# data[].attributes.body
K-5, includes knowledge building comprehension + word recognition + writing

developed originally by the Core Knowledge Foundation (founded by E. D. Hirsch Jr.)

new edition was edited, modified, and is printed by Amplify

Core Knowledge version=free, Amplify=for purchase

# data[].attributes.headline
Research tells us that the following ingredients are crucial in students’ ability and intrinsic desire to read well:

# data[].attributes.subject
Research tells us that the following ingredients are crucial in students’ ability and intrinsic desire to read well:

# data[].attributes.body
Coherently building knowledge of words and the world.

Teaching students to read through systematic foundational skills instruction until word recognition is automatic and students are fully fluent.

Affording every student access to focused, close communal reading of content-rich complex texts.

# data[].attributes.body
K-8 includes knowledge building + word recognition + writing

Centered around engaging with complex, grade level trade books

free, available on Open Up Resources (also where Bookworms is accessed)

# data[].attributes.body
Grades 3-12 (there is K-2 but need to explore G5+ is still being finalized?)

Core instruction for reading comprehension + writing

Built-in partnership with The Writing Revolution

Texts chosen because they're considered "authentic and complex, exposing students to layers of meaning and diverse perspectives appropriate for the grade level. "

# data[].attributes.headline
It's AND/BOTH when it comes to Knowledge+Strategies

# data[].attributes.subject
It's AND/BOTH when it comes to Knowledge+Strategies

# data[].attributes.body
"Scientific research evidence doesn’t say don’t teach comprehension skills and strategies explicitly; it says don’t only teach comprehension skills and strategies explicitly."

My favorite quote:
“[K]nowledge & skills are a false dichotomy. Ingredients and cakes are also a false dichotomy! You can’t be pro-cake and anti-ingredient!! If we accept that knowledge and skills are a false dichotomy, then we should also accept that knowledge and skills are NOT on a pendulum. The pendulum is the wrong metaphor. The right metaphor is a pathway, a ladder or a journey.”

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As greater consensus has been reached about how to teach children to decode and read words fluently, the focus of discussion among practitioners and researchers has shifted to reading comprehension. Some of this discussion has centred on the utility of teaching comprehension skills and strategies explicitly as awareness of the central role of background knowledge in reading comprehension has grown ( Smith et al., 2021). The arguments against teaching comprehension skills and strategies are often framed in these ways:

Comprehension skills/strategies are not generic, transferable competencies ... so it is a waste of time to teach them explicitly;

Reading comprehension is highly dependent on background knowledge ... so an evidence-based approach to reading comprehension is to always embed instruction in a knowledge-building context.

These two statements are only partly true. Comprehension skills and strategies are not generic; they are used differently by the reader depending on the text and the task ( Catts & Kamhi, 2014). However, they are transferable to the extent that students need to know how to use them appropriately for different purposes. The Scientific Advisory Committee for the Knowledge Matters Campaign (2023) describes these processes as "strategies for sense-making" (para. 14). Research on classroom instruction has shown that it is a waste of time to over-teach skills and strategies (otherwise known as a dosage effect - more is not always better), but not a waste of time to teach them explicitly to beginning and struggling readers at all. And, while reading comprehension is highly dependent on knowledge of the topic of the text, for beginning readers there is so far limited but promising evidence that embedded or integrated comprehension instruction is effective.

Scientific research evidence doesn't say don't teach comprehension skills and strategies explicitly; it says don't only teach comprehension skills and strategies explicitly.

Some authors differentiate between comprehension skills and comprehension strategies rather than considering them as a single set of cognitive or 'procedural' processes as Grissmer et al., (2023) do. However, different authors categorise them in different ways. Such (2021) says that 'explaining the main idea', 'summarising', 'making inferences', and 'making predictions' are skills, whereas 'comprehension monitoring' (which can include summarising parts of the text) is a strategy. 'Knowledge of text structures', 'vocabulary', and 'background knowledge' don't fit into either of Such's categories. Smith et al. (2021) add 'finding literal information' and 'drawing conclusions' to comprehension skills, and put 'summarising' in the strategy category along with 're-reading', 'self-questioning' and 'visualising'. Shanahan (2018) adds 'recognising supporting details', 'comparing and contrasting', 'evaluating critically', 'vocabulary', and 'sequencing events' to comprehension skills, and expands the strategies list to include 'text structure' and 'making connections to prior knowledge'. Swain (2023) suggests teaching three comprehension strategies - 'monitoring', 'prediction' and 'summarising' - and makes the salient point that 'finding the main idea' and 'summarising' are essentially the same thing.

All of these authors agree, however, that comprehension strategy instruction is useful (to a point) but comprehension skill instruction is not. Their rule of thumb is that skills are just ways that students demonstrate comprehension and can't be taught, whereas strategies are meta-cognitive activities that facilitate comprehension and can be taught. While this sounds neat, the interconnected nature of the components of reading comprehension defies making clear distinctions between them, hence the differences in opinion about which is which.

