When we met with @pentucketteach, I shared my analysis with him. His immediate reaction was that it underestimates the use of these programs. (Again, the heat map = a partial sample.)
He believes 60% of MA districts are using a Balanced Literacy program. (There are multiple.)
In any case, these curricula are very popular in Massachusetts... and the latest reviews of both put them at the bottom of the barrel.
Lowest-rated in K–2
Two of the three lowest-rated in grades 3-8
These aren't the first critiques of these programs...
In January, 2020, a review of Reading Workshop by seven literacy experts found the program "unlikely to lead to literacy success" for all students: eduvaites.org/2020/01/25/und…
@ehanford's journalism has been illuminating issues with the program since 2018:
I’d encourage hearing from the districts that have made the switch away from these curricula for unique perspective; the recent #KnowledgeMatters School Tour is a fantastic source of insight.
One callout: “locally-developed and/or multiple” very often means that @FountasPinnell is somewhere in the mix, at least as the assessment.
These comments from a parent in a MA district listed as having “district-developed” curriculum (there are at least 15 districts like this in MA) are telling.
F&P is frequently used as part of the mix, as is the “workshop model” popularized by @TeachersCollege.
In any case, while curriculum landscape is a bit different in RI, the main observation is same: most districts do not use high-quality curricula.
As of 2019, only 7% of districts nationally used high-quality, standards-aligned programs in K-5 ELA: edweek.org/teaching-learn…
Brown study: 'children born during the pandemic have significantly reduced verbal, motor, and overall cognitive performance compared to children born pre-pandemic.'