# 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.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.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.

# 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.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.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
It's AND/BOTH when it comes to Knowledge+Strategies

"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.body
Core Knowledge Sequence

"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.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.attachment_link.title
Introducing The Reading League's Curriculum Navigation Reports

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Reading League's Curriculum Navigation Reports provide an in-depth examination of each curriculum's components based on evidence-aligned practices.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We provide free reports that help you evaluate instructional materials because high-quality content matters to teachers, to kids, and to our collective future.

Select a subject to browse reports

Student Learning

Rigorous college and career-ready standards can improve and deepen student learning. What is taught matters.

High Expectations for All

Not all students have the same access to high-quality instructional materials and this perpetuates the opportunity gap.

Equity

When teachers are provided with high-quality materials and aligned professional learning, this increases the opportunity for all students to learn and grow.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We provide free reports that help you evaluate instructional materials because high-quality content matters to teachers, to kids, and to our collective future. Select a subject to browse reports Student Learning Rigorous college and career-ready standards can improve and deepen student learning. What is taught matters.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As an initiative of the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences (IES), the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) was created in 2002 to be a central and trusted source of scientific evidence for what works in education.

# 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!

BOOKWORMS KNOWLEDGE INVENTORY (K-5)

Global Applicability: 76.47%

American-centric: 23.53%

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Bookworms K–5 Reading & Writing | Curriculum Access

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Built upon abundant literacy research, and designed to make excellent instruction and differentiation easier.

# data[].attributes.headline
Structure of Daily Lessons (135 minutes)

# data[].attributes.subject
Structure of Daily Lessons (135 minutes)

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

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

# data[].attributes.headline
Knowledge Matters Campaign: Review of Bookworms (Endorsed)

# data[].attributes.subject
Knowledge Matters Campaign: Review of Bookworms (Endorsed)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Bookworms

Bookworms is designed to expose students to a high volume of full-length, deeply engaging trade books to build knowledge and drive literacy instruction. Over the course of elementary school, students will study 265 full-length texts. These grade-level texts are read-by the teacher and through shared reading with peers-multiple times, each time with a different purpose. The curriculum's systematic phonics-based foundational skills block features unique skill-based student grouping, supported by frequent assessments, with tailored instruction for each group including protocols that are clear and simple for teachers to follow.

Rich, rigorous, diverse texts:

How Bookworms designs for:

Deep knowledge-building

Bookworms focuses all aspects of instruction, including knowledge-building, on full-length books. For example, in grade 3, the Snowflake Bentley text opens with Bentley's close-up photos that show no two snowflakes are alike. Students continue to discover the shapes of snowflakes are a function of wind, temperature, and moisture in the air. Annually, students will have read (or been read to), analyzed, and discussed many challenging, authentic texts representing diverse authors, characters, and topics.
Each day, brief writing assignments reinforce the importance of attending to the text and topic. Students hear, read, and speak a high volume of words daily, focusing on how context determines meaning. Students also are encouraged and given time to read widely from highly regarded trade literature in their classroom libraries, where they can pursue their favorite authors and topics.

Systematic Foundational Skills and Fluency

Through daily differentiated skills blocks, Bookworms guides students systematically in foundational skills. Every student is regularly assessed and grouped to accelerate skill development. A separate book written by the program's authors makes implementation of the differentiated systematic phonics straightforward for teachers to learn. In grades 1-2, such instruction also stems from work with patterns learned within the lessons' word study section. Addressing older students' skills deficits with precision is a highlight. Grade-level fluency instruction is a staple in Bookworms.

Equitable access to challenging texts

Bookworms distills research-based best practices into straightforward lesson structures. Instructional routines build connected classroom communities. While the content changes with every new challenging book studied, the writing, discussion, and vocabulary routines repeat. The simplicity of the structure makes the program accessible while promoting rapid student learning about the world and a deep appreciation of books and learning.

Topics of study

Learning and exhibiting deep knowledge

Foundational skills instruction

Access Bookworms

Bookworms was developed by reading researchers Mike McKenna and Sharon Walpole. It is published as an open-licensed curriculum by the nonprofit publisher Open Up Resources .

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Bookworms is designed to expose students to a high volume of full-length, deeply engaging trade books to build knowledge and drive literacy instruction. Over the course of elementary school, students will study 265 full-length texts. These grade-level texts are read-by the teacher and through shared reading with peers-multiple times, each time with a different purpose.