Making inferences is an example of a skill that can be developed through teaching strategies. Deriving inferred meaning from text - going beyond the literal text - is an essential aspect of reading comprehension ( Tunmer & Hoover, 2019). Making inferences is a non-generic skill that depends on other factors such as understanding of syntax, anaphoric connectives (e.g., pronoun referents) and background knowledge, as well as memory, and is therefore a product of these elements rather than a single skill that can be taught and applied to any text. However, it is also true that almost all texts require some level of inference, and that not all students know what an inference is, or when they need to make inferences to understand a text. So, although the types of inferences students make, and the information they draw on to make them will depend on the text and the task, there is still something called an 'inference'. Strategies like comprehension monitoring and knowledge of text types can help students to develop their ability to make inferences. There may not be one type of inference, or a singular way to teach it, and there may be no utility in doing weeks of repetitive 'inference' questions, but the concept of inferencing, and how to apply it, can and should be taught ( Catts, 2021/22). Interventions aimed at improving inference making by helping students to know when and how to utilise their background knowledge and vocabulary, and to make connections, have been shown to be effective at improving inferences and have also improved reading comprehension (see Oakhill et al., 2014).

Much criticism of teaching comprehension skills and strategies has arisen because there are extreme versions of instruction in which the skill or strategy itself is viewed as the final product and therefore is the focus. This is the wrong way around. Comprehension skills and strategies are part of the process and not the product. In an evidence-based approach to comprehension instruction, skills and strategies are taught explicitly and cumulatively, and gradually integrated ( Oakhill et al., 2014, 2023). The objective of teaching comprehension strategies explicitly is to make them metacognitively transparent and understandable to children so they can apply them in their reading, and then go on to use them implicitly.

Phonics instruction provides an analogy. Some children work out the alphabetic code and don't need a lot of systematic explicit phonics instruction. Others work it out over time with minimal guidance, albeit more slowly than with explicit instruction. But a significant proportion will not learn to decode without explicit instruction. Since we don't know in advance which children will be in which category, the most efficient course of action is to teach all children explicitly rather than take a wait-to-fail approach. Teaching the alphabetic code in a transparent and explicit way for a limited time at the right time gives students insight into written language that they then go on to use automatically and mostly unconsciously.

Likewise, some children will move fluidly from decoding to comprehension. However, for other children this is not a given. Comprehension involves the construction of a mental model of a text. This requires knowledge (background knowledge, vocabulary, text structures), as well as skills (retrieving and connecting background knowledge and vocabulary, making inferences, understanding grammar and syntax) and strategies (comprehension monitoring). Not all children know how to do these things. And those that do know how, don't always use them.

Given that research tells us that poor comprehenders have difficulties with certain skills and strategies, and can improve them with explicit instruction (Peng et al., 2023), it makes sense to include them in Tier 1 instruction. Explicit instruction in comprehension strategies for a limited time at the right time has a strong and large experimental research base collected over several decades. Done properly, it is scientifically evidence-based practice. Petscher et al. (2020) include comprehension strategies among the set of practices that have "compelling evidence in the science of reading" for younger and older students (p. 5).

As stated by Smith et al. (2023),

"[T]here is a significant evidence base related to reading comprehension instruction in middle-to-late elementary years that states that skills that contribute to comprehension need to be explicitly taught to students and that, particularly for less advanced readers, teachers cannot rely on incidental exposure and implicit coverage of skills as methods of teaching reading." (pp. 10-11)

Teaching reading comprehension explicitly

Teaching comprehension explicitly involves systematic instruction in the sub-skills involved. Explicit and systematic instruction requires skills to be taught in a somewhat decontextualised way, at least at first. The skill being taught needs to be explained and many examples need to be provided. Students need to practise using the skill they have learned. This necessarily involves the use of text. This text can be drawn from a larger unit of study and/or can be selected specifically to demonstrate this concept and skill. Taking it from a larger unit of study is a good idea if possible, but if a relatively small amount of time is spent on explicitly teaching the strategy, the source of the text is not make or break. The strategy being taught should then subsequently be applied and integrated with other strategies in studying larger units of work (either literature or other knowledge-building content). This will allow students to develop their skills as they acquire knowledge, and vice versa.

The stage of reading development is critical. Willingham (2006/07) says that comprehension strategy instruction isn't likely to be effective before third or fourth grade - not because of available evidence that content-embedded comprehension instruction (or any other comprehension instruction) was more effective, but rather because of an assumption that students are still learning to read accurately and fluently before Grade 3 so reading comprehension strategy instruction will be beyond their abilities. Hirsch (2016) makes the same assumptions in his recommendations. However, students who have had an explicit and systematic reading instruction program in Kindergarten and Year 1 are typically reading text at a level that does allow them to focus on comprehension in Year 2, so Willingham's and Hirsch's advice should be adjusted to reflect reading ability rather than grade level.

Embedding comprehension instruction in a content-rich curriculum - what is the evidence?

The evidence showing that background knowledge is a strong contributor to comprehension (and vice versa) is strong and not contested ( Hwang et al., 2022b). And a knowledge-rich curriculum has value that exceeds its contribution to reading comprehension. Knowledge is important in its own right.

However, when it comes to reading comprehension instruction in K-2, scientific reading research does not reject explicit instruction in comprehension strategies and does not yet provide strong support for the contention that comprehension instruction must always be embedded in a knowledge-building curriculum. Yes, students in those years should have a content-rich curriculum. No question at all. But when it comes to the way that content is integrated and combined with comprehension instruction for beginning readers, the best way to do this is yet to be established.

There is mixed research evidence demonstrating embedded or integrated comprehension instruction is an effective approach for beginning readers, that is, from K to 2. It is appealing and makes sense in many ways; however, at the moment, the evidence supporting it is promising but not uniformly strong and most studies are quite recent. It is also not always clear what such instruction looks like, with resultant misunderstandings of the process.

