# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
CoP_Planning for Intervention_Feb. 15, 2023

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
4 Reasons Literacy Leadership Matters

1. School Leaders Directly Impact Student Achievement

School leaders are second only to teachers in their impact on student learning. Fullan & Pinchot, 2018; Leithwood, Harris, & Hopkins, 2008

2. School Leaders Promote Equitable Outcomes

School leaders play a critical role in supporting the literacy needs of all students, including those with or at risk for literacy-related disabilities, by designing and evaluating effective schoolwide reading plans within multi-tiered systems of support. Eagle, Dowd-Eagle, Snyder, & Holtzman, 2015

3. School Leaders Build Strong Literacy Teams

School leaders improve teaching and learning by promoting staff motivation, commitment, and a positive school culture. Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D., 2006

4. School Leaders are Instructional Leaders

School leaders actively support implementation of evidence-based literacy practices by providing access to high quality professional development and coaching/feedback opportunities. Steiner and Kowal, 2007

Want To Learn More? Visit the Lead for Literacy Center to access resources and tools that school leaders can use to support teacher implementation of evidence-based literacy practices!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
School leaders are second only to teachers in their impact on student learning. Fullan & Pinchot, 2018; Leithwood, Harris, & Hopkins, 2008 School leaders play a critical role in supporting the literacy needs of all students, including those with or at risk for literacy-related disabilities, by designing and evaluating effective schoolwide reading plans within multi-tiered systems of support.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
CoP_Planning for Intervention_Feb. 15, 2023 (1)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
CoP_Planning for Intervention_May 15, 2023

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Adolescent Literacy Series October 2022.pptx

# data[].attributes.headline
Reading League Curriculum Evaluation Guidelines Updated March 2023

# data[].attributes.subject
Reading League Curriculum Evaluation Guidelines Updated March 2023

# data[].attributes.headline
Won’t Student Motivation Be Damaged If We Teach with Complex Text? ~Tim Shanahan

# data[].attributes.subject
Won’t Student Motivation Be Damaged If We Teach with Complex Text? ~Tim Shanahan

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I understand your claims that teaching students with grade level texts instead of instructional level texts increases children's opportunities to learn. However, what about children's emotional needs, self-esteem, motivation, and self-starting skills when text is challenging. Children who struggle with sight words or sounding out words who are given a hard piece of text will shut down and refuse to try or will act out in the classroom. I always thought that the purpose of avoiding frustration level texts was to avoid frustrating children who were trying to learn to read. What am I missing? Shanahan response:
You're not alone in your concerns for the motivational or affective aspects of teaching children to read with complex text. I'll provide an explanation of what they have figured out about these relationships in a moment. First, let me address a misconception that you appear to have.

The idea of having students reading grade level text or difficult text or even frustration level text has not been proposed for beginning readers. The state standards that require students to learn to read grade level texts do so for Grades 2 and up - not kindergarten or first grade. Likewise, all the research that has been done revealing the benefits of teaching students at grade level rather than instructional level were done in Grades 2 and up. There is no evidence that such an approach would be beneficial with younger readers, and there are some serious concerns about its potential value (Hiebert, 1999).

A major factor in text difficulty for young children is the decodability of the text. Students at that point are learning to recognize and use letters and spelling patterns to connect printed words to oral language. Teaching with more difficult texts from the start would mean working with texts that will have less accessible spelling patterns and less repetition of words that helps fix those patterns in memory. Teaching beginners with complex text would be counterproductive.

However, the research suggests that by grade 2, most students are likely to have those most basic decoding skills under their belts and that more challenging texts can be beneficial for learning. Perhaps young children would "shut down" if asked to read more difficult texts, but let's not find out. There appears to be no potential learning benefit to such an approach, so let's not go that way.

Given that from Grade 2 on, it is sensible to confront children with texts supposedly at their "frustration levels," we should be concerned about the motivational implications of that approach.

