برچسب: curriculum

  • Berkeley schools use a discredited reading curriculum. Why is it still in classrooms?

    Berkeley schools use a discredited reading curriculum. Why is it still in classrooms?


    Eva Levenson, now a sophomore at Berkeley High School, has struggled with dyslexia since childhood but private phonics-based intervention made a difference. “I don’t understand what’s in the way of making a shift when, both in other states and locally, districts are able to help kids now,” she recently told the school board. “How is it possible we aren’t doing it in Berkeley right now?”

    Credit: Ximena Natera / Berkeleyside / CatchLight

    This story is a collaboration between EdSource and Berkeleyside, a nonprofit online newsroom covering the city of Berkeley. EdSource Reporter John Fensterwald contributed to this report.

    How kids are taught to read in Berkeley is slowly starting to shift.

    Teachers are studying the science of reading. More students are learning phonics, sounding out words by letters and syllables. And the school district is screening every student to flag those who may have dyslexia, a learning disorder that causes difficulty with reading, writing and spelling.

    But these changes didn’t come easily. They are the result of a federal class-action lawsuit, filed in 2017, by four families of Berkeley students with dyslexia who claimed the district failed to teach them how to read. 

    And though the suit settled in 2021, the district’s method of teaching reading, a balanced literacy curriculum developed by Columbia University Teachers College professor Lucy Calkins called Units of Study, remains in place. 

    Rather than teaching students to sound out letters, the curriculum relies on a method called three-cueing — where students use context clues like pictures to figure out words — that has now been discredited and banned in several states. Some Berkeley teachers still use cueing, while others have dropped the practice.

    Berkeley’s reckoning with how it teaches reading comes as California faces dismal reading scores and amid a push for the state to do more to ensure children are taught to read using evidence-based approaches. Last year, over half of California students and 33% of Berkeley students could not read at grade level

    Now, the wheels are just beginning to turn in a district long devoted to Calkins. Advocates hope that aligning with the science of reading will help close one of the largest achievement gaps in the country — last year, 26% of Black students in Berkeley schools met state standards in reading, compared with 83% of white students. 

    “Historically, Berkeley has been — and is — widely known for being a balanced literacy district,” Superintendent Enikia Ford Morthel said during a November panel discussion referring to the Calkins teaching method.

    Enikia Ford Morthel, Berkeley schools superintendent, right.
    Credit: Kelly Sullivan / Berkeleyside

    “What we want to be known for is being a district that is disrupting the narrative, disrupting persistent trends and data and really responding to our students,” she said. “This is not just another initiative. This truly is an imperative.”

    Some students and parents aren’t yet convinced. Without a firm commitment to adopt a curriculum rooted in the science of reading, they are skeptical that they will see all the changes they believe are long overdue.

    “At some point, you have to take responsibility,” said Rebecca Levenson, a parent of two children with dyslexia. Levenson wasn’t part of the lawsuit against the district, but she believes “it’s important for parents who see their children suffer to use their voice and power to make a difference for other families that are in that same situation.”

    The Berkeley lawsuit was the second filed in California in 2017 over literacy instruction. In the other suit, the public-interest law firm Public Counsel charged on behalf of students in the lowest-performing schools that California had failed to meet their constitutional right to read. Under a $50 million settlement in 2020, 75 schools received funding and assistance to improve reading instruction. They were encouraged, but not mandated, to select instruction based on the science of reading.

    While a district review of its elementary school literacy curriculum found that Units of Study failed to teach foundational literacy skills like phonics and vocabulary, Ford Morthel has stopped short of calling on the district to drop Lucy Calkins. The district is now beginning the process of adopting a new curriculum for the fall of 2025.

    At a recent school board meeting, George Ellis, the court-appointed monitor, hammered home the importance of changing the Calkins curriculum. Without a “sound, comprehensive” core curriculum, he said, “it doesn’t matter what interventions we’re really providing, because we’re just filling up holes all over the place, and we’re never going to get caught up here.”

    Attorneys and advocates hope the Berkeley lawsuit will spur other school districts to act faster to avoid legal action, accelerating the adoption of the science of reading in California and across the country. But Berkeley’s experience also demonstrates just how many barriers stand in the way of changing reading instruction.