According to Cabell and Hwang (2020), "the testing of integrated literacy and knowledge-building approaches is a growing area of inquiry, and there have been relatively few experimental studies in K-2 settings and even fewer that have tested content-rich [English Language Arts] instruction".

Cabell and Hwang (2020) describe two randomised control trials with Kindergarten students who had the Core Knowledge Curriculum. The trials resulted in large effect sizes for proximal (i.e., taught) vocabulary, science knowledge, and social studies knowledge; small effect sizes for standardised assessments of expressive vocabulary and science knowledge; and no effect for standardised receptive vocabulary, linguistic comprehension, or social studies knowledge. The study is continuing with first grade students but published results are not yet available.

Smith et al. (2021) looked at the relationship between knowledge and reading in upper-middle primary school but didn't review studies of embedded instruction. They conclude that knowledge partially compensates for reading skill deficiencies.

Hwang et al. (2022) published a meta-analysis of content-integrated reading instruction. There was a wide range of effect sizes for measures of vocabulary and comprehension, from small negative and small positive to large negative and large positive. The most positive effects were for researcher-developed, proximal assessments rather than standardised assessments, which is typical but means that they need to be interpreted carefully. Fifteen studies included students in K-2. It is not clear which if any studies involving older students were measuring the effects of instruction in K-2.

Grissmer et al. (2023) found that students attending schools that implemented a knowledge-building curriculum (Core Knowledge) from Kindergarten to Grade 6 had significantly higher literacy (combined comprehension and writing) scores in Grades 3 to 6 than students who attended schools using a variety of other undescribed methods of reading instruction. The assessment was specifically designed to measure learning of the Common Core standards. Participating students were mostly from high-to-middle income families. Students in the one low income school had even stronger results.

It is worth reading the studies of content-embedded comprehension instruction in full but the evidence can be summarised as follows. Two publications in the list below are of the Core Knowledge Curriculum, which is often described as content-embedded reading comprehension instruction; however, as described in more detail in the next section, this is not necessarily an accurate description for this curriculum in K-2.

How does the Core Knowledge Curriculum teach and develop reading comprehension?

The elementary/primary school Core Knowledge Curriculum is a set of lesson plans to be delivered sequentially in each year level from Kindergarten to Grade 6. It covers Language Arts (i.e., literacy), Mathematics, Science, History and Geography, Visual Arts, and Music ( Core Knowledge, 2023). There are teaching manuals, student reading materials and whiteboard slides for all units of work. Teaching materials are written by a variety of authors. All materials are free to download but there are substantial costs for schools associated with printing them.

The method of teaching reading and knowledge-building with the Core Knowledge Language Arts Curriculum changes from Kindergarten to Grade 6. In Kindergarten, Grade 1 and Grade 2, there are two separate, parallel instructional components - 'Reading' (print awareness, phonemic awareness, phonics, word analysis, and fluency) and 'Read-alouds'. The rationale for Read-alouds is to expose beginning readers to language and information that exceeds what they would be able to access through reading. There is little expectation that reading will be the vehicle for knowledge acquisition at this point. The texts used for Read-alouds - both fiction and non-fiction - are suggested in the Core Knowledge Sequence for that year, and teachers are encouraged to use texts focused on a single topic for a sustained period of time - about two weeks. During Read-alouds, students do not see the written text but instead are provided with pictures that illustrate aspects of the text. The Read-aloud is followed by a structured whole class discussion that encourages the literal and analytical skills that enable comprehension. These include summarising, predicting, making global and text-based connections, activating prior knowledge, and making inferences. These skills and strategies are gradually introduced to the 'Reading' component using texts specifically chosen for these activities, which are not necessarily on topics linked to the Read-aloud texts, but do follow a broad theme (e.g., animals) over a number of weeks.

From Grade 3, these two components are linked, with the topic content in the domain units being incorporated into the Reading and Writing components. From Grades 4 to 6, literacy skill development in reading comprehension and writing is integrated with the domain units and novel studies.

This developmental trajectory is important to note because it shows that reading instruction in the early years involves explicit instruction in both phonic decoding and the so-called 'procedural skills' associated with reading comprehension. The knowledge-building component is largely oral at first and gradually introduced to print and independent reading. Although Grissmer et al. (2023) describe "integration and focus across all grades and subjects" (p. 42), the two elements are not integrated in the early grades, and not until students have developed sufficient reading fluency to engage with written texts in a way that builds reading proficiency and knowledge in a reciprocal way.

What is the take home message?

The take-home message is not that comprehension instruction embedded in a sequential knowledge-building curricula is a bad idea or doesn't work. It's a terrific idea for many reasons and is almost certainly the best approach for middle-to-upper primary ( McKeown et al., 2009). It's logical, persuasive and very appealing to embed reading comprehension instruction in interesting and useful content as soon as students are able. Right now, however, scientific research evidence doesn't yet specify that it is the only or most scientifically evidence-based approach to reading comprehension instruction for younger students and should therefore replace other approaches. Petscher et al. (2020) describe content-embedded reading comprehension instruction as "promising but not (yet) compelling" (p. 7). It's still OK to teach comprehension skills and strategies explicitly and quickly and build knowledge, initially side-by-side and then increasingly together.