Researchers have long hypothesized that more difficult text placements would increase reading avoidance and reduce the amount of student reading. The claim has been that overly demanding instruction leads to misbehavior and inattention, and, consequently, to lowered learning and reading avoidance.

Students placed in more challenging texts do exhibit more behavior problems (Gambrell, Wilson, & Gantt, 1981; Gickling & Armstrong, 1978; Jorgenson, Klein, & Kumar, 1977; Treptow, Burns, & McComas, 2007). However, only one of these studies considered alternative explanations for this correlation. Gambrell and company observed that lower achieving students were more likely to be placed in what for them were challenging texts and to misbehave. However, these behavior problems were evident whether these students were taught from frustration or instructional level texts. The correlation was more due to who is placed in challenging text rather than the text placement itself.

Other evidence on this issue is somewhat mixed, but my overall take is that the research has not found clearly found text challenge to be a motivational problem. If it is, it has not yet been proven.

Studies on these issues have varied much in rigor and applicability. In one study, there were only 3 students and there were only 8 in another. Also, their findings were not based on reading alone, but on other tasks too (like workbook activities). Most importantly, I think, how they operationalized the instructional level differed. For example, in one of these studies, the frustration level students had to perform at lower than 80% accuracy in fluency - far below more traditional criteria and not especially convincing.

In a study of the impact of text placement on attitude towards reading (Roberts, 1976), 125 second- and third graders from 6 schools were examined. Fifty-seven percent of these students had been placed in frustration level texts for instruction. Despite this, student attitudes towards reading were as positive for these students as for those who were "appropriately placed."

Perhaps this should not be surprising given the levels of books that students evidently prefer reading independently. Studies have repeatedly report that students, even the best readers, tend to prefer texts at their frustration levels - presumably because of the appeal of the content and sophistication of the harder texts (Donovan, Smorkin, & Lomax, 2000; Fresch, 1995; Halladay, 2009).

Most of the research on this issue has been conducted with older students. How applicable these data are to the elementary grades is unknown, however I think at least some of the insights this research has generated should be considered.

Researchers have examined how interest and affect may be influenced by text placement during student reading (Fulmer & Tulis, 2013; Tullis & Fullmer, 2013). In these studies, it was theorized that, "demanding tasks can hinder students' motivation resulting in higher negative affect ... and lower interest and enjoyment" (Fulmer & Tulis, 2013, p. 13). To test this hypothesis sixth- and seventh graders read texts at and above their reading levels, and interest and affect were measured immediately before and after each reading. There were variations with the different passages but generally it was found that the better readers started out with greater interest in reading, but as they read the at-level text their interest declined. The opposite was true when they were asked to read more challenging texts. Student persistence more than text difficulty impacted engagement.

Yet, from these data, it seems unlikely student affect or motivation would vary consistently due to text levels which is consistent with modern motivation theory (Csikszentmihalyi, 1991; Deci & Ryan, 1985).

Ninth graders in Germany were less motivated when required to read more difficult books in their literature classes (Locher, Becker, & Pfost, 2019). But the picture is more complicated than that. According to the students, at least part of this negative affect was due to grading procedures, competition for grades, and whether the texts were classical literature or contemporary literature. Likewise, there was no relationship between text difficulty and motivation when students were selecting texts for their own recreational reading, implicating student self-determination as well. In other words, the relationship between text level and affect was very complicated - and it is difficult to determine what is causing what.

Several studies with older students have found a greater amount of mind wandering during the reading of complex texts (Feng, D'Mello, & Graesser, 2013; Forrin, Risko, & Smilek, 2019; Mills, Graesser, Risko, & D'Mello, 2017; Mills, D'Mello, & Kopp, 2015), though there are also studies that have not been able to find that. In the ones that have, students appear to better able to control their attention when reading easier texts. This relationship disappears when students find the texts to be interesting (Fulmer, D'Mello, Strauss, & Graesser, 2015; Soemer, Idsardi, Minnaert, & Schiefele, 2019). One question this raises for me, is whether we should avoid asking students to read texts they find challenging so their minds won't wander, or if our instruction should focus on helping them to develop attentional control?

