one school board member said last month, “We are going to be coming back for more money.”)
In light of the district’s enrollment woes and fiscal situation, the task force report should be taken seriously. But shortly after the report was released, the Columbus school board—the entity with authority to close schools—declined to take action. In defense, board members cited a desire for more “conversations” and “authentic engagement” with the community. While dialogue is undoubtedly important, this could easily turn into a delay tactic that kicks the closure can down the road. The board might bide its time and allow the recommendations to be ignored and forgotten—which is exactly what occurred the last time a task force examined facility usage in Columbus.
Why might the Columbus board be shy to close schools? The politics of closure—whether in Columbus or elsewhere—are indeed tough to overcome. Employee unions are almost sure to oppose them (this has been true in Columbus), and school boards, whose electoral fortunes often hinge on union endorsements, are loathe to resist their interests. Community members may also push back on proposals to close a school in their neighborhood. On the other side, few people are likely to rally in favor of shutting schools, even though researchindicates that students benefit when low-performing schools are closed and they transfer to more effective ones.
Given these headwinds, it’s worth considering how state policymakers can move a closure process ahead when it becomes necessary. To be clear, the final decision about shutting a school should remain in the hands of district boards. It is a complicated process that requires sensitivity to local circumstances. That said, the State of Ohio still has an obligation to promote an efficient public-school system. In fact, advocates often remind lawmakers of the constitutional admonition of a having a “thorough and efficient system” of schools. One aspect of this mandate is to ensure that districts responsibly steward taxpayer dollars, which includes closing under-enrolled buildings that are costly to operate and draw resources away from schools more in need of them.
Of course, Columbus isn’t the only district that may need to pursue building closures in the months and years ahead. Enrollment has slipped statewide, and demographic trends are working against schools. In May, the U.S. Department of Education released projections that Ohio’s public school enrollment will fall another 7 percent by 2031. The question then is how exactly state policymakers can create a policy environment that increases the likelihood that local boards take action without setting rigid, ham-handed closure rules. The following offers six possibilities.
Provide short-term grants that help districts close buildings and transition students to new schools. State lawmakers could create a grant program that eases the transition costs of closing schools. The funds could be used to provide supports that help students transition to another school (e.g., services to help new students fit in or address transportation issues). This could help alleviate one of the primary concerns related to closures, which is their impact on displaced students.
Create a state committee that periodically reviews school utilization and performance data and recommends schools for closure. This committee would dig into school capacity, enrollment, demographic, and performance data and then release a report containing recommendations about which district schools should be closed. While local boards wouldn’t be required to follow these recommendations, the report could provide some political cover for school boards that need to close schools. It could also offer valuable data—e.g., how a district’s facility footprint compares to other districts or demographic trends—that help drive fact-driven community discussions around closures. The reports might also identify underutilized schools that should be offered under provisions discussed in point five below.
Eliminate school funding guarantees that allow shrinking districts to avoid rightsizing their budgets.As discussed in this piece, Ohio’s funding formula includes “guarantees”—excess dollars that protect districts from funding losses tied to enrollment declines. In effect, guarantees let district boards off the hook for making tough decisions—such as closing schools—that keep their budgets in line with enrollments. State legislators should encourage more efficient district operations by removing guarantees from the formula.
Require districts to certify that they are not operating under-enrolled buildings before putting a local tax issue on the ballot or receiving state aid for school construction. School boards often seek additional funding by putting a local tax measure on the ballot. Before they ask voters for more dollars, state lawmakers could require districts to certify that they are not operating any under-enrolled school buildings. They could also require districts to certify this as a condition for receiving state funding for school construction projects. This would ensure that districts have exhausted at least one cost-savings option before they can tap additional revenues.
More strictly enforce the state’s right-of-first-refusal law for public charter schools.Districts with vacant or severely underutilized school buildings are required under current law to offer such facilities to local public charter and independent STEM schools for sale or lease. This is an important provision, as it helps to ensure districts are not operating under-enrolled buildings and supports non-traditional public schools’ facility needs. Unfortunately, the law seems to be weakly enforced and hasn’t had its intended impacts. As discussed in this piece, state legislators should revamp these “right-of-first-refusal” provisions to ensure they are being carefully followed.
Ensure that the district-school “restructuring” law is implemented. Current law requires a chronically low-performing district school to contract with an outside operator, replace its entire teaching staff, reopen as a charter school, or permanently close.[1] Enforcement of this law was suspended during Covid, but as the state reboots its accountability system, this provision should return. The restructuring options may not result in the closure option being selected, but enforcement would push tough decisions about school turnaround or closure to the forefront. In the interest of students, districts should not turn a blind eye to extremely low-performing schools. State policymakers should make sure this isn’t happening.