# data[].attributes.headline
We should all read this blog post from Tim Shanahan

# data[].attributes.subject
We should all read this blog post from Tim Shanahan

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Our school district is using a program that has received many bad reviews, including by EdReports. We raised that with our School Superintendent, and she indicated that EdReports is revamping its review process so their evidence doesn't mean anything. What do you think? Teacher Question: EdReports Reporter: https://www.forbes.com/sites/nataliewexler/2024/02/22/literacy-experts-say-some-edreports-ratings-are-misleading/?sh=75e5be984128 Shanahan Responds: and Knowledge Matters Campaign and others are requiring that high quality texts build background knowledge-a good thing. However, they are expecting it to be through a topical approach not a broader thematic approach. One curriculum that is touted as strong in this area addresses one topic for 18 weeks! So the question I am asking is what is the difference between a topical approach or a thematic approach and which is preferred?
Over the past few weeks, I've been inundated by emails and phone calls about EdReports and a couple of other textbook review protocols (those issued by Knowledge Matters Campaign and Reading League).

I usually stay away from this kind of topic since I help design commercial programs and try to avoid conflicts of interest. At this point, the problems with these reviews have gotten so broad and so general, that I can discuss them without any danger of conflict.
1. Educators are placing way too much trust in these reviews.
I've noticed six problems with these reviews and have suggested solutions to each.

These review processes have been undertaken by groups who want to make sure that curriculum materials are up to snuff. But what that means differs from review process to review process. Each review organization has different beliefs, goals, and methodologies. Accordingly, reliance upon any one of these reviews may be misleading.

The federal government requires non-profits to file 990 forms. These forms require a declaration of purposes and description of their activities. For instance, the Reading League says that it encourages "evidence-aligned instruction to improve literacy outcomes" and EdReports aims to provide "evidence-based reviews of instructional material."

The Knowledge Matters Campaign is a bit different. They are not a free-standing entity but part of another non-profit, "Standards Work". In their 990, Knowledge Matters Campaign is described as an "advocacy effort" that showcases "high-quality, knowledge-building curriculum." There is nothing wrong with advocating for favorite commercial programs. That just isn't the best basis for providing objective reviews or sound review tools. They can provide such reviews, but I think their documents should transparently state those prior commitments. One can only wonder about a review process that starts with the programs they like, and then subsequently formulates review criteria based on that.

The Reading League and EdReports both explicitly claim to support "evidence-aligned" curricula. This is a bit of shift for EdReports since originally its goal was to ensure alignment with the Common Core State Standards. Knowledge Matters Campaign does not seem to make that "evidence-based" assertion, though their review protocol mimics the others in how it uses research citations.

The point here is that these kinds of review often have other motives other than those of the educators who use them. Unless you can be certain of their motives - both in terms of declared purposes and in their alignment with those claims - buyer beware! It's one thing to try to ensure that school practices are in accord with what we know, it is quite another to establish review criteria based on other considerations, no matter how well-meaning those consideration may be.

All these reviews are spotty at best when it comes to this alignment so I would discourage curriculum selection processes that depend entirely or mainly on any of these reviews. I wouldn't ignore them entirely; I would just independently verify each demerit they assign - including determining whether that criterion even matters.
2. What Constitutes Evidence?
A cool thing that that Reading League does is that is shares the publisher's responses to their "red flag" warnings. That kind of transparency is good because it should help school districts to consider both sides of an issue. For instance, in a program I'm involved in, Reading League flagged a particular practice their reviewers didn't like. The fact that this device was in three lessons out of about 900 in the program or that we could provide substantial research support for the specific practice made no difference to them. In such instances, having both the review claim and the publisher response should help districts to examine such issues and to decide for themselves if that is really a problem or a big enough problem to matter.

That's how it should work. When districts surrender all judgment to these organizations - refusing to consider or purchase any program that gets dinged no matter the evidence - then the game is lost. Instead of getting the best programs available, schools will end up with the programs that best meet some groups' ideological positions.

Despite the rhetoric of these groups, the term "evidence aligned" is meaningless. Often there is no direct evidence that what is being required has ever benefited children's learning in a research study.

By contrast, the National Reading Panel and the What Works Clearinghouse have required - before they will say anything works - that studies have directly evaluated the effectiveness of that something and found it to be advantageous to learners.

The review documents cite research studies for each criterion. This may seem convincing to some district administrators. However, if you look more closely, you'll find that the evidence is woefully uneven. In some cases, the research is substantial, in others there is no direct evidence - only poorly controlled correlational studies or evidence that a particular topic is important, but with no proof about how pedagogy might best address that important issue.