Other approaches to text difficulty and reader engagement have resulted in contradictory findings. Some studies report lower engagement in reading tasks (Guthrie, Klauda, & Ho, 2013), more reports of anxiety, anger, and boredom on the part of the students (Acee, et al., 2010); Efklides, 2002; Efklides & Petkaki, 2005; Pekrun, Goetz, Titz, & Perry, 2002), and less interest (Durik & Matarazzo). While others have found more reading engagement, deeper cognitive processing, and greater learning (Bjork & Bjork, 2011; Diemand-Yauman, Oppenheimer, & Vaughan, 2011; Linn, Chang, Chiu, Zhang, & McElhaney, 2011; McNamara & Kintsch, 1996).

Whatever the relationship may be between being asked to read difficult text and affect, motivation, attitude, or behavior, it is not straightforward. There are many student, text, and task variables that play a role in all of this, and none of them consistently impacts motivation or engagement.

However, that doesn't mean that we should ignore the possibility that in each situation, with a given text, and a given child, text difficulty may exert some small impact upon motivation. That suggests the need for instructional adjustments.

(1) Explain to students what you're up to when you intentionally place them in texts they cannot already easily read. They need to know what the goals are and how they can recognize if they are improving in their ability to handle these texts. Give the students some sense of self determination.

(2) Students may balk at working with difficult texts in fear of failing. They need to develop trust and confidence in you that you won't let that happen. I very much like the idea of using the instructional level as an outcome rather than a starting point. What I mean by that is that if on Monday you begin working with a text that students read at a frustration level, that by Friday they should be able to read it with the levels of fluency and comprehension fit instructional level criteria.

(3) Remember that the teacher's job is to teach students how to read these texts successfully. Teaching with difficult text requires more than just having kids practice reading with some follow up questions. They need guidance in recognizing and making use of explicit vocabulary definitions that may exist in text, how to use context and morphology to determine the meanings of undefined words, how to break down sentences to enable comprehension, how to track cohesive ties through a text, and how to make sense of text structure, data presentation devices, and literary devices.

(4) Studies have shown that self-determination and interest can offset any anxiety raised by challenging text demands. Consider allowing for some student role in selecting text; perhaps present two or three challenging text alternatives that the group can choose among or consider topical interests when deciding what complex texts to present.

(5) Vary your routine. Not every instructional text must be equally hard. You might labor through one or two demanding shorter texts, followed by the reading of a relatively easier and longer one that will require less student persistence and teacher scaffolding.

(6) Divide a text up and take on parts of it rather than trying to digest it all in one bite.

(7) Smile, be encouraging. It couldn't hurt.
References
Acee, T. W., Kim, H., Kim, H., Kim, J., Chu, H.-N. R., Kim, M., et al. (2010). Academic boredom in under- and over-challenging situations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35, 17-27

Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (2011). Making things hard on yourself, but in a good way: Creating desirable difficulties to enhance learning. In M. A. Gernsbacher, R. W. Pew, L. M. Hough, & J. R. Pomerantz (Eds.), Psychology and the real world: Essays illustrating fundamental contributions to society ( pp. 56-64). New York: Worth Publishers.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1991). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper-Perennial.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum Press.

Diemand-Yauman, C., Oppenheimer, D. M., & Vaughan, E. B. (2011). Fortune favors the bold (and italicised): Effects of disfluency on educational outcomes. Cognition, 118, 111-115.

Donovan, C. A., Smolkin, L. B., & Lomax, R. G. (2000). Beyond the independent-level text: Considering the reader-text match in first graders' self-selections during recreational reading. Reading Psychology, 21, 309-333.

Durik, A. M., & Matarazzo, K. L. (2009). Revved up or turned off? How domain knowledge changes the relationship between perceived task complexity and task interest. Learning & Individual Differences, 19, 155-159.

Efklides, A. (2002). Feelings and judgments as subjective evaluations of cognitive processing: How reliable are they? Psychology: The Journal of the Hellenic Psychological Society, 9, 163-184.