    Berkeley’s reading guru

    When Lucy Calkins developed her approach in the 1990s, the balanced literacy teaching method was heralded as a new philosophy of education. Rather than teaching from rigid phonics textbooks, teachers introduced students to an entire library of independent books with the goal of teaching kids to love reading.

    Calkins was the “guru of reading for people in Berkeley,” said Maggie Riddle, a former teacher and principal at Berkeley’s Jefferson Elementary, now called Ruth Acty. Once Calkins’ approach came to Berkeley, phonics came to be seen as a rote, old-school way of teaching, “dumbing down” instruction. “Berkeley was anti-phonics. One hundred percent,” Riddle said.

    Berkeley wasn’t alone in this. Balanced literacy once enjoyed nearly universal popularity. “It was being used in every single Bay Area district,” said Deborah Jacobson, a special education attorney who brought the suit, a federal class action, against the Berkeley district seven years ago. 

    Special education attorney Deborah Jacobson, photographed at home on this month, brought up the federal class action lawsuit against the Berkeley school district in 2017.
    Credit: Ximena Natera / Berkeleyside / CatchLight

    But the approach has fallen under fire amid a national reckoning over reading instruction, with a consensus growing that balanced literacy goes against what we know about how the brain works when learning to read.

    This understanding anchors the science of reading, an approach backed by decades of exhaustive scientific research that suggests most children need systematic lessons in phonics, or how to sound out words, as well as other fundamentals, such as building knowledge and vocabulary, to learn to read. Teaching foundational reading skills especially benefits English learners. Advocates say reading is a civil right and phonics helps bring social justice to Black students.

    More than half of states have passed laws requiring schools to align with research-based methods or favoring phonics. In September, Columbia University cut ties with the Reading and Writing Project that Calkins led for decades, citing the need to seek out new perspectives. Calkins herself has revised her curriculum to incorporate more explicit instruction in phonics and phonemic awareness.

    A decade ago, California adopted a framework for K-12 literacy that encouraged districts to use evidence-based reading instruction, now commonly called the science of reading. But it wasn’t required, and the state didn’t push districts to adopt it. 

    Over the past two years, the state has taken steps toward a literacy plan but continues to leave to districts what curriculum and textbooks to use under a policy of local control. A new law passed in the summer will require that all children be screened for dyslexia and other reading disorders beginning in 2025. And by July 1, California will require teacher preparation programs to provide literacy training based on the science of reading.

    Still, advocates say these changes don’t go far enough. The California Early Literacy Coalition plans to sponsor legislation that would create a comprehensive state literacy plan, mandating training in the science of reading for all teachers, not just new ones, and requiring the use of textbooks rooted in the approach.

    In Berkeley, lawsuit cast a light

    When Berkeley Unified was sued in 2017, Riddle said she saw it as an opportunity. She had moved up through the ranks to become head of K-8 schools and led legal negotiations for the district for two years. “Nobody ever wants the district to be sued, but it cast a light on the needs of kids in reading, especially kids with dyslexia,” Riddle said.

    Not everyone saw it that way. It took five years to reach a settlement agreement, and the district’s core curriculum was a sticking point in negotiations. “The resistance was serious, but the lawsuit was serious, too,” recalled Riddle. During negotiations, the district implemented Fast Track Phonics to get phonics instruction into classrooms, but advocates criticized the decision as putting a Band-Aid on a broken system, leaving the core Calkins curriculum intact.

    Berkeley signed the settlement agreement in 2021, but due to the pandemic, didn’t start working on implementation until the following year, extending the three-year plan until 2025. Initially, Ellis, the court monitor, criticized the school district and its board for failing to embrace the settlement. And in February, Jacobson said the district had breached the settlement agreement by moving too slowly, but decided not to file a notice in court after district leaders promised action.

    In the last year and a half, the district has started taking steps toward the science of reading. 

