麻豆影视

Help fund stories like this.

A decade ago, Washington, D.C., was hailed as a national model for education reform. The charter school sector, which now serves almost half of all public school students in the city, was expanding rapidly. D.C. Public Schools was a leader in adopting a teacher evaluation policy that linked compensation to student test scores and boasted that it was 鈥�.鈥�

But while reading scores have improved somewhat, 73% of and 78% of still score below proficient on national reading tests. And the yawning gaps between groups of students have stayed the same or even expanded.

In 2022, Black fourth-graders 69 points lower than their white peers, a gap that hasn鈥檛 budged significantly since 1998. The disparity between children poor enough to qualify for free school meals and those who are not is now 56 points, 14 points larger than in 1998. The trend for eighth grade is .

Like , D.C. has taken steps to address this reading crisis. In 2020, the D.C. Council adopted requiring measures like teacher training, and in September, a literacy recommended additional reforms.

These efforts are a good start, and the task force鈥檚 recommendations should be implemented and funded. But, like most other jurisdictions, D.C. has focused on ensuring that children receive systematic instruction in foundational skills like phonics. Important as phonics is, it’s just one ingredient in proficient reading. In addition to being able to decipher or decode words, students need to be able to comprehend text.

making this possible are background knowledge and vocabulary. If schools improve phonics instruction without also systematically building knowledge, many students will reach higher grades able to decode complex texts but unable to understand them. That explains why, when states adopt early literacy policies focused on phonics, gains on elementary school reading tests by or .

For both aspects of reading instruction 鈥� decoding and comprehension 鈥� a good curriculum is crucial. Teachers should receive training in the science related to reading, including the evidence showing that it鈥檚 vital to building students鈥� academic knowledge beginning in the early grades. And to help them translate their understanding into effective practice, they need a coherent curriculum that is grounded in that science. Unfortunately, most widely used literacy curricula are not, so district and school leaders need reliable guidance.

  tries to address this need by requiring that all schools adopt a 鈥渟cience-based reading program鈥� beginning with the 2024-25 school year. But the law doesn鈥檛 instruct the state superintendent鈥檚 office or any other entity to identify those that are effective. In fact, it defines a 鈥渟cience-based鈥� program as one that covers foundational reading skills and 鈥渃omprehension strategies鈥� 鈥� with no specific mention of the need to build knowledge.

An increasing number of states are issuing lists of approved literacy curricula that districts are either encouraged or required to choose from. Some also incentivize districts to train teachers 鈥� and, ideally, school leaders 鈥� in how to use the curricula. 

D.C. should develop its own list, relying on evaluation tools created by The Reading League, for foundational skills like phonics, and the Knowledge Matters Campaign, for knowledge-building.

One complicating factor is that the district developed its own English language arts curriculum, which states that it includes the 鈥渂uild[ing] of background knowledge through reading and experiences.鈥� For example, a first-grade unit covers 鈥渢he different forms of money and how it is made and earned.鈥� From the limited material we鈥檝e seen, it鈥檚 hard to tell whether this home-grown curriculum builds knowledge as effectively as those created by trained experts (the Knowledge Matters Campaign, for example, has identified ). The district’s curriculum also has not been subjected to rigorous review, as far as we know.

In any event, according to several reading instructors, there has been little or no training in how to use the curriculum. Nor is it clear how many schools are in fact using it.

One of us accidentally learned, from a staff member, that a district elementary school was using a curriculum called Core Knowledge Language Arts 鈥� one of those identified as effective by the Knowledge Matters Campaign. That鈥檚 good news, but how many other schools are still using curricula focused on comprehension skills? And what curricula are D.C.鈥檚 many charter schools using 鈥� if they鈥檙e using any at all? At this point, no one seems to know.

The district should at least collect and publish information on which literacy curricula are being used, as the literacy task force has recommended. If school choice is to be meaningful, parents deserve to know what curriculum a school is using. And armed with this information, officials could gain a clearer picture of what is working.

As D.C. moves forward with implementing science-of-reading reforms, it has the opportunity to provide much-needed guidance to schools in finding curricula that pair effective phonics instruction with effective knowledge-building 鈥� and to encourage professional learning grounded in the specifics of those curricula. By doing so, D.C. could narrow achievement gaps that haven鈥檛 budged since 1998 and provide a true success story that could be a model for the nation.

Help fund stories like this.