Efklides, A., & Petkaki, C. (2005). Effects of mood on students' metacognitive experiences. Learning and Instruction, 15, 415-431.

Feng, S., D'Mello, S., & Graesser, A. C. (2013). Mind wandering while reading easy and difficult texts. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 20, 586-592.

Forrin, N. D., Risko, E. F., & Smilek, D. (2019). On the relation between reading difficulty and mind-wandering: a section-length account. Psychological Research, 83, 485-497

Fresch, M.J. (1995). Self-selection of early literacy learning. Reading Teacher, 49, 220-227.

Fulmer, S.M., D'Mello, S.K., Strain, A., & Graesser, A.C. Interest-based text preference moderates the effect of text difficulty on engagement and learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 41, 98-110.

Fulmer, S. M., & Tulis, M. (2013). Changes in interest and affect during a difficult reading task: Relationships with perceived difficulty and reading fluency. Learning and Instruction, 27, 11-20.

Gambrell, L. B., Wilson, R. M., & Gantt, W. N. (1981). Classroom observations of task-attending behaviors of good and poor readers. Journal of Educational Research, 74, 400-404.

Gickling, E. E., & Armstrong, D. L. (1978). Levels of instructional difficulty as related to on-task behavior, task completion, and comprehension. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 11, 559-566.

Guthrie, J. T., Klauda, S. L., & Ho, A. N. (2013). Modeling the relationships among reading instruction, motivation, engagement, and achievement for adolescents. Reading Research Quarterly, 48, 9-26

Halladay, J. L. (2009). Difficult texts and the students who chose them: The role of text difficulty in second graders' text choices and independent reading experiences. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University.

Hiebert, E.H. (1999). Text matters in learning to read. The Reading Teacher, 52, 552-566.

Jorgenson, G. W., Klein, N., & Kumar, V. K. (1977). Achievement and behavioral correlates of matched levels of student ability and materials difficulty. Journal of Educational Research, 71, 100-103.

Linn, M. C., Chang, H., Chiu, J., Zhang, Z., & McElhaney, K. (2011). Can desirable difficulties overcome deceptive clarity in scientific visualizations? In A. Benjamin (Ed.), Successful remembering and successful forgetting: a Festschrift in honor of Robert A. Bjork (pp. 235-258). New York: Psychology Press.

Locher, F.M., Becker, S., & Pfost, M. (2019). The relation between students' intrinsic reading motivation and book reading in recreational and school contexts. AERA Open, 5(2), 1-14. doi: 10.1177/ 2332858419852041

McNamara, D. S., & Kintsch,W. (1996). Learning from texts: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22, 247-288.

Mills, C., D'Mello, S. K., & Kopp, K. (2015). The influence of consequence value and text difficulty on affect, attention, and learning while reading instructional texts. Learning and Instruction, 40, 9-20.

Mills, C., Graesser, A., Risko, E., D'Mello, S. K. (2017). Cognitive coupling during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 146, 872-833.

Pekrun, R., & Schutz, P. A. (2007). Where do we go from here? Implications and future directions for inquiry on emotions in education. In P. A. Schutz & R. Pekrun (Eds.), Emotion in education (pp. 313-331). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Roberts, T. (1976). 'Frustration level' reading in the infant school. Educational Research, 9, 41-44.

Soemer, A., Idsardi, H. M., Minnaert, A., & Schiefele, Ul. (2019). Mind wandering and reading comprehension in secondary school children. Learning and Individual Differences, 75.

Treptow, M. A., Burns, M. K., & McComas, J. J. (2007). Reading at the frustration, instructional, and independent levels: The effects on students' reading comprehension and time on task. School Psychology Review, 36, 159-166.