    Elementary teachers did a book study of “Shifting the Balance,” an introduction to science of reading practices. The district implemented a universal screening system to flag students who might have dyslexia and started training literacy coaches to implement phonics-based intervention programs like Orton-Gillingham and Heggerty. The district also established a new department of curriculum and instruction, hired a districtwide literacy specialist, and began developing a multi-tiered system of support for struggling readers.

    The district’s new focus has made a huge difference for some teachers, even those with decades of experience.

    Angélica Pérez, a reading specialist at Thousand Oaks Elementary, said though she has known about phonics for years and even taught it, only recently has she received the systematic training she needed to implement it well with struggling readers.

    In my 26 years in education and 15 years in the classroom, I wasn’t so aware of the importance of phonemic awareness.

    Angélica Pérez, a reading specialist at Thousand Oaks Elementary in Berkeley.

    The changes have won over some of the district’s critics, including Jacobson. “There is a new sense of urgency with the new administration and a new level of commitment,” Jacobson said. “Every year the light bulb seems to go on, more and more.”

    Angélica Pérez’s reading room at Thousand Oaks Elementary School allows children to explore leisure reading. A longtime reading specialist, Pérez uses a phonics and phonemics curriculum to help struggling students.
    Credit: Ximena Natera / Berkeleyside / CatchLight

    They have also earned the praise of the teachers union president. “There is a systematic plan to make sure our teachers are getting what they need so they can do their jobs best,” said Matt Meyer, president of the Berkeley Federation of Teachers.

    Cost to students of the lengthy legal fight

    For families whose children struggle with reading, Berkeley’s decades-long commitment to balanced literacy came at a price. Many students with dyslexia have either missed out on learning, or their parents have paid thousands of dollars in private tutoring to catch them up.

    “After a certain point, the research shows that it becomes unrecoverable,” said Eliza Noh, a Berkeley parent who has a child with dyslexia. “The early years for teaching people how to read are critical.”

    Levenson’s two children, Eva Levenson and Wen Dolphin, both have dyslexia and attended Berkeley schools 18 years apart. But Eva received private reading intervention, while Wen did not. The family says their experience shows the difference phonics-based intervention can make.

    Rebecca Levenson and her youngest daughter,Eva, talk in their West Berkeley home. Levenson’s two children, Eva and Wen, who is in his late 20s and lives in Colorado, have struggled with dyslexia throughout their academic careers.
    Credit: Ximena Natera / Berkeleyside / CatchLight

    Dolphin dropped out of school at 15, while Eva, now a sophomore at Berkeley High, is taking the same challenging classes as her peers. She began writing for The Jacket, Berkeley High’s student newspaper, and in October, penned an article about the Calkins curriculum.

    “I know that my life trajectory could have been very different if I would have had the support that I needed in those really formative years,” Dolphin told a crowd at a Berkeley school board meeting last year.

    When Lindsay Nofelt’s son was diagnosed with dyslexia, she shelled out thousands of dollars on a phonics-based intensive reading intervention program. Her son’s reading ability improved quickly, but what took Nofelt longer to piece together was Berkeley’s role in her son’s story. 

    Even after listening to Emily Hanford’s podcast “Sold a Story,” which thrust Calkins’ curriculum into the spotlight, she didn’t connect the literacy debate to Berkeley schools.

    “I thought, if Emily Hanford is writing about this and sounds like it’s not serving the needs of the students, then there’s no way that Berkeley Unified school system would use such a discredited curriculum,” Nofelt said.

    Students relax at lunchtime at Willard Middle School in Berkeley in August 2022.
    Credit: Ximena Natera / Berkeleyside/ CatchLight

    But over time, Nofelt realized her son wasn’t the only one in Berkeley struggling with reading. As she learned more about the science of reading and the class-action lawsuit, she realized that the kind of reading instruction Hanford was describing in her podcast was happening in Berkeley. “When I found out they were one and the same, all of the pieces fell into place,” she said.

    Two years ago, Nofelt formed Reading for Berkeley to educate parents about early literacy and give them resources to advocate for their children. It’s now a resource that Nofelt wishes she had when she was trying to help her son — digestible content designed to help families ask questions about their children’s literacy education and support their reading abilities.

    Today, students with dyslexia and their parents are watching Berkeley closely, their hope resting on the district’s commitment to the science of reading.