I wish they would all take the approach that the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) takes. The Clearinghouse allows their guest experts to make any claims they want to, but then it checks out the nature and quality of the evidence supporting those claims. Their reports tell you what the experts say, but then report how strong that case is in terms of actual research support.
3. Grain Size Problems
That kind of reporting would allow districts to know that the phonics requirements for Grades K-2 were supported by substantial research, but that the phonics claims for the upper grades are proffered with little evidence.

What Works would allow the encouragement of decodable texts and of favored approaches to teaching background knowledge. But they would require an admission that those criteria are not really evidence aligned.

Sadly, too many district administrators assume that the opposite must be true. They are wrong. These reviews adopt review criteria and then seek any kind of evidence to support those choices - no matter how unconvincing and uneven that evidence may be.

Not all the criteria included in these reviews appear to be of equal importance.
4. Measurement Problems
For example, the Reading League requires that reading programs require both explicit teaching of phonics and handwriting. A program that lacks either can be smacked for the omission, and some districts, by policy, will then prohibit the consideration of such programs.

Don't get me wrong. It makes sense for schools to explicitly teach both phonics and handwriting. Core reading programs should include phonics, given that such instruction contributes fundamentally to early reading development, and it seems prudent to align the decoding lessons with the rest of the program (though, admittedly, there is no direct research evidence supporting that concern).

The benefits of teaching handwriting, however, do not accrue directly to reading, and I am aware of no data that shows either necessity or benefit of aligning such instruction with the rest of the reading lessons. It would not be perverse for a district to purchase separate reading and handwriting programs.

To me these criteria are not equivalent. A low mark in one should be a real concern. A low mark in the other may be informative but it should not be determinative. There are many such false equivalences throughout these evaluation schemes: some criteria flag essentials and some could safely be ignored.

Even when a criterion is spot on one might wonder about how to determine if that criterion has been sufficiently addressed. Knowledge Matters Campaign encourages the teaching of comprehension strategies - a reasonable thing to do given the extensive research supporting their benefits - and, yet how much strategy teaching will be sufficient to meet the standard? It is easy to see how two well-meaning and careful reviewers could disagree about an issue like that.

The teacher letter included above points out a reading program that devotes 18 weeks to one content topic. Such a program would surely meet the Knowledge Matters Campaign criteria, though to me that sounds like overkill - certainly not something that possesses research support. If I reviewed it, I'd be critical that the program is too narrow in focus while other reviewers might conclude that it addresses the knowledge building criteria appropriately.

The more specific the review criteria are, the more reliable should be the reviews. However, the more specific they are, the harder it is to justify them given the nature of research. For me, I'd prefer that everyone has all the information available:
5. Effectiveness versus Potential Effectiveness
"We reviewed this program and judged that it met our knowledge building criteria. That's a plus. However, it is so narrowly focused that we wondered if that is best (and we know of no direct research evidence on this matter). Students taught from this program are likely to know more about electricity than any group of fourth graders in the history of mankind. If they are ever again asked to read about electricity, they will likely achieve the highest reading comprehension ever recorded - if they do not run screaming from the testing room."

There is a body of research on sentries and their ability to protect military installations. These studies find that the more specific and exacting the criteria for entering a camp (e.g., how exactly someone needs to know the password), the more likely that friendly troops will be shot. The more liberal those entry procedures, the more likely an enemy will gain entrance. The Knowledge Matters Campaign criteria look to me to be the most general and the Reading League ones seem most specific. That probably means that if you go with one, you will be more likely to reject sound programs and with the other, weaker programs may sneak through.

My preference would be for districts to appreciate the limitations of these reviews. That doesn't mean ignoring their information but considering their claims with the same gimlet-eye that should be use with any of the claims made for the commercial programs. Do they just say there is a problem, or do they specifically document their concerns, perhaps like this:

"We did not think programs should include lessons that encouraged this-or-that kind of an activity. We reviewed six grade levels of this program and found it included 420 fluency lessons. It earned a demerit because twice in the second-grade program it encouraged the this-or-that activity."

That way, a district could decide whether such an inclusion mattered much to them, either in terms of how serious the infraction or its extent. It would also be good if the producer of that curriculum weighed in to either admit they screwed up or to defend their approach. By reporting not just that there was an infraction to the review criteria, but the extent of the problem, districts would better be able to use the reviews appropriately.

Product reviews don't tell us what works in terms of improving reading achievement. No, they only reveal the degree to which the program designs are consistent with research, standards, or someone's ideology.

The National Reading Panel reported that fluency instruction in grades 1-4 and with struggling readers 1-9 improved reading achievement. These program reviews all require that programs address fluency, and in some cases they even specify some preferred details about that instruction.

The idea is that a program that includes fluency teaching like the fluency teaching delivered in the studies is going to be advantageous. That is a hope and not a fact, because most core programs have no data showing that their fluency lessons boost reading achievement.