Tullis, M., & Fulmer, S. M. (2013). Students' motivational and emotional experiences and their relationship to persistence during academic challenge in mathematics and reading. Learning and Individual Differences, 27, 35-46.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Won't Student Motivation Be Damaged If We Teach with Complex Text?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This blog entry explores the relationship between teaching students with frustration level texts and various affective factors. It concludes that there are several text, task, and individual differences that affect motivational factors. There is little reason to be concerned about negative implications of teaching with challenging text, though several practical steps to protect against it are provided.

# data[].attributes.headline
AdLit.org ~Library of Before, During & After Strategies

# data[].attributes.subject
AdLit.org ~Library of Before, During & After Strategies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Browse our library of strategies that support interactive and engaging learning that helps students make stronger connections and deeper understanding of text and topics.

# data[].attributes.headline
Teaching with Complex Text, Dr. Tim Shanahan

# data[].attributes.subject
Teaching with Complex Text, Dr. Tim Shanahan

# data[].attributes.headline
Six Pieces of Advice on Teaching with Complex Text

# data[].attributes.subject
Six Pieces of Advice on Teaching with Complex Text

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I receive few letters on this, but when visiting schools this confusion is often apparent. Teachers either ignore the level specifications of the standards or assume that teaching kids at "level N", as they have been doing, must be the best way to reach the standards levels. As one young teacher said to me, "The standards can't mean that we are supposed to teach with harder books. These are hard enough."

But the standards actually do mean that teachers need to teach students to read harder texts than in the past. Just teaching level N books well won't be sufficient. Kids' reading is now being tested on texts at those higher levels--that's part of the reason why reading scores dropped so much this year. If kids spend all their time reading easy texts, don't be surprised if they struggle when immersed in more complicated language and ideas.

Reading harder texts is a boon for kids who in the past would have been limited to Level N. Most 8-year-olds who are not permitted to venture beyond Level N are missing out on age-appropriate content and intellectual demands. However, it is not enough to just throw kids in harder text. The theory of instructional level teaching is that kids will largely figure out how to read better on their own, simply by practicing reading with texts that are pretty easy for them (think about it: instructional level means kids could read such a text once--without any teacher assistance--and comprehend it with 75-89% comprehension). The theory of teaching with harder texts, on the other hand, depends more on teaching; kids will need support to learn from more complex texts.

1. Have kids read a lot within instruction. Students should be reading and writing during reading lessons-and during social studies, science, math, and health lessons, too. Too often the reading lesson time is just talked away, but kids need to read when there is a teacher there to monitor and support their reading. Perhaps set an arbitrary target: kids will read 50% of the time during reading lessons; or they will read at least 4 pages of mathematics or 8 pages of science per week. Lots of reading of lots of texts; every day; every week; every year.

2. There is no instructional level. Despite claims by authorities in reading and special education, no procedure for matching texts to kids has been found to reliably provide any learning advantage. Kids can learn from harder books than we have taught with in the past-but that means more scaffolding. Don't limit kids' reading to texts at their "instructional levels" (~95-98% accuracy in fluency; 75-89% comprehension), or to any of the new levels now being advanced (90-95% accuracy).

3. Vary the difficulty levels. Past claims about the instructional level made it sound like you would harm kids if you taught them in books that were "too easy" or "too hard" and so the notion was that all the productive reading work would be done at the instructional level. I suspect that learning to negotiate the complexities of text is probably more like learning to run faster or to swim farther. Athletes don't do all of their training at one level of difficulty or intensity. They vary routines to build strength and stamina, and I think we should do the same with reading. The texts we use to teach reading should vary in difficulty and length-with kids reading some hard texts, followed by easier ones, followed by even more difficult ones. Text difficulty levels should go up and down, but the average difficulty over time should climb. And don't be afraid to go beyond the level that your grade level is supposed to reach: if third-graders are supposed to learn to read 820 Lexiles, 820 is not the highest level text we should introduce.

4. Be prepared to give more help when more help is needed. I've criticized our programs before for providing the greatest help when kids are asked to read easy texts and the least support when they take on the hardest ones. If I'm weightlifting with light weights, I don't worry much about having a spotter. But if I 'm trying to push myself to the limit with heavier weights or a greater number of reps than I'm used to, I want assistance. So why do kids work in small groups with a teacher when reading relatively easy texts and we save our harder texts (like the science book) for whole class instruction?