Grissmer et al. (2023) form this conclusion from their research on the Core Knowledge Curriculum:

"The results of this study would suggest that there are two separate but complementary, cognitive processes involved in development and learning: 'skill building' and 'knowledge accumulation'. Perhaps the phrases that better capture cognitive development would be - 'skill begets skill; knowledge begets knowledge; and almost certainly - skill x knowledge begets skill x knowledge'." (p. 11)

Similarly, Christodoulou (2023), a long-time proponent of knowledge-rich curricula, says,

"[K]nowledge & skills are a false dichotomy. Ingredients and cakes are also a false dichotomy! You can't be pro-cake and anti-ingredient!! If we accept that knowledge and skills are a false dichotomy, then we should also accept that knowledge and skills are NOT on a pendulum. The pendulum is the wrong metaphor. The right metaphor is a pathway, a ladder or a journey." (para. 4)

Responsible teachers, curriculum developers and program publishers that have a commitment to the Science of Reading need to rely on the existing evidence while keeping an eye on the emerging evidence. The emerging evidence base around content-embedded instruction should be monitored and incorporated as appropriate.

In the meantime, as Duke et al. (2021) write,

"Scientific research has revealed many individual instructional practices and combinations of practices that foster reading comprehension development. Some conversations about reading comprehension engage an either/or approach, such as these two statements, respectively: (1) Don't teach strategies; build knowledge. (2) Don't focus on comprehension; focus on word reading. This tendency does not reflect research findings and does not maximize the likelihood that we will meet the needs of all developing readers... As a field, we can advocate for particular research-supported instructional practices without denigrating other research-supported instructional practices." (p. 664)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Don't discard comprehension strategies - Five from Five

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Share this post Dr Jennifer Buckingham, 23 June 2023 As greater consensus has been reached about how to teach children to decode and read words fluently, the focus of discussion among practitioners and researchers has shifted to reading comprehension. Some of this discussion has centred on the utility of teaching comprehension skills and strategies explicitly [...]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A Guide for Evaluating K-8 ELA Curriculum

Designed by literacy experts for evaluating K-8 ELA curriculum, the Knowledge Matters Review Tool is a resource to determine if an ELA curriculum is truly "content-rich" and aligned to research on reading comprehension.

About the Knowledge Matters Review Tool

We've developed the Knowledge Matters Review Tool to help educators understand how key research insights and practices should be translated into curriculum design for K-8 ELA. It is intended for use by states, districts, and schools when evaluating ELA curriculum.

The Review Tool is designed to be used in addition to, not instead of, other instruments to ensure that "knowledge building," and by extension reading comprehension, is appropriately addressed.

Our team of experts has identified 26 separate criteria across eight dimensions of high-quality, content-rich ELA curriculum. The more evidence these criteria are present in a curriculum, the better.

Access the review tool

We offer a PDF version for downloading as well as a Google Doc version that can be used when collaborating with colleagues. Both versions can be edited and adapted as needed.

VIEW GOOGLE DOC DOWNLOAD PDF

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Knowledge Matters Review Tool - Knowledge Matters Campaign

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Designed by literacy experts for evaluating K-8 ELA curriculum, the Knowledge Matters Review Tool is a resource to determine if an ELA curriculum is truly "content-rich" and aligned to research on reading comprehension. We've developed the Knowledge Matters Review Tool to help educators understand how key research insights and practices should be translated into curriculum design for K-8 ELA.

# data[].attributes.body
I don't like their background with the IRLA when it comes to phonics and systematic instruction so I am not as sure about the knowledge-building portion's credibility and need to do further research with those putting this into practice

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Natalie Wexler, education journalist and author of "The Knowledge Gap," hosts the inaugural series of our new podcast, Reading Comprehension Revisited.

In six short (~30-minute) episodes, Natalie tackles crucial questions such as, why do students from low-income backgrounds typically score lower on reading tests? Why do improvements in the early grades fade out as students advance to higher levels? And most significantly, why haven't substantial investments in education reform delivered expected results?

The answer lies in a longstanding misunderstanding about reading comprehension itself, and how students learn to make meaning from texts. Over six episodes, you'll learn what research tells us about how children really learn to read, and you'll hear from educators from around the country as they share their experiences of embedding knowledge-building into their literacy instruction, and the powerful effects this change has had on their students.
Episode 1: "Kids were bored to death"
June 28, 2023 - Despite substantial investments in education reform, the US remains in the grip of a decades-long reading crisis. But why? With the help of teachers and researchers, host Natalie Wexler introduces the urgent need to revisit our approach to reading comprehension.
Episode 2: "A simple way of looking at a complex problem"
June 28, 2023 - Thanks to tireless efforts by researchers, advocates, and educators, the importance of systematically teaching decoding is finally being recognized. But, as you'll hear, there's far more to reading than decoding, and more we need to do to help our kids become truly literate.
Episode 3: "That cloud looks like an anvil"
July 5, 2023 - Abby Boruff, Deloris Fowler, and Kyair Butts teach different ages and subjects, in different parts of the country. When their schools adopted knowledge-building curricula they were skeptical, but the dramatic results they saw in their classrooms helped change their minds.
Episode 4: "Now they had something to write about"
July 12, 2023 - It's hard to read about a topic you don't have knowledge about, but it's virtually impossible to write about it. By having students write about content they're learning about, knowledge-building curricula boost both writing ability and learning in general.
Episode 5: "Everything was in silos"
July 19, 2023 - To become fully literate, many students need a curriculum that builds knowledge in a logical, coherent way across grade levels, and only a leader can put that kind of system in place. Meet Brent Conway and Dr. LaTonya Goffney, two leaders who did exactly that.
Episode 6: "Think what a better society we'll have"
July 26, 2023 - American education has a number of serious problems - and our failure to start building kids' knowledge early is a fundamental one. But there are ways to ensure that the growing trend toward knowledge-building curriculum takes root and spreads.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Natalie Wexler, education journalist and author of "The Knowledge Gap," hosts the inaugural series of our new podcast, Reading Comprehension Revisited. In six short (~30-minute) episodes, Natalie tackles crucial questions such as, why do students from low-income backgrounds typically score lower on reading tests?