We are aiming for a possibility. The idea is that when research proves that an approach can be effective, we should encourage schools to replicate such instruction in the hopes that they will obtain the same results.

This is nothing like the standards that we have for medical and pharmacological research. They must show that their version of a treatment works; it is not enough to show that they are trying to do something like what has worked elsewhere.

This is an important distinction.

The Bookworms program apparently received low reviews from EdReports, despite having rigorous, refereed research studies showing its actual effectiveness - not that it was designed to look like what was done in the studies, but that its design really did pay off in more student learning.

I'm flabbergasted that EdReports (and the other reviews) don't leave themselves an out here: If there is sound, high-quality research showing the effectiveness of a specific program, who cares whether it matches your predictive review criteria? Program A looks like the research, Program B doesn't look as much like the research, but it is very effective in teaching children.

The review agencies should have a provision saying that they will give an automatic pass to any program with solid direct research support concerning its actual effectiveness.

I would still review their program. However, my purpose here would be to try to figure out how a program that failed to meet my criteria did so well. Perhaps the reviews were sloppy, which might require more rigorous training of reviewers. Another possibility is that the criteria themselves may be the problem. Maybe some of the "non-negotiables" should be a lot more negotiable after all.

I'm a bit thrown by the usability requirements in some of these reviews. I agree with them in one sense. If teachers struggle to use a program then it's unlikely to be effective no matter what non-negotiables it addresses.

However, I know of no research that can be used as the basis of evaluating usability, so what constitutes it is more of an act of reason than of evidence-alignment. Knowledge Matters Campaign wants programs to include not just what it is that teachers are supposed to do, but explanations for why those things should be done. I love that but have no idea whether that would improve practice.

I think the reason for this emphasis on usability may come from the fidelity evaluations that are now common in instructional research studies. Researchers, to ensure that it is their instruction that is making the difference, do many things to try to guarantee fidelity to their plan. This includes teaching the lessons themselves, using video teachers, scripting the lessons, and observing their delivery, and so on. That kind of thing makes great sense in a 12-week research study which didn't include any second language students or kids below the 40 th percentile and was only taught to children whose parents granted approval.

It is a lot harder to argue for especially-narrow prescriptive, non-adjustable approaches - lessons aimed at making certain the teachers don't screw it up by varying from what's in the teacher's guide - in real classrooms. The idea of teaching everyone the same lesson, no matter what they already know, may make sense to some "reading advocates." Nevertheless, it is a lousy idea for kids and reading achievement.

Many districts, in their selection procedures, require tryouts of new programs - or at least they used to. Some of their teachers try to deliver the lessons for several weeks to see how workable the product may be. This makes a lot more sense to me than the armchair usability criteria in these reviews. Again, districts make a big mistake in ceding their responsibility to these reviews. Some things should be done carefully in house.

What are the big take-aways here?
https://www.edreports.org/reports/ela https://knowledgematterscampaign.org/review-tool/#research-compendium https://www.thereadingleague.org/compass/curriculum-decision-makers/ https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/WWC/Search/Products?productType=2
1. The development of commercial programs for teaching reading are serious endeavors that can provide valuable supports to teachers. However, such program designs are fallible. They require the contributions of dozens, perhaps hundreds, of people whose knowledge and efforts can range greatly. It is sensible for districts to purchase such programs, and essential that they take great care in this to try to end up with supports that really help teachers and students succeed.

2. There are benefits to having third-party reviews of these kinds of programs, both by government agencies (e.g., What Works Clearinghouse) and by non-profits that are not commercially entangled with the corporations that sell these programs. These external reviews can warn consumers (the school districts) of egregious problems, and they can push publishers to do better.

3. These kinds of reviews are likely to be most useful when they depend substantially on high quality research - approving programs that have been proven to provide learning advantages to students and encouraging the close alignment of programs with existing research data.

4. Just as school districts need to be skeptical of undocumented claims of commercial companies (the folks who sell the programs), they must be just as skeptical of the claims of those who critique them. The more transparent, specific, and well-documented these critiques the better. Districts should be wary of simply accepting any negative judgments by reviewers - requiring evidence that the criteria are truly essential to quality and that research really rejects what a program is doing.

5. Districts should adopt sound procedures for choosing programs. These procedures should include consideration of these reviews. However, no district should adopt policies that automatically accept or reject programs based on these reviews.