5. Try to anticipate why a text will trip kids up and then question them watchfully. What do I mean by watchfully? Question them in ways that will reveal whether they figured out what you thought was complex. I know you already ask questions about the overall meaning of the story or article, but I'm suggesting even closer questioning than that. For instance, if you think a sentence is complicated, ask a question that depends on making sense of that sentence. If you are concerned that kids will miss a confusing cohesive link or an implied causal connection or a subtle sarcastic tone, then probe those things. If they are tripped up, then take them back to the text to figure out how it works.

6. Require rereading. The more challenging a text is, the more it has to be reread. Reading it once (or twice) to figure it out, and then reading it again without so much support can really improve one's reading ability. Yes, it takes extra time, but time that pays learning dividends. Such rereading does not need to be done immediately. It is okay to go back to a selection that one read last week or last month (though the longer the interval, the greater amount of teacher support that will likely be required on a reread).

You are, indeed, supposed to teach kids in harder texts than you have been teaching them. Keep these six guidelines in mind and you'll do a better job of that.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Six Pieces of Advice on Teaching with Complex Text

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This blog entry makes suggestions about what can be done to teach kids to read with complex text such as ignoring the idea of an instructional level, requiring a lot of rereading, requiring reading throughout the school day, and scaffolding such reading.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Explicit Instruction_  Classroom Walkthrough Data Collection Form (2)

# data[].attributes.headline
Why Children Should Be Taught to Read with More Challenging Texts

# data[].attributes.subject
Why Children Should Be Taught to Read with More Challenging Texts

# data[].attributes.headline
Evidence-Based ReadingInstruction for AdolescentsGrades 6-12 ~The CEEDAR Center

# data[].attributes.subject
Evidence-Based ReadingInstruction for AdolescentsGrades 6-12 ~The CEEDAR Center

# data[].attributes.headline
Direct/Explicit Instruction: Five Essential Phases for an Instructional Process - Kentucky Department of Education

# data[].attributes.subject
Direct/Explicit Instruction: Five Essential Phases for an Instructional Process - Kentucky Department of Education

# data[].attributes.body
Walkthrough tool used for Consultancy Protocol in breakout room

# data[].attributes.body
Walkthrough tool used for Consultancy Protocol in breakout room

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
LHSD Elementary Literacy Blueprint Principals

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
LHSD Elementary Literacy Blueprint Teachers (1)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
LHSD MS Literacy Blueprint Principals (1)

# data[].attributes.headline
Addressing the Schedule: Ideas for Middle and High Schools 

# data[].attributes.subject
Addressing the Schedule: Ideas for Middle and High Schools 

# data[].attributes.headline
Key Areas of Effective Literacy Programs

# data[].attributes.subject
Key Areas of Effective Literacy Programs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Marchand-Martella et al adolescent literacy (1)

# data[].attributes.headline
Strategies for SchedulingHow to Find Time to Intensify and Individualize Intervention

# data[].attributes.subject
Strategies for SchedulingHow to Find Time to Intensify and Individualize Intervention

# data[].attributes.headline
Curriculum Review Workbook - Reading League

# data[].attributes.subject
Curriculum Review Workbook - Reading League

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Curriculum Review Workbook - Reading League

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Ohio believes that all students deserve to be engaged with high-quality, standards-aligned instruction which includes access to high-quality instructional materials (HQIM).

High-quality instructional materials (HQIM) support educators with:

Standards-aligned instructional content.

A coherent scope and sequence for grade-level lessons and unit plans.

Evidence-based instructional strategies and embedded formative assessments that support data-driven instruction.

Educative materials that provide implementation support for educators to ensure all students' learning needs are met.