    At a recent school board meeting in January, Eva Levenson told the Berkeley school board directors and superintendent that she is still waiting to see a plan that addresses the failure of the district’s core curriculum.

    “I don’t understand what’s in the way of making a shift when, both in other states and locally, districts are able to help kids now. How is it possible we aren’t doing it in Berkeley right now?”





    Source link

  • Is the ‘core curriculum’ still core?

    Is the ‘core curriculum’ still core?


    Credit: Alison Yin / EdSource

    We often talk about the “core curriculum” as the center of our education system, the most essential content for students to master in order to be prepared for their futures. For most, it includes English, math, science and social science. Many support the inclusion of multilingualism, the arts and career-technical education.

    With the advances of the past century, isn’t it time to re-evaluate what is “core”? What competencies do young people need to face future challenges? How can they be the drivers of their own learning? Why is it so difficult to change legacy thinking?

    Our education system is separated into, and organized around, these discreet “core” subject areas. They are the basis for students’ class schedules, schools’ departmental structures, teachers’ credentials, and universities’ admissions requirements. They are the focus of student report cards, state standards, standardized tests, tutoring programs and accountability measures.

    Yet, over the past decade, when more than 75 school districts across California have engaged their communities to develop a “graduate profile” or “portrait of a graduate” by asking their community members what skills, competencies and mindsets are most essential for young people to be successful, the core subject areas are not ranked at the top. Rather, respondents (or community members) say that students should be creative and critical thinkers, effective communicators and collaborators, self-directed lifelong learners, culturally competent and globally aware citizens, technically and financially literate, adaptable and resilient, and kind and curious. This represents a more holistic and integrated approach to teaching and learning. In fact, a recent WestEd report verified that these competencies are most frequently cited in districts’ graduate profiles; the academic content areas fell further down the list.

    For decades, employers have identified a similar set of competencies as critical for success in the workplace. While colleges and universities tend to default to core content requirements, when pressed they agree that the same competencies are critical for a young person’s success in postsecondary education. And, wouldn’t we all want informed and productive citizens to embrace these skills? Are they not core?

    These ideas are not new. Nearly 20 years ago, the Partnership for 21st Century Skills created the P21 Framework, often simplified by practitioners to “the 4Cs” —  collaboration, communication, creativity and critical thinking.

    My goal is not to establish an either/or argument, but rather to suggest a rebalancing for current and future generations. Granted, much of our society still stands behind “the three R’s” — reading, (w)riting, and (a)rithmatic — and will argue until blue in the face that these skills are most essential. They are! Yet, in this day and age, when information is available at our fingertips 24/7 and artificial intelligence can organize that information in coherent ways, what should we consider as core?

    Content will always be central to our schools. If we were to formally elevate the importance of the 4Cs, and even organize around them, students still would have to think critically about something, collaborate around something, and communicate something. That “something” is the content, and teachers can be creative about how to integrate key standards. But, what would it look like if we were to rebalance the priorities?

    We wouldn’t have to look far to find examples of small but significant shifts. Several school districts (such as Davis and Novato) have modified their elementary report cards to reflect their graduate profile outcomes. Anaheim Union High School District employs “5Cs coaches” at each of their 20 school sites to help teachers integrate the 5C skills into everyday lessons and projects (5Cs = 4Cs + compassion). In order to graduate, some districts (including Pasadena and Anaheim) require students to demonstrate their graduate profile outcomes through senior projects, portfolio defenses or capstone interviews.

    District efforts to rebalance the priorities of our education system — by creating a graduate profile and working to operationalize it — have been underway for well over a decade, but progress has been slow because the state (the Department of Education, State Board of Education, Legislature, and Governor’s Office) has been slow to incentivize, encourage, and/or support local efforts through funding and policy. Many other states have done so.

    What might it look like if formal structures existed to intentionally prioritize a new core set of competencies? For example, what if students could earn digital badges for their demonstration of the 4Cs, to be used as portable credentials for college admission and employment? What if teachers could earn micro credentials for the effective teaching of the 4Cs? What if the state’s data and accountability systems captured student progress on the 4Cs? In more creative and less formalized applications, what if field trips, after-school and summer programs centered on 4C skill development? What if administrators selected the teacher-of-the-month based on impressive 4C instruction? What if foundations awarded scholarships and/or (like in Petaluma) students voted on the homecoming court based on student demonstration of the 4Cs?