# data[].attributes.body
K-5, includes knowledge building comprehension and word recognition + writing

Created by Sharon Walpole (author of How to Plan Differentiated Reading Instruction)

Read more of her history/development of the curriculum here

Housed on Open Up Resources=free!

# data[].attributes.body
K-8 includes knowledge building/comprehension + some writing

I don't personally find their IRLA to be based on the science of reading for foundational skills so I have a hard time wanting to dig deeper into their resources--let me know if you are interested, though!

# data[].attributes.body
K-8, includes knowledge building/comprehension + writing (no word recognition)

owned by Great Minds but word recognition can connect with Wilson Fundations & Geodes connects both decoding and knowledge-building together in very beautiful and content-rich decodable texts

Very expensive and no support for international clients

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It was only after years within the education reform movement that Natalie Wexler stumbled across a hidden explanation for our country's frustrating lack of progress when it comes to providing every child with a quality education. The problem wasn't one of the usual scapegoats: lazy teachers, shoddy facilities, lack of accountability. It was something no one was talking about: the elementary school curriculum's intense focus on decontextualized reading comprehension "skills" at the expense of actual knowledge. In the tradition of Dale Russakoff's The Prize and Dana Goldstein's The Teacher Wars, Wexler brings together history, research, and compelling characters to pull back the curtain on this fundamental flaw in our education system--one that fellow reformers, journalists, and policymakers have long overlooked, and of which the general public, including many parents, remains unaware.

But The Knowledge Gap isn't just a story of what schools have gotten so wrong--it also follows innovative educators who are in the process of shedding their deeply ingrained habits, and describes the rewards that have come along: students who are not only excited to learn but are also acquiring the knowledge and vocabulary that will enable them to succeed. If we truly want to fix our education system and unlock the potential of our neediest children, we have no choice but to pay attention.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The untold story of the root cause of America's education crisis--and the seemingly endless cycle of multigenerational poverty.It was only after years within the education reform movement that Natalie Wexler stumbled across a hidden explanation for our country's frustrating lack of progress when it comes to providing every child with a quality education.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In Why Knowledge Matters, E. D. Hirsch, Jr., presents evidence from cognitive science, sociology, and education history to further the argument for a knowledge-based elementary curriculum.
Influential scholar Hirsch, author of The Knowledge Deficit, asserts that a carefully planned curriculum that imparts communal knowledge is essential in achieving one of the most fundamental aims and objectives of education: preparing students for lifelong success. Hirsch examines historical and contemporary evidence from the United States and other nations, including France, and affirms that a knowledge-based approach has improved both achievement and equity in schools where it has been instituted.

In contrast, educational change of the past several decades in the United States has endorsed a skills-based approach, founded on, Hirsch points out, many incorrect assumptions about child development and how children learn. He recommends new policies that are better aligned with our current understanding of neuroscience, developmental psychology, and social science.

The book focuses on six persistent problems that merit the attention of contemporary education reform: the over-testing of students in the name of educational accountability; the scapegoating of teachers; the fadeout of preschool gains; the narrowing of the curriculum to crowd out history, geography, science, literature, and the arts; the achievement gap between demographic groups; and the reliance on standards, such as the Common Core State Standards, that are not linked to a rigorous curriculum.

Why Knowledge Matters makes a clear case for educational innovation and introduces a new generation of American educators to Hirsch's astute and passionate analysis.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In Why Knowledge Matters, E. D. Hirsch, Jr., presents evidence from cognitive science, sociology, and education history to further the argument for a knowledge-based elementary curriculum.Influential scholar Hirsch, author of The Knowledge Deficit, asserts that a carefully planned curriculum that imparts communal knowledge is essential in achieving one of the most fundamental aims and objectives of education: preparing students for lifelong success.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
News from AIM Institute for Learning & Research

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Read about the Science of Reading and our work at AIM Institute.

# data[].attributes.body
Review pgs 14-23 especially

# data[].attributes.body
Module 1, Unit 1: Miss Bindergarten Gets Ready for Kindergarten

# data[].attributes.body
Module 1, Unit 1: Caps for Sale

# data[].attributes.body
Module 1, Unit 1: A Strong Right Arm

# data[].attributes.body
Module 1, Unit 1: Writing for a Purpose

# data[].attributes.body
"Nearly all of our most important goals for education—greater reading comprehension, the ability to think critically
and solve problems, even higher test scores—are a function of the depth and breadth of our knowledge. Although current events and technology are constantly changing, there is a body of lasting knowledge and skills that form the core of a strong Preschool through Grade 8 curriculum. Explicit identification of what children should learn at each grade level ensures a coherent approach to building knowledge across all grade levels, making efficient and effective use of instructional time. Every child should learn the fundamentals of science, basic principles of government, important events in history, essential elements of mathematics, widely acknowledged masterpieces of art and music from around the world, and stories and poems passed down from generation to generation."

