Stop the NYC Curriculum Mandate
Stop the NYC Curriculum Mandate
The Issue
To Mayor Adams, Chancellor Aviles-Ramos, First Deputy Chancellor Weisberg and Deputy Chancellor Rux,
We the undersigned urge you to halt the DOE's roll out of the “NYC Reads” Mandated Reading Curriculum.
We DO NOT believe that the three curricula selected -EL Education, HMH, and Wit and Wisdom– are an effective way to develop our students as literate, engaged citizens. These three curricula vastly narrow the content our kids learn, limit which books our kids can read, and most significantly, were not created with knowledge of our specific communities.
Importantly, little research was done in advance on these curricula. Principals, teachers, and researchers were not involved in the selection process. There are qualitative data from Phase 1 schools that suggest that these curricula are not appropriate for our communities, substantial feedback showing that our students are bored and disengaged by these curricula, and substantial feedback demonstrating that teachers do not believe these curricula are effective for their students.
We believe that ALL children have the right to learn how to read, make meaning of, and be active citizens of the world. However, these mandated curricula are NOT the best way to support students' literacy development, and in fact, will do more harm than good for our public school students' literacy development.
The DOE is claiming that these three curricula are aligned with the “Science of Reading,” that they are “research-aligned,” and that they are “research-backed.” In fact, they are not aligned to best practices suggested by literacy research (NYSED, 2024).
After collecting qualitative data from teachers, students and parents who have experienced these curricula in Phase 1, we believe proceeding with The “NYC Reads” mandated curricula is problematic because:
- These curricula were not developed by educators who know our students, and are not responsive to our students strengths, needs and diverse identities. The K-2 teachers across the country and in NYC who have used Wit and Wisdom and HMH have critiqued these program’s developmental appropriateness, lack of cultural relevance, and lack of diverse authors and characters. Literacy research calls for “learning pathways that are personalized, differentiated, culturally and linguistically relevant, and context based.” None of the three mandated curricula currently meet these criteria (NYSED, 2024).
- These curricula do not differentiate and erroneously assume that all children develop and learn skills at the same rate and in the same way. Wit and Wisdom and HMH have been highly criticized by teachers because they are difficult to adapt and differentiate for students with diverse learning strengths and needs, including students with IEPs, English language learners, and students who would benefit from accelerated learning opportunities. Again, literacy research is clear that strong literacy practices are personalized, differentiated, and context specific (NYSED, 2024).
- These curricula do not teach phonics or decoding. The city does have a previously mandated phonics and phonemic awareness program. However, these programs were not given time to show their effect before the additional curricular mandates were imposed.
- These curricula impose specific and narrow topics of study. In many schools these topics will replace the previously developed rich project based curricula due to time impositions. Because these mandates do not consider what schools were already doing well, the potential for unique project based curricula based on students' interest may suffer.
- These curricula are developmentally inappropriate, and don’t take a holistic approach to student learning. Historically, these types of mandates have emphasized test score improvements and led to reduced play based learning opportunities for many young children as well as reduced chances for inquiry and student driven learning for older students. Our city schools should foster an education in the service of the whole child and their intellectual dispositions and interests, not at their expense.
We Propose:
- A students and communities first approach to literacy improvement. We propose that we start by looking at each of our school communities as unique contexts, with unique strengths and areas of need. What is working, and what needs improvement? How can we best apply the principles of literacy research with knowledge of our communities toward our shared goals of improved literacy for all NYC students?
- Curricular choices informed by teachers, principals, and communities. Academic research suggests that the most effective curricula are those that incorporate the principles of literacy research in the context of school-developed curricula that is responsive to each student's unique strengths and needs (Novicoff & Dee, 2023; The New York Times, 2024).
- Investing in long-term, ongoing professional development for educators. Instead of spending millions of dollars on questionable new curricula, first ensure that educators and administrators are fully grounded in research and understand how various curricula and approaches support (or undermine) literacy development. A primary focus on curriculum eclipses the importance of building professional knowledge which enables teachers to be reflective and critical practitioners (Murray, 2024).
Sources
https://earlyliteracymatters.org/comprehensive-policy/
https://hechingerreport.org/twenty-six-studies-point-to-more-play-for-young-children/
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/04/us/schools-reading-program-california.html
https://edworkingpapers.com/ai23-887
https://schoolyardnews.com/the-lens-of-whiteness-wont-close-gaps-in-bps-f9e483d6233c
1,614
The Issue
To Mayor Adams, Chancellor Aviles-Ramos, First Deputy Chancellor Weisberg and Deputy Chancellor Rux,
We the undersigned urge you to halt the DOE's roll out of the “NYC Reads” Mandated Reading Curriculum.