Ohio policymakers can and should nudge along districts such as Columbus’s that need to downsize their facility portfolios. Considering the ideas above could help local school boards more effectively navigate the challenging and politically fraught process of closing schools.
[1] Such district-operated schools must for three straight years be ranked in the bottom 5 percent statewide in the performance index and either have a (1) one-star value-added rating or (2) a one- or one-and-half-star overall rating (ORC 3302.12).
Ohio study on for-profit charter management organizations
Ohio State University professor Stéphane Lavertu and his research colleague Long Tran published a new paper in the Journal of Policy Management and Analysis recently, examining the impact of nonprofit charter schools which subcontract daily operations to for-profit management organizations on student achievement and attendance. Their results indicate that such charter schools are, on average, at least as effective as nearby traditional district schools, and that the average low-achieving student experiences greater test-score gains in charters with for-profit operators than their peers in traditional district school. However, charter schools with for-profit operators tend to be less effective than other charters nearby, particularly for students with high test scores and low absence rates. Fascinating stuff. Check it out!
The future of public funding for religiously-affiliated schools
Philadelphia mayor Cherelle Parker recently announced a plan to launch extended-day and -year school schedules in a select group of schools starting this fall. “When it comes to public education our goals are high, and they must be,” she said at a press conference. This includes a longer school day (7:30 a.m. through 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday) and a longer school year (meaning, largely, that schools will be open on half days, winter and spring breaks, and other times that schools are traditionally closed). All this, she said, without making more work for teachers. The pilot program will begin this August in 20 Philadelphia School District buildings (elementary only) and five charter schools whose grade levels reach up to middle and high school. Here’s hoping this provides better support for children and families.
Virtual event with Starlee Coleman
Starlee Coleman, the incoming president and CEO of the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, will be interviewed live as part of Bellwether’s Summer Series of virtual events, Wednesday, July 10 at 1:00 pm ET. Ms. Coleman will be interviewed by Bellwether managing partner Mary Wells, discussing her long career in politics, advocacy, and communications; what she learned during her time running the Texas Public Charter Schools Association; and what's next for the charter sector amid a rapidly changing political environment. More information and registration for the event can be found here.
*****
Did you know you can have every edition of the Ohio Charter News Weekly sent directly to your Inbox? Subscribe by clicking here.
The Washington Post reported recently that billions of dollars now flow to religious private schools thanks to the explosive growth of vouchers and “education savings accounts” in red states, with Catholic schools benefitting the most. A Duke Law School professor was quoted complaining that “we are, as a society, underwriting religion.” Media pundit Dave Pell wrote that this was part of a “religious war.”
But that sort of knee-jerk reaction against public subsidies for religious education is unwise. That’s because allowing religious families to choose sectarian schools for their children could very well be a saving grace for our society. And you don’t have to be among the faithful to believe so.
Indeed, as a lapsed Catholic, I understand discomfort over sending taxpayer dollars to religious institutions. We nonbelievers may not love the idea of schools engaging in religious training or taking socially conservative stances. I certainly wouldn’t send my own children to a school that is unwelcoming to gay children or the children of gay parents. Nor would I be happy for my sons to learn that the world is just 6,000 years old or that evolution is just a theory.
But I also understand the distress that many religious families experience when forced to send their kids to public schools that teach ideas and values directly at odds with their own. Indeed, many of today’s education culture wars arise from this clash of values. It’s possible for open-minded Americans to support practices like comprehensive sex education, LGBTQ-themed books for elementary schools, and teaching that gender is just a social construct while also acknowledging that religious conservatives would find all of this deeply problematic.
But here’s the good news: In a system of school choice, we don’t have to fight these culture wars out in the public square. We can let families vote with their feet and send their kids to schools that better align with their own moral values. Just as we already let families opt their children out of sex education, so too can we let them opt their children out of public schools altogether.
This notion of educational pluralism, as Johns Hopkins scholar Ashley Berner has written, is widely prevalent in Europe, Australia, Canada, and much of Asia, demonstrating that it’s no right-wing smoke screen for biblical schooling.
Indeed, there’s good reason to believe that, as more parents gain access to school choice, including the option of sending their children to religious private schools, we will see today’s education culture wars recede. Religious families won’t need to storm school board meetings to denounce the latest progressive obsession that’s being foisted upon their kids because their kids will be happily learning in private schools instead.