# data[].attributes.body
60 minutes each

# data[].attributes.body
G3: 120 minutes (word recognition/word study + language/reading comprehension + writing & cursive)
G4-5: 90 minutes (advanced word study+language/reading comprehension+ writing)

# data[].attributes.headline
CKLA (free) G1 Domain 3: Different Lands, Similar Stories

# data[].attributes.subject
CKLA (free) G1 Domain 3: Different Lands, Similar Stories

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Focus: Students encounter different cultures from around the world as they explore the ways in which folktales from different lands treat similar themes or characters, including variations on the Cinderella story, the adventures of supernaturally small characters, and the exploits of cunning tricksters.

Number of Lessons: 9

Lesson Time: 60 minutes each. Each lesson may be divided into shorter segments.

Additional Search Terms: folktales * fairy tales * Cinderella * Tom Thumb * Thumbelina * Issun-Boshi * Little Red Riding Hood

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
CKLA Grade 1: Domain 3-Different Lands, Similar Stories (9 Lessons)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Focus: Students encounter different cultures from around the world as they explore the ways in which folktales from different lands treat similar themes or characters, including variations on the Cinderella story, the adventures of supernaturally small characters, and the exploits of cunning tricksters. Number of Lessons: 9 Lesson Time: 60 minutes each.

# data[].attributes.headline
CKLA (free) G5, Unit 1--They Call Me Guero

# data[].attributes.subject
CKLA (free) G5, Unit 1--They Call Me Guero

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Focus: In this first unit of Core Knowledge's Language Arts program, students study contemporary fiction through the novel, They Call Me Güero, which is written in various forms of poetry. Through They Call Me Güero: A Border Kids Poems, students explore the many aspects of the living on the border between two countries. They look at the cultural richness inherent in being part of two cultures, and the difficulties of having family on either side of a protected border. Students review the writing process, and engage in an extended writing project. This unit includes a Beginning of Year Assessment. Note: Schools will need to purchase They Call Me Güero: A Border Kids Poems, by David Bowles, Cinco Puntos Press, ISBN 978-1-947627-07-09 (paper).

Number of Lessons: 15

Lesson Time: 90 minutes each. Each lesson may be divided into shorter segments.

Additional Search Terms: checkpoint * heritage * informational essay * narrative fiction * dialogue * writing strong verbs * draft * revision

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Focus: In this first unit of Core Knowledge's Language Arts program, students study contemporary fiction through the novel, They Call Me Güero, which is written in various forms of poetry. Through They Call Me Güero: A Border Kids Poems, students explore the many aspects of the living on the border between two countries.

# data[].attributes.body
3 hours total of literacy instruction

1 hour module lesson (engaging w/ complex text/comprehension)

1 hour labs (hands-on application of content to build background, vocab, oral language, and shared knowledge)

1 hour Foundations Skills Block

More info on labs: designed to help teachers ensure that all of their students get the time to build content knowledge, become immersed in oral language, play and explore, and practice skills and habits of character they need—both to live joyfully and to be fully successful and proficient.

# data[].attributes.headline
G2, Module 3: The Secret World of Pollination, Teacher Guide

# data[].attributes.subject
G2, Module 3: The Secret World of Pollination, Teacher Guide

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Open Up Resources is a 501(c)(3) focused on opening doors to education equity.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Teacher materials are restricted to visitors registered with a valid email address. Please log in below or sign up for a new account.

# data[].attributes.body
K-12, knowledge building/comprehension + writing ONLY--need a separate word recognition and morphology program, includes writing

free, originally created for a group of charter schools and then they created a non-for-profit to give access to all

Better version, Fishtank Plus has a fee

# data[].attributes.body
1 60 minute lesson per day for comprehension + writing + vocabulary

# data[].attributes.body
Lesson 1

# data[].attributes.body
Lesson 1

# data[].attributes.body
Lesson 1: Museum ABC/Tomas & the Library Lady

How do library books change life for Tomás?

Students are introduced to how to notice about a text with Museum ABC. They begin by gradually exploring select works of art to figure out more about this unique ABC book. Students then learn about whole-body listening, which segues to their first reading of Tomás and the Library Lady, where students engage in the core practice of generating and answering questions. The initial exploration of this text elevates the value of authentic questioning while also preparing students to retell and analyze the story in later lessons.

# data[].attributes.body
Lesson 1: What do I notice and wonder about Greek myths?

Gifts from the Gods: Ancient Words & Wisdom from Greek & Roman Mythology, Lise Lunge-Larsen

Understanding Greek Myths, Natalie Hyde

Parthenon

Generate ideas and questions to guide further reading about Greek mythology. (RL.4.1)

Explain the meaning of the word invincible using knowledge of word parts and the context clues in the myth of Achilles. (L.4.4.c)

Students open this last module of the year with some detective work to discover what myths are and how they relate to our world today. Students read the myth of Achilles’ Heel and discuss how the phrase Achilles’ heel is used in modern times. Then students read the introduction in the book Understanding Greek Myths to build foundational knowledge about Greek myths and the ancient Greek culture.

# data[].attributes.body
90 minutes for comprehension + writing +vocabulary

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Knowledge or Comprehension Strategies -- What Should We Teach? | Shanahan on Literacy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This blog explains what it is that comprehension strategies provide to readers.

# data[].attributes.body
K-5
6-8

# data[].attributes.body
Only Grades 5-8

Units are modular so schools choose 5-6 within each grade level and choose the order in which they're taught.