    Recently, I facilitated a team of educators and community members working to implement their graduate profile. When I asked the father of a Latina 12th grader whether he thought the traditional transcript or the graduate profile most reflected what his daughter needed for her future success, he pointed to the graduate profile.

    ●●●

    Roman Stearns is the executive director of Scaling Student Success, a California partnership dedicated to educating the whole child, leveraging the power and potential of a community-developed “graduate profile” or “learner portrait” as a driver for transformational change.

    The opinions in this commentary are those of the author. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.





    Source link

  • Summer Ready: Our Book-Based Curriculum is Primed to Support Students and Teachers this Summer

    Summer Ready: Our Book-Based Curriculum is Primed to Support Students and Teachers this Summer


    Summer is just around the corner and for both remedial and enrichment programs, we humbly think single book units from our Reading Reconsidered curriculum are an ideal match. Our Associate Director of Curriculum and School Support Alonte Johnson-James, explains why:

     

    Summer school and enrichment programs share a common goal of improving and advancing the knowledge and skills of students. They also provide a great chance for the teachers invested in their success to be able try out high quality curricula and newer, more research-backed approaches.

    When considering a curriculum that best serves students and teachers, we believe the novel-based, modular units of the Reading Reconsidered curriculum provide the opportunity to support students with building knowledge and practice retrieving this knowledge throughout the unit.

    Even more exciting is the “one-stop-shop” benefit of high-quality instructional materials that support the training and development of new and veteran teachers alike. 

     Here are some of the attributes of the Reading Reconsidered Curriculum that make it ideal for summer programs:

    Novel-based: 

    With summer programs roughly spanning 5 to 6 weeks, our novel-based units are a hit! Leaders and teachers may select any of our 36 novel-based units based on their knowledge of their students. Using novel-based units affords summer school students the opportunity to immerse themselves in a good book and read it cover-to-cover. To support with choosing the best fit text, we provide a scope and sequence for text selection based on the time of year. Consider choosing a recommended beginning of year unit for supporting students through remediation or choose a mid-year or end-of-year unit to advance learning or prepare students for the upcoming school year.  

     

    Either way, choosing a unit with students in mind can increase investment and engagement in the novel. One teacher shared that the Lord of the Flies unit allowed students to be “immersed in deep concepts and look at things in a different light, that they would not normally think of. It helps get them involved in the plot of the novel and feel part of it.” 

     

    Knowledge and Retrieval: 

    As previously mentioned, Our student-facing materials provide students with the knowledge-building tools needed to see success in these novel-based units. A knowledge organizer makes the end of unit understandings transparent from the launch of the unit. Daily lesson handouts include a Do Now, Vocabulary Practice, Retrieval Practice and all essential knowledge students will need to access the reading and learning for the day. Additionally, materials also include embedded non-fiction and light embellishments to support teachers and students with key background knowledge needed to access pivotal moments of the text without spending valuable learning time with front-loading content. Including these knowledge-building moments at the “just right” moment allows students to build genuine connections between the non-fiction and the fictional text at the center of the class and deepen their learning and connection to the text. 

     

    Teachers will be better able to assess and respond to students’ understandings with the recursive practice embedded throughout units. Vocabulary lessons include recursive practice that revisits key literary and content-specific terms students will need to access the day’s materials and encode into their long-term memory for future study and application. Retrieval practice also assesses students’ understanding and retention of key knowledge and skills taught throughout the unit. Additionally, daily lessons include recursive practice of newly taught and previously learned content from the Do Now to the Exit Ticket. Teachers can leverage various portions of each lesson to gather data and best plan for how to respond to this data using the provided lesson materials. 

     

     

    One school leader had this to share about the retrieval practice:  

    I love the vocabulary boxes for exposure and how these are embedded words in the text. I also appreciate the periodic review of terms. The retrieval practices are a great quick check for where students are at and to emphasize what key details students need to retain.