Here are links to each of these product reviewing organizations:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
textbook reviews; reading league; knowledge matters campaign; edreports

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This blog explores the benefits limitations in the current reviews of reading textbooks and suggests how school districts should use these reviews.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Related Curriculum

CKLA follows our approach to knowledge-based schooling, outlined in the Core Knowledge Sequence. It allows students to build and deepen their knowledge grade by grade and to make cross-curricular connections across subjects.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
CKLA follows our approach to knowledge-based schooling, outlined in the Core Knowledge Sequence. It allows students to build and deepen their knowledge grade by grade and to make cross-curricular connections across subjects.

# 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

AMPLIFY CKLA KNOWLEDGE INVENTORY (K-5)

Global Applicability: 82.09%

American-centric: 17.91%

# 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
Knowledge Matters Campaign: Review of CKLA (Endorsed)

# data[].attributes.subject
Knowledge Matters Campaign: Review of CKLA (Endorsed)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
CKLA is a content-rich literacy curriculum distinguished by robust and sequential knowledge building, as well as systematic foundational skills instruction. CKLA 3-5 consists of original texts systematically and coherently ordered to build broad content knowledge in science, social studies, and the arts. An intentional approach to building knowledge invites students to engage with and make connections across topics not commonly taught in elementary literacy classrooms (e.g., Ancient Greece and the War of 1812 in grade 2). In K-2, high-interest, fully decodable stories advance along with students' foundational reading skills.

Rich, rigorous, diverse texts:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Core Knowledge/Amplify - Knowledge Matters Campaign

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
CKLA is a content-rich literacy curriculum distinguished by robust and sequential knowledge building, as well as systematic foundational skills instruction. CKLA 3-5 consists of original texts systematically and coherently ordered to build broad content knowledge in science, social studies, and the arts.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Core Knowledge Language Arts (CKLA) (2015) - Series Overview

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
K–5 Language Arts Curriculum (2017 Edition) | Curriculum Access

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Empowering teachers to unleash the potential of their students.

# 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)

EL EDUCATION KNOWLEDGE INVENTORY (K-8)

Global Applicability: 86.11%

American-centric: 13.89%

# 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.attachment_link.title
EL Education (K-8) - Knowledge Matters Campaign

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Throughout the EL Education K–8 Language Arts curriculum, content knowledge and reading acumen are sharpened by engagement with rich, authentic, and complex texts that affirm students’ identities as learners and connect their academic learning to the outside world. Lessons help build students’ executive functioning and social skills while also calling on them to make meaningful contributions to their communities. The phonics program is differentiated and rooted in cognitive science: the protocols provide extra reinforcement or quicker pacing as students need. Many specific features are built in to support English learners.

# 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.attachment_link.readable_text
The Fishtank ELA curriculum aims to develop students into critical readers, writers, and thinkers. We hope to widen their perspectives so that they can better understand themselves and the world around them.

The curriculum is designed around the following guiding principles for ELA. Explore the foundations of Fishtank ELA, including the research base, standard progression, and more information about the guiding principles.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Fishtank Learning helps teachers engage, challenge and inspire their students with free, high-quality K-12 math and ELA curriculum.

# 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

FISHTANK LEARNING KNOWLEDGE INVENTORY (K-8)

Global Applicability: 78.57%

American-centric: 21.43%

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

# data[].attributes.headline
Knowledge Matters Campaign Review (Endorsed)

# data[].attributes.subject
Knowledge Matters Campaign Review (Endorsed)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fishtank ELA (K-8) - Knowledge Matters Campaign

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Fishtank ELA units—incorporating social studies and science topics—are built tightly around the texts students read. Lessons are student- and text-centered, with rich discussion at their heart. Students are expected to be prepared and on task, and to take responsibility for their own learning and that of their classmates. Teachers are provided with the intellectual preparation they need to guide student learning, including making sure teachers themselves understand the readings before they lead instruction. While the unit lessons in Fishtank are free, Fishtank Plus offers extra teacher and student supports through a subscription model.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Report Overview Summary of Alignment & Usability: Fishtank Plus ELA | ELA

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Report Overview Summary of Alignment & Usability: Fishtank Plus ELA K-2 | ELA

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
HMH Into Reading | K-6 Reading Curriculum | Houghton Mifflin Harcourt

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A K-6 reading curriculum, HMH Into Reading uses the latest in literacy research to ensure every student learns to read and write with confidence.

# data[].attributes.body
K-6, Foundational skills, vocabulary, reading, writing, grammar components

Authentic literature to build background knowledge

Reference to “just-right readers to meet students where they are”

Three-week modules to build knowledge

Utilizes writers workshop approach

Strong online component to support data collection, lessons, and small group work

Texts are available in print and digitally

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Report Overview Summary of Alignment & Usability: Into Reading | ELA