Rich texts at the center and support the “encoding” of critical knowledge into students’ long-term memory through frequent, fast, and energetic retrieval exercises that enable students to better engage in knowledge-rich discussions and literary analyses throughout the six-week unit

Goal is equal access to these texts and their learning--text-focused instead of skills-focused

Vocabulary study

Intentional fluency practice with FASE

# data[].attributes.body
Lessons are 60-90 minutes in length

Can be taught over the course of one or two class periods, depending on:

students’ needs

class schedules

selected activities

In a lesson, students engage with one or more unit texts to build the knowledge and skills they will need for the unit assessments.

# data[].attributes.headline
Example Year-Long Units w/Central Question and Task

# data[].attributes.subject
Example Year-Long Units w/Central Question and Task

# data[].attributes.headline
Really interesting blog post by author Christopher Such

# data[].attributes.subject
Really interesting blog post by author Christopher Such

# data[].attributes.body
For the sake of assessment, teachers have been incentivised to see reading comprehension as a generic skill, or, more precisely, a small set of generic skills.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
On a scale of 1-10, how good are you at comprehending what people say to you?

It's a bit of a silly question, isn't it? Whether or not we comprehend what we are told is dependent on our grasp of the individual words being used, the concepts to which they relate and how these interact to convey meaning. Talk to me about the first nine seasons of The Simpsons using familiar words and I'll comprehend pretty well. Talk to me about your favourite "anguilliform" Pokemon character and I'll probably stare at you blankly. Yes, there are some basic capacities that underpin our ability to understand what people say aloud, such as our hearing and our working memory capacity. But - on the assumption that these things aren't an impediment - our ability to comprehend what we are told is dependent on what we know about the subject at hand and the words being used to describe it. In other words, there is no generic listening comprehension ability. There is instead a vast network of understanding that determines the extent to which we can construct meaning from the words we hear. Trying to determine - or, heaven forbid, quantify - a person's ability to comprehend what they are told would rely on some way of measuring their grasp of all there is to know about the world and the language used to describe it. How do you measure a person's entire understanding of their world and their language? How do you effectively sample a domain this extensive? Answer: you can't.

And this brings me on to reading comprehension. Our ability to comprehend what we read is reliant on much the same network of understanding that is required for listening comprehension. Let's assume that we can recognise the words on a page fluently enough to free up the cognitive resources necessary for comprehension. Under these circumstances, whether or not we comprehend what we read is dependent on our grasp of the individual words being used, the concepts to which they relate and how these interact to convey meaning. Just as with listening comprehension, this is a domain so vast as to rule out valid assessment. To be clear, what I'm suggesting is that - beyond the development of relatively fluent word recognition* - our ability to comprehend what we read is based on everything we know about our world and our language, alongside an additional layer of knowledge related to written text conventions (e.g. punctuation, sub-headings, italics, etc). How do you measure a person's entire understanding of their world, their language and the conventions of written texts? Answer: you can't.

So, we've established that trying to measure reading comprehension is a non-starter.** From this, we can assume that the results from reading comprehension assessments need to be interpreted very cautiously, especially on the level of the individual pupil.

And this is where this blogpost would end if reading comprehension assessment hadn't warped the teaching of reading. But it has. A lot. For the sake of assessment, teachers have been incentivised to see reading comprehension as a generic skill, or, more precisely, a small set of generic skills. If this perspective were a canvas, it would look something like this:

Here is reading comprehension ability interpreted as a small collection of generic skills, things like retrieval, prediction and summarising. Reading comprehension assessments tend to divide the questions they use into a few categories such as these. Countless teachers and school leaders have thus made the understandable leap that teaching reading comprehension is the process of building up each of these generic comprehension skills. They attempt to add another broad-brushstroke layer to a pupil's prediction skill as a means of filling up the canvas. This conveniently allows for the creation of medium-term plans that state that a given class is working on prediction or inference or some other generic skill. It also allows schools to make lists related to those skills that can be ticked off as children develop. If we're going to gather evidence of a pupil's reading comprehension development, then what we presumably need is a small set of statements that correspond to a relatively small set of generic skills. This interpretation of reading comprehension achieves that.

The problem, of course, is that this interpretation is completely bogus. It is based on a view of reading comprehension that is palpably false. Yes, when we comprehend what we read, we tend to be able to retrieve information, to make predictions, to summarise what we have read, etc, and doing this stuff while we read is a useful set of habits that keeps us awake to what we are doing.*** But this is an unhelpful way to visualise our ability to comprehend what we read. I'd argue that this is better:

Forget for a moment the exact scene being portrayed, and consider the means of portraying it. Here reading comprehension ability is interpreted as a vast interacting network of understanding. It is not built up through broad brushstrokes, but through the painstaking accumulation of knowledge about words, texts and the wider world to which they relate. The natural consequence of such an interpretation is that the teaching of reading comprehension must prioritise the guided exploration of text, involving lots of reading and lots of rich discussion. Retrieval, prediction, summarising, etc will naturally form a part of this, but developing these habits is not the central goal of reading comprehension lessons. The central goal of reading comprehension lessons is to understand the specific text being read and the world to which it relates through exploration of the text's use of language. Everything else is secondary.

However, this interpretation leaves us with some problems. I've lost count of the number of school leaders and teachers who - despite their instinctive enthusiasm for this content-focused conception of reading comprehension - have asked the same two questions:

1. "How would we evidence this?"