     

    One-Stop Shop: 

    The book-based Reading Reconsidered curriculum is highly regarded by school leaders and teachers because of its rigor, its accessibility and the embedded teacher support. Teachers are provided with unit and lesson plans that outline essential unit understandings as well as the standards that are practiced and assessed throughout the unit. The lesson plans serve as guides for teachers to ensure effective implementation with suggestions for how to approach the day’s reading and plans for engaging students in the learning, and an additional benefit to having printable daily lesson plans and student packets is it simplifies planning and allows teachers to focus on assessing and responding to student work with intentional considerations for  adaptations and differentiation to tailor lessons based on students’ abilities and needs. Ultimately, the Reading Reconsidered curriculum lowers the planning lift for summer school teachers and makes the curriculum well-poised to serve as a training and development tool for more novice teachers. What’s even better? All materials are shared in Word form for easy formatting, adapting, and printing.  

     

     

    If you are looking for a literacy curriculum for this summer, choose Reading Reconsidered for its: 

    • Novel-based, modular unit structure to best select rigorous and engaging text that invest students in the novel and their learning 
    • Consistent recursive practice that reviews key knowledge students will need to master the unit’s content and provides teachers with consistent data to inform data-driven instruction 
    • “One-stop” approach to essential teacher and student facing materials that support implementation and differentiation 

    Email us at ReadingCurriculum@teachlikeachampion.org if you’d like to learn more and click here to see additional sample materials .



    Source link

  • Coming Soon: Knowledge-Rich, Book-Centered High School Reading Curriculum

    Coming Soon: Knowledge-Rich, Book-Centered High School Reading Curriculum


     

    As many readers probably know, we have written and published a middle school reading curriculum built around the science of reading.

    And now we’re writing a high school curriculum as well!

    We think this is a hugely important project.  There’s very little high-quality curriculum out there for high school English teachers that supports them with knowledge-rich and adaptable lessons to ensure deep study of important books.

    Having been working on this project for a year or so, we’re excited to share some of the work we’ve done.

    Let us start by telling you about two foundations of the high school curriculum—both of which will be familiar to those who know our middle school work.

    First, our HS curriculum is book based. Statistics show that the amount of time kids spend reading at home doesn’t amount to the time they should be reading to develop and maintain their reading comprehension, according to research. To address this, we seek to build students’ love of books by centering units on full texts, not excerpts or selections, so students have time to engage deeply with the protagonist’s plight and with an author’s writing style. Additionally, we build students’ fluency by ensuring that class time (even in high school!) includes shared reading, so students read aloud and hear text pages come to life.

     

     

    Second, the curriculum is knowledge-driven. As research shows, reading comprehension is directly tied to knowledge, so knowledge is infused throughout the unit where it most supports comprehension. Thinking well requires facts, and nonfiction readings and explicitly-taught vocabulary words help students unlock the deeper meanings in the anchor text. As in our middle school curriculum, dedicated retrieval practice helps students encode vocabulary, text details, and unit knowledge to strengthen their analysis of the text.

     

    emphasis on books and knowledge is crucial for students across all grades, we recognize that there are some specific needs of high school students as they develop maturity and independence. And so a few aspects of our high school curriculum are new and different.

    One hallmark of maturity is the ability to grapple with “big ideas,” those questions and issues that have reverberated through time, so in addition to daily discussion questions, the high school curriculum also includes opportunities for more extended and student-driven discussions. We’ve designed specific lesson plan formats that help teachers confidently run extended Discussion Seminars over the course of the unit, and developed and included supporting documents for teachers and students that outline the purpose and some best practices for leading and participating in discussions.

    All that rich thinking and learning from discussion needs to be captured–so our curriculum supports teachers and students in intentional note taking, using the Cornell notes method. Lesson plans include spaces throughout the lesson where students can pause to recap class discussion or reflect on their learning in ways that intentionally support note taking and using notes more effectively.

     

    Our first unit, John Steinbeck’s Mice and Men, is ready for purchase, and we’ll keep you informed as additional units are planned. In the meantime email us at ReadingCurriculum@teachlikeachampion.org if you’d like to know more or see a sample.