The time a child spends in school is precious and should ensure all aspects of a child's well-being are addressed, including the physical, social, emotional and intellectual aspects. As part of a focus on increasing student learning, the Ohio Department of Education & Workforce believes in providing support for building leaders and teachers to locally review, select and implement high-quality instructional materials. The Office of Learning and Instructional Strategies is committed to leading this work.

Teachers are among one of the most powerful advocates for our children. The instructional materials teachers choose to expose their students to matters. Now more than ever, teachers deserve great instructional materials, so they can focus on doing what they do best: getting students excited to learn. There is mounting evidence that shows when teachers have high-quality instructional materials, they can focus their time and energy on addressing the individual needs of each student.

District Spotlight

Materials Matter in Mt. Healthy City Schools

"The Curriculum Support Guide has forever changed how Mt. Healthy will do curriculum and adopt and implement materials." - Jana Wolfe, Executive Director of Teaching and Learning, Mt. Healthy City Schools.

Ohio Curriculum Support Guide

The Department partnered with Instruction Partners to develop the Ohio Curriculum Support Guide. Research shows that providing teachers with high-quality instructional materials is an effective strategy for increasing student learning. However, teachers need much more than a box of new materials to ensure great teaching and learning take place. They need support from a team of leaders who know how to select, prepare for and support the use of great materials.

Through this partnership, a five-part webinar series was created to support district leaders and members of school-based teams with curriculum adoption and implementation using the Ohio Curriculum Support Guide.

Additional Resources

As a local control state, districts and schools in Ohio make important decisions regarding instructional materials. There are growing efforts to support this decision-making process.

Ohio Materials Matter:

Provides expert curriculum reviews through EdReports, which consists of K-12 English Language Arts, Math and Science instructional materials.

Assists with determining whether instructional materials are aligned to Ohio's Learning Standards in English Language Arts, Mathematics and Science.

Developed in partnership with INFOhio and EdReports.

The Ohio Improvement Process (OIP) is a system framework of collaborative team protocols to analyze data, research aligned improvement strategies, implement and monitor strategies, provide feedback to teams and determine effectiveness based on performance and implementation data. Educators will find resources within the Continuous Improvement Toolkit.

The Learning Management System provides free courses and professional development on important state education initiatives for educators who have active or pending, Ohio, prekindergarten-12, Department-issued licenses or permits and who have fully set-up their OH|ID account.

Frequently Asked Questions

Read the Frequently Asked Questions about High-Quality Instructional Materials for more information. Please contact OHMaterialsMatter@education.Ohio.gov with additional questions or comments.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ohio believes that all students deserve to be engaged with high-quality, standards-aligned instruction which includes access to high-quality instructional materials (HQIM). High-quality instructional materials (HQIM) support educators with:  Standards-aligned instructional content.  A coherent scope and sequence for grade-level lessons and unit plans.   Evidence-based instructional strategies and embedded formative assessments that support data-driven instruction.  Educative materials that provide implementation support for educators to ensure all students' learning needs are met.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Overview

The goal of Phase I is to select materials that support a clear and common vision of great instruction for the subject, with stakeholder participation in the process. Teachers are central to every great selection story and reported learning from the process when it was done well.

More About Phase I

Overview

The goal of Phase II is to develop an intentional implementation plan - thinking through what it will take to use and support the materials well.

More About Phase II

The goal of Phase III is to support teachers as they use the curriculum to inspire great instruction and increase student learning. At the leadership level, the focus is on listening to teachers and observing practice with a goal of continuously improving teacher support. Phase III does not end after the first year - this is a continuous improvement journey that never ends.

More About Phase III

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Background - Our Story & Mission | Instruction Partners

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Instruction Partners is an education non-profit that works shoulder to shoulder with educators to support great teaching and accelerate student learning.

# data[].attributes.headline
Curriculum Support Guide Detailed Framework Cheatsheet

# data[].attributes.subject
Curriculum Support Guide Detailed Framework Cheatsheet

# data[].attributes.headline
Intervention Intensity Checklist (from Implementation Guide)

# data[].attributes.subject
Intervention Intensity Checklist (from Implementation Guide)