We DO NOT believe that the three curricula selected -EL Education, HMH, and Wit and Wisdom– are an effective way to develop our students as literate, engaged citizens. These three curricula vastly narrow the content our kids learn, limit which books our kids can read, and most significantly, were not created with knowledge of our specific communities.
Importantly, little research was done in advance on these curricula. Principals, teachers, and researchers were not involved in the selection process. There are qualitative data from Phase 1 schools that suggest that these curricula are not appropriate for our communities, substantial feedback showing that our students are bored and disengaged by these curricula, and substantial feedback demonstrating that teachers do not believe these curricula are effective for their students.
We believe that ALL children have the right to learn how to read, make meaning of, and be active citizens of the world. However, these mandated curricula are NOT the best way to support students' literacy development, and in fact, will do more harm than good for our public school students' literacy development.
The DOE is claiming that these three curricula are aligned with the “Science of Reading,” that they are “research-aligned,” and that they are “research-backed.” In fact, they are not aligned to best practices suggested by literacy research (NYSED, 2024).
After collecting qualitative data from teachers, students and parents who have experienced these curricula in Phase 1, we believe proceeding with The “NYC Reads” mandated curricula is problematic because:
- These curricula were not developed by educators who know our students, and are not responsive to our students strengths, needs and diverse identities. The K-2 teachers across the country and in NYC who have used Wit and Wisdom and HMH have critiqued these program’s developmental appropriateness, lack of cultural relevance, and lack of diverse authors and characters. Literacy research calls for “learning pathways that are personalized, differentiated, culturally and linguistically relevant, and context based.” None of the three mandated curricula currently meet these criteria (NYSED, 2024).
- These curricula do not differentiate and erroneously assume that all children develop and learn skills at the same rate and in the same way. Wit and Wisdom and HMH have been highly criticized by teachers because they are difficult to adapt and differentiate for students with diverse learning strengths and needs, including students with IEPs, English language learners, and students who would benefit from accelerated learning opportunities. Again, literacy research is clear that strong literacy practices are personalized, differentiated, and context specific (NYSED, 2024).
- These curricula do not teach phonics or decoding. The city does have a previously mandated phonics and phonemic awareness program. However, these programs were not given time to show their effect before the additional curricular mandates were imposed.
- These curricula impose specific and narrow topics of study. In many schools these topics will replace the previously developed rich project based curricula due to time impositions. Because these mandates do not consider what schools were already doing well, the potential for unique project based curricula based on students' interest may suffer.
- These curricula are developmentally inappropriate, and don’t take a holistic approach to student learning. Historically, these types of mandates have emphasized test score improvements and led to reduced play based learning opportunities for many young children as well as reduced chances for inquiry and student driven learning for older students. Our city schools should foster an education in the service of the whole child and their intellectual dispositions and interests, not at their expense.
We Propose:
- A students and communities first approach to literacy improvement. We propose that we start by looking at each of our school communities as unique contexts, with unique strengths and areas of need. What is working, and what needs improvement? How can we best apply the principles of literacy research with knowledge of our communities toward our shared goals of improved literacy for all NYC students?
- Curricular choices informed by teachers, principals, and communities. Academic research suggests that the most effective curricula are those that incorporate the principles of literacy research in the context of school-developed curricula that is responsive to each student's unique strengths and needs (Novicoff & Dee, 2023; The New York Times, 2024).
- Investing in long-term, ongoing professional development for educators. Instead of spending millions of dollars on questionable new curricula, first ensure that educators and administrators are fully grounded in research and understand how various curricula and approaches support (or undermine) literacy development. A primary focus on curriculum eclipses the importance of building professional knowledge which enables teachers to be reflective and critical practitioners (Murray, 2024).
Sources
https://earlyliteracymatters.org/comprehensive-policy/
https://hechingerreport.org/twenty-six-studies-point-to-more-play-for-young-children/
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/04/us/schools-reading-program-california.html
https://edworkingpapers.com/ai23-887
https://schoolyardnews.com/the-lens-of-whiteness-wont-close-gaps-in-bps-f9e483d6233c
1,614
The Decision Makers
Supporter Voices
Petition created on April 8, 2024