2. "What would this look like in terms of our long-term planning?"

I will address these two questions in turn:

The answer to (1) is simple: Don't bother.

I'm serious. Just don't bother. Ofsted have made it abundantly clear that they don't want teachers gathering evidence for its own sake. If your method of assessment requires you to pretend that reading comprehension is something that it clearly is not, then it's time to dump that method of assessment. Think instead about how fluently your children read and how much they know about the English language and the wider world. The former can be assessed by hearing children read aloud and by undertaking quick fluency assessments; the latter, however, is not accessible via reference to simple rubrics. Standardised reading assessments may give a very rough idea, but they are not to be relied upon as precise measures of individual progress for all the reasons explained above. It's time to accept that there are some things that we can measure and other things that we cannot and to change our assessment decisions accordingly.

The answer to (2) is a little more difficult. Think back to the canvas above. To build up a picture like that, many thousands of dots are added across the breadth of the canvas, each chosen partly based on its relationship to the other dots on the canvas. In a content-focused view of teaching reading comprehension, our planning must focus on the content being read - the characters, the themes, the text features, the aspects of the world being described, etc. And it must do so in relation to the rest of that which has been, and will be, added to the canvas. In short, stop focusing on how non-existent generic comprehension skills will be taught. Instead focus on the texts themselves - not least their variety and their relationship to the rest of the curriculum**** - and on how you will ensure that pupils learn lots about them.

A content-focused approach to the teaching of reading comprehension aligns with a more accurate view of reading comprehension. It allows teachers to do away with pointless, time-consuming forms of assessment. It encourages school leaders to re-imagine their reading curriculum primarily in terms of the texts to be shared. Most of all, it offers our pupils a more authentic, enriching and effective experience of reading.

So, what's stopping us from teaching reading comprehension really well? Absolutely nothing.

If you'd like to find out more about teaching reading, please consider my book, The Art and Science of Teaching Primary Reading: link

All royalties will be going to the Malaria Consortium, a Give-Well-recommended charity.

* Fluent word recognition is also dependent on our broader language comprehension alongside our knowledge of phoneme-grapheme relationships, phonemic skills, etc.

** The Teachwell blog has an excellent series on this idea: http://www.teach-well.com/reforming-the-key-stage-2-reading-sat-why-its-needed-and-possible/

*** There is lots of research into comprehension strategies. This blog is a good place to start if you want to know more: https://www.shanahanonliteracy.com/blog/comprehension-skills-or-strategies-is-there-a-difference-and-does-it-matter#sthash.ZC5WlzWX.dpbs

**** This does not mean that every text has to directly relate to something else in your wider curriculum. It might even be the case that texts are chosen precisely because of how they supplement the curriculum. (E.g. If a primary history curriculum doesn't include a study of a South American civilisation, a non-fiction text relating to the Maya civilisation might be an apt choice to add breadth to the pupils' understanding of the challenging - and often controversial - concept of civilisation.)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What's stopping us from teaching reading comprehension really well?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On a scale of 1-10, how good are you at comprehending what people say to you? It's a bit of a silly question, isn't it? Whether or not we comprehend what we are told is dependent on our grasp of the individual words being used, the concepts to which they relate and how these interact...

# data[].attributes.body
Need to Reanalyze w/ #7/8

Percentage of Global Applicability vs. American-centric Topics:

1. FISHTANK LEARNING KNOWLEDGE INVENTORY (K-8)

Global Applicability: 78.57%

American-centric: 21.43%

2. EL EDUCATION KNOWLEDGE INVENTORY (K-8)

Global Applicability: 86.11%

American-centric: 13.89%

3. AMPLIFY CKLA KNOWLEDGE INVENTORY (K-5)

Global Applicability: 82.09%

American-centric: 17.91%

4. ARC KNOWLEDGE INVENTORY (K-8)

Global Applicability: 85.71%

American-centric: 14.29%

5. GREAT MINDS: WIT AND WISDOM KNOWLEDGE INVENTORY (K-8)

Global Applicability: 73.53%

American-centric: 26.47%

6. BOOKWORMS KNOWLEDGE INVENTORY (K-5)

Global Applicability: 76.47%

American-centric: 23.53%

Comprehensiveness of Different Topics:

BOOKWORMS is the most comprehensive in terms of sheer volume with 51 distinct topics.

AMPLIFY CKLA is also comprehensive with 47 topics, covering a broad range of subjects.

Each curriculum has its strengths in terms of breadth and depth.

Criteria from "Curriculum Evaluation Guidelines 2023" for Language and Reading Comprehension:

Emphasis on building background knowledge through diverse topics.

Support for inference-making and activating background knowledge for reading comprehension.

Provision of tools or strategies for comprehension, especially for younger students.

Analysis Based on the Criteria:
All six curricula offer opportunities for building background knowledge and enhancing reading comprehension. The depth and breadth of topics, as well as the specific strategies and tools provided, can vary among the curricula.

Conclusions:

1. Global Applicability: The EL EDUCATION KNOWLEDGE INVENTORY (K-8) stands out with the highest global applicability at 86.11%.

2. Comprehensiveness: BOOKWORMS appears to be the most comprehensive in terms of the number of topics, followed closely by AMPLIFY CKLA.

3. Reading Comprehension: All curricula provide opportunities for enhancing reading comprehension, with diverse topics that can aid in inference-making and activating background knowledge. The best choice might depend on specific goals, such as whether breadth, depth, or a particular subject focus is more important.