No doubt, many Americans have concerns about private school choice that go beyond the question of religious instruction. I share some of these concerns myself. I don’t love the idea of tuition vouchers going to wealthy families that don’t need the help. Nor am I convinced that just because a school is private it is necessarily high quality (though urban Catholic schools can boast a proud history of serving poor children and children of color well—and school choice will help sustain such schools). I prefer programs with quality control mechanisms, especially through regular assessments of student learning. Thankfully, several states with the largest programs have crafted policies that prioritize lower-income families and demand at least some transparency around results.
So the secular argument for private school choice is that, done right, it should help students learn, while also easing our education culture wars. Pluralism, in other words, can bring greater peace. All of us, regardless of our faith, should be able to say “amen” to that.
Charter schools are in for a slog. It doesn’t matter who wins in November. Joe Biden is not a fan. Donald Trump was lukewarm on the topic when he had his hands on the switch. Even the president’s potential replacements are bad on the issue. The broad bipartisan agreement that fueled the birth and growth of charter schools is a distant memory. Ironically, this comes as their academic results continue to shine. The fact of the matter is that charter schools are no longer the outpost for Democrats and the halfway house for Republicans that they were during the Clinton-Bush-Obama years.
Indeed, most Democrats now abhor anything outside the one best system and are all too eager to lump charter schools into the same bucket as vouchers, education savings accounts, and parochial schools. Although most charter advocates hold firm to the notion that charters are public schools, the loudest voices on the left have long insisted that they’re not—not really. For them, the push for a religious charter school in Oklahoma simply confirms their priors. (Last week’s state supreme court decision might help, but only until it’s likely overturned at the federal level.) On the other side of the ledger, Republicans have become more enamored with private and faith-based options. Louisiana just became the twelfth state to enact a universal voucher plan—an incredible feat considering there were none three years ago. As these programs become more established in red states, the right could be emboldened to come out swinging against charters as a weak-kneed alternative to the real thing.
The latest omen is a paper published by the Heritage Foundation titled “The Woke Capture of Charter Schools.” Authored by Jay Greene, Ian Kingsbury, and Jason Bedrick, the report claims that charters are more “woke” than their traditional neighborhood counterparts, as measured by the frequency of eight key words and phrases in publicly available parent-student handbooks: diversity, equity, inclusion, justice, restorative, social-emotional, gender identity, and culturally relevant/affirming. The report raises more questions than it answers, but the allegation alone is enough to antagonize the only party that can realistically embrace charter schools in today’s polarized, populist climate.
Methodologically speaking, the biggest concern is the paper’s small sample size, drawing from only 211 charter handbooks (there are nearly 8,000 charter schools nationwide). There’s also a question to be asked as to whether all eight of Heritage’s keywords are necessarily signs of wokeness. Are “diversity” or “inclusion” unalloyed evils? How about “justice” divorced from social justice? Plenty of dumb things have been done in the name of “equity,” but many still use it as shorthand for high expectations for all. The attacks on the Walton and Gates foundations, among others, read borderline conspiratorial. What’s more, there’s a huge gap between what’s printed in a handbook versus what actually happens in classrooms. Taken together, these wonky concerns serve to undercut the authors’ conclusion that charter schools have gone woke.
Still, it’s not a pretty picture—and Andy Rotherham presciently comments that charter schools might not have a chair when the music stops:
The Republicans are no picnic in general these days. Here, although they’re allergic to accountability in some of these [education savings accounts] programs, they are pretty good on school choice. That’s the awkward reality Democratic education reformers have to accept. What charters need to do is engage, maintain, and build on that Republican support while also organizing parents to actually pressure Democratic leaders to moderate their posture here and again make charters a default consensus position. That can’t be about partisan politics, it has to be about charter politics.
Can education reformers accept this “awkward reality?” Heritage is no picnic either nowadays, but setting aside the problems with its new paper, the Heritage education shop has some sharp minds with criticisms worth contemplating. For example, the embrace of restorative practices by schools might make for good partisan politics, but it stinks when it comes to the charter variety—especially at a moment when incidents of student misconduct are on the rise. Similarly, the repudiation of meritocracy is a lousy way to win over converts, to say nothing of the six in ten Americans who say most people can get ahead if they’re willing to work hard.
Heritage’s findings prompted me to go down memory lane and dig out the family handbook from the Connecticut charter school that I founded twenty years ago. None of the eight keywords identified by Greene, Kingsbury, and Bedrick made an appearance back then. Organized around “general information” and “student behavior,” the message to parents is staid by today’s standards:
We believe in teaching students to live up to [our core values], much the same way we teach them addition and subtraction in math. We correct any student, anywhere, anytime—but we do so in a way that requires them to practice the desired behavior. Most people think of discipline and think of controlling children. Discipline, however, is a means and not an end; discipline is also one of life’s great gifts. Disciplined people are far more likely to achieve their goals.