     

     



    Source link

  • Seize the opportunity to select more effective math curriculum for California students

    Seize the opportunity to select more effective math curriculum for California students


    Credit: English Learners Success Forum

    I am a daughter of Mexican immigrants, born in the United States. Spanish is my first language. When I entered school, the language barrier was overwhelming. I see my story in the recent National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) numbers. The report unveiled troubling trends in math performance, especially among English learners, underscoring the urgency of addressing this critical area.

    As a young Spanish speaker still learning English, I sat in the back of the classroom, feeling lost while my classmates actively participated. Contrary to what my parents taught my siblings and me, in school our linguistic background was considered a disadvantage, rather than an asset. I was a bright student with a father who was great with numbers without a calculator. Though my parents had only a second-grade education, they ensured my siblings and I could do math well. Yet, at school the perception was that because I didn’t know English, I couldn’t comprehend the content in other subjects either.

    Though my parents encouraged us to embrace learning, education and our cultural roots through our language, I struggled with my identity and found it challenging to express myself in English. The class instruction did not support my need to learn English while also helping me grasp rigorous content.

    As California confronts its educational challenges, a critical concern has emerged: the need for math instruction and a math curriculum that is accessible and meets the needs of all students, especially English learners.

    The National NAEP data indicates a concerning trend in math scores for both native English speakers and English learners showing a national decline in math scores for 4th and 8th graders, with 40% of 4th graders and only 28% of 8th graders achieving proficiency. Among Grade 8 math scores, English learners in the lowest percentile group experienced a six-point drop, widening the achievement gap with non-English learners, who only decreased by two points. In California, where nearly one out of every five students is learning English as a second language, it’s even more urgent that we address this crisis.

    Teacher voices and research consistently show that effective instructional materials are crucial. The California Math Framework adopted in 2023 specifically underscored that sense-making in mathematics is intricately linked to language development. It is critical for any math curriculum we choose to support all students in developing the skills needed to excel in mathematics.

    This is a critical moment for California as it is currently in the process of adopting math materials for 2026, which could significantly influence students’ achievement for years to come. The curriculum materials needed to change future outcomes are being selected now, and educators can demand high-quality instructional materials that are designed to support the needs of English learners.

    Education leaders play a pivotal role in this adoption process. We must advocate fiercely for the best interests of our students, especially English learners, to ensure they receive the education they deserve. Collaboration with educators, parents, and the community is crucial to ensure that we make informed decisions that cater to the diverse needs of our students.

    As California’s education leaders, we play a pivotal role, and there are specific actions that we can take to drive change.

    • Learn what high-quality materials for English learners look like. It’s vital to recognize what makes instructional materials effective. They should be culturally responsive, linguistically suitable and engaging, helping students access content while promoting language development.
    • Include representation of interest in committees. Ensuring voices are present in decision-making, like curriculum committees, fosters inclusivity. Engaging families and communities provides insights that create a more equitable educational environment.
    • Get involved now in curriculum adoption. Participating in the curriculum selection process enables educators to advocate for materials that support English learners. District leaders, school board members, educators and parents all have a role to play here.
    • Shift mindsets about materials together with professional learning. Changing educator perceptions and recognizing that traditional materials may not meet the diverse needs of English learners encourages innovative teaching strategies.

    If we fail to address the specific needs of the 1.1 million English learners in California’s K-12 schools, we risk perpetuating systemic inequalities, which broadens the achievement gap. The California Math Framework explicitly calls for the integration of language and content. California has an opportunity to make better curriculum choices that benefit all students and significantly improve the educational experience for English learners.

    By implementing these strategies, education leaders can foster change and a sustainable education process for English learners. Our children deserve nothing less.

    •••

    Alma Castro is the president of the Los Angeles County Schools Trustee Association, a member of the Lynwood Unified School Board, and director of California initiatives at the English Learners Success Forum, a collaboration of researchers, teachers, district leaders, and funders working to improve the quality and accessibility of instructional materials for English learners.

    The opinions expressed in this commentary represent those of the author. EdSource welcomes commentaries representing diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.





    Source link