As you can probably tell, my school was unapologetically focused on two things: academic excellence and character development. There wasn’t enough time in the day for anything else, let alone political grandstanding or virtue signaling.
Rotherham is right that charter advocates would do well to “engage, maintain, and build” Republican support for charter schooling because trying to woo Democratic elites on the merits of charters feels like a lost cause. This means dialing down the progressive dogma, focusing less on politics and more on practice and pedagogy. It means paying more attention to whether kindergartners can read, do arithmetic, and embrace the Golden Rule.
The good news is that parents of all stripes remain strongly supportive of charter schools. In spite of assertions by Heritage, the idea that charter schools all went woke is far from reality. However, Heritage’s paper should be a clarion call for the charter community not to lose conservatives and Republicans, which includes pushing back against allegations that all charters have gone woke. Charter advocates must recognize the need to shore up their support on the right, even in blue states. And they should never shy away from advertising that they still embrace traditional values like “justice.”
Inquiry-based learning in STEM classrooms, long a contentious topic, has been making news since the introduction of the controversial California Math Framework. This student-led approach aims to foster engagement by sparking curiosity and critical thinking. Rather than passively receiving knowledge from an instructor, students take an active role in their learning by searching for evidence, constructing arguments, and collaborating with peers.
So does it work? The short answer is yes, but only when done well and at the correct skill level.
Much of the recent criticism of inquiry-based learning (or at least the version of inquiry-based learning embraced by California) stems from its discouragement of rote memorization. That, in turn, could hinder students’ development of “math fact fluency,” or the ability to recall addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division facts flexibly and efficiently. My colleague Daniel Buck has pointed to seemingly problematic examples of students suggesting multiple ways to solve a multiplication problem. For example, to multiply 12 by 7 in an inquiry-based classroom, some students might add 12 seven times, while others take the sum of 10x7 and 2x7—whereas a student who has memorized their math facts can quickly and confidently recall “84!” without needing to engage in higher-order thinking.
So what’s more valuable: students creatively constructing a well-rounded picture of their math facts or the ability to recall facts quickly when needed?
Both my experience as a middle-school math interventionist and common sense suggest that this is a “both/and” situation. A student who has achieved true number sense should be able to recall the answer to 12x7 without hesitation and to deconstruct the problem in multiple ways.
But don’t just take my word for it. Studyafterstudy suggests a combination of automatic recall and critical thinking skills is necessary for developing a robust understanding of mathematics.
Still, grade level and other contextual factors matter when it comes to striking the right balance—and here, the California Framework goes astray. Plenty of research shows that early learners, especially those who are low-achieving, benefit from explicit instruction that is intended to build math fluency. To put it simply, students should absolutely memorize their math facts. Rote memorization and direct instruction are essential during the foundational stages of learning mathematics.
But once students have achieved math fact fluency, inquiry-based learning, done right, offers a pathway to much greater depth of understanding in math and science classrooms. In fact, a growingbodyofevidence suggests that students learn better with this approach, particularly in the later grades. For example, a 2008 study based in the Detroit Public Schools Community District showed that a new inquiry-based science curriculum in select seventh and eighth grade cohorts was associated with higher standardized achievement test gains on the Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) exams compared with the rest of the district.
Critics of inquiry-based learning often misunderstand the role of the teacher. Yes, students drive the discussion, but that does not mean they choose where the car is headed. For example, one effective technique is to use “back-pocket questions”—a series of scaffolded questions designed to match individual skill levels and promote productive struggle. During the lesson, the teacher circulates the room, assessing how close students are to finding the correct answer. For groups that are struggling, the teacher poses increasingly leading questions, thus allowing students to think independently while still getting to the right answer.
As this example suggests, inquiry-based instruction is an art rather than a science, and in practice, it requires immense preparation and skill on the part of the instructor. Thus, schools and districts adopting this approach should provide substantial professional development and coaching for teachers. Poor implementation can be detrimental, leaving students to struggle without adequate support.
When executed correctly, inquiry-based learning can significantly boost achievement, especially in later grades, and potentially start to diversify the broken pipeline of students into advanced programs. A “both/and” approach that considers when direct versus inquiry-based teaching is appropriate will build the strongest number sense. And especially in middle and high school, well-planned inquiry-based lessons could transform STEM classes for the better.
Starting in 2010, Congress invested more than $1 billion to assist states with their literacy improvement efforts through the Striving Readers Comprehensive Literacy (SRCL) program. SRCL was designed to target funding toward disadvantaged schools (defined in several ways), encourage staff to use evidence-based practices, and support teachers in providing fully comprehensive literacy instruction. In total, this competitive program has awarded grants to fourteen states through two application rounds (with a new round just concluded). A recent study from the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) assesses how well SRCL implementation has been aligned with program goals and whether student learning in grant-winning states has improved as a result.
Specifically, analysts examined data from the eleven states—Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, and Oklahoma—that won awards in 2017 during the second round of grants. The average award was $33 million and was intended to provide three years of literacy support. Data come from school leader surveys describing their approach to using the grant funds during the 2018–19 school year, district staff surveys describing how SRCL funds were used that year, wide-ranging teacher surveys in both 2018–19 and 2019–20, and state grant director interviews. The U.S. Department of Education’s What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) and Evidence for ESSA databases provided curriculum rating information. Administrative and academic data on students were gathered from various national and state level sources through the 2018–19 school year.
First up, targeting. Overall, the grant funding went where it was supposed to. On average, SRCL schools were relatively disadvantaged compared to non-SRCL schools. Across the four types of student disadvantage that states most commonly considered—low socioeconomic status, English learner status, disability status, and migrant or foster care status—73 percent of SRCL schools ranked in the most disadvantaged quartile in their state on at least one type. In contrast, just 53 percent of non-SRCL schools were disadvantaged in any way, and very few of those were in the top quartile. However, this overall finding masks some problematic targeting in certain states, where student disadvantage was minimally considered as a subgrant criteria or considered at a lower priority than SRCL intended. The analysts note that “some states that placed a heavy emphasis on targeting in the subgrant competition did not achieve it.”
Second, spending. The vast majority of districts (82 percent) used SRCL funds to purchase a core literacy curriculum for all students or a supplemental program to help struggling readers. Unfortunately, many of these curricula were not high quality, meaning they were not supported by strong or even moderate evidence of effectiveness. Of the 236 programs purchased with SRCL funds, only 12 percent had a strong or moderate evidence review rating. No published research could be identified for almost half of the programs purchased. The fault for this is laid at the feet of skittish state grant directors. According to interviews with state officials, only two states (Montana and North Dakota) emphasized the importance of strong or moderate evidence in their grant competition process. Other frequent purchases included literacy-related professional development (84 percent of SRCL districts), books unrelated to a specific curriculum (64 percent), or parent engagement activities (50 percent).
Third, implementation. The researchers looked at six key practices of effective and comprehensive literacy instruction, including an emphasis on phonics, vocabulary, comprehension, and writing; frequent opportunities to practice reading and writing; and regular use of formative assessments. They then assessed each district and school on its adherence to these practices. Overall, no more than 11 percent of teachers in any grade band engaged in all six practices; approximately 80 percent of K–8 teachers met at least three of the six applicable to their grade. The percentage for high school teachers was considerably lower (63 percent). Additionally, high school teachers reported emphasizing practices more common to lower grades (decoding, comprehension, grammar, etc.), which may be an indication that their students were still reading and writing at an elementary school level.
Finally, outcomes. Evidence from the first year of grant implementation shows no difference between SRCL and comparable non-SRCL schools in English language arts achievement trends overall. Combining results across states and grades, the overall difference in ELA achievement between SRCL and non-SRCL schools with similar demographic characteristics was very close to zero and not statistically significant. A tiny glimmer of hope comes from Louisiana and Fordham’s home state of Ohio, which both showed small positive differences in achievement overall. However, disadvantaged students—those specifically intended to be helped by the SRCL grant effort—showed no difference in achievement whether attending SRCL or non-SRCL schools in any state or grade.
The analysts stop short of calling the Striving Readers Comprehensive Literacy program a failure, citing the possibility that a further year of implementation might yield some actual improvement. There is no concrete reason, however, to assume that previous state decisions on unproven curriculum and established patterns of weak on-the-ground implementation would change significantly without additional incentives or intervention—none of which was forthcoming. And of course, that following year of implementation was 2019–20, when Covid-mitigation disruptions wiped out both data and the positive momentum of many students who had it. Moving forward from pandemic learning losses, states can likely learn a valuable lesson from this example: Money can’t buy success in the realm of literacy interventions without focusing on evidence-based best practices that are implemented faithfully.
As discussed above, state lawmakers tasked DEW with creating a catalog of high-quality instructional materials that are aligned with the Science of Reading from which schools must select. Starting in 2024–25, all public schools must use “core” ELA curricula—programs designed for use in general education settings—in grades K–5 from this state-approved list. To meet this requirement, schools must use either a core comprehensive program or a coherent set of core and supplemental programs.
