Replace, Resist, or Reimagine? How to Deal With New Reading Curriculum

Whether by choice or by force, teachers everywhere have recently adopted a new reading curriculum.  In an effort to sell to the masses, these companies typically result in “curriculum bloat,” an apt term that labels the immense amount of activities, resources, and assessments included.  All of these curricula have some great features…and some major drawbacks.  Implementation can result in even lower test scores and teacher frustration, leaving teachers and school leaders with a tough choice:  do we replace it? Resist it? Or reimagine it?

The problem with replacing new reading curriculum

Given that every curriculum is a lot to get used to, and that changes will inevitably have to be made to make it work for particular school contexts, replacing it too quickly will just lead to further teacher frustration and continued negative impact on student learning.  The first year of learning a new curriculum brings with it many challenges, making it “not uncommon that reading scores drop during implementation year.” (Shanahan, 1/14/18). If continuously changing curriculum becomes the answer, there’s a perpetual loop of frustration on everyone’s part.  Plus, it’s hard to say whether the new purchase would be any better. So replacing it, at least within the first few years, might not be the wisest choice, especially with the considerable high cost any reading curriculum incurs.  

A second choice? Resist it.  

But this would mean missing out on potentially fantastic pieces and resources.  And it would mean a continuation of “business as usual,” which could lead to instructional stagnancy and too much variance from classroom to classroom.  In light of our nation’s not-so-stellar test scores in all subject areas, this probably isn’t really the way to go, either.  

With all the back and forth these days when it comes to instruction and reading curriculum, mandates to teach a program “with fidelity,”  and the very real time pressures teachers have, what are teachers to do?  

If ever there was a time to keep what matters most at the forefront, this is it.  We must think about what our students need, both in light of and regardless of what our reading curriculum dictates.  Now, more than ever, we must also take all the research into consideration.  Not just one “side” or another.  That’s limiting and biased.  We must also keep in mind that, as Tim Shanahan says,  “Just because something works under research conditions doesn’t mean that it could work on scale .”  Mark Seidenberg agrees, saying that “Every study has its limitations; every authority only knows so much.”

In other words, just because there is research behind something, doesn’t mean it will actually replicate in a classroom setting, as is the case with sound walls in the classroom. 

An important caveat with any new reading curriculum

Remember that curriculum companies’ sole aim is to make money.  Amplify, the company that owns CKLA, made an estimated  revenue of $513.8M in 2024.  McGraw Hill, which owns Wonders and Open Court, made an estimated $2B in 2024. Yep, billion. And HMH’s 2024 revenue was estimated to be $232M.  The market value is high, and the investment companies that own them all want nothing but to further increase it.  That’s why we see so many curriculum updates all of the sudden.

Every reading curriculum company can show research that supports the development of their product.  

Which means we need to be very discerning–and very knowledgeable–about all of the research angles behind them. 

To further complicate things, social and news media have become vehicles for science of reading advocates, which has created a movement.  Cognitive scientist Mark Seidenberg, who has contributed much to the science, cautions that “The SRM [SOR movement] seems to be coalescing around a small number of topics, studies, and authorities. This is yielding a simplistic version of the “science of reading” that is encouraging some practices that are questionable with respect to efficacy, efficiency, and equity.”

Case in point? 

Natalie Wexler pushes for the knowledge-building curriculum CKLA very hard in her speaking events, podcast, and latest book, Beyond the Science of Reading.  CKLA’’s parent company is Standards Work.  Wexler serves on their Board of Directors.  Wexler’s biography states that she receives “no financial compensation” from this position, but it’s hard to say what benefits she does receive.  At the very least, her direct affiliation with the company seems a bit of a conflict of interest. 

While at the earliest grade levels CKLA implementation was found to be beneficial in a non-experimental, non-peer reviewed study, by Wexler’s own admission, “reading scores didn’t increase as grade levels went up.  This is also backed by (lack of) research (here, and England’s version of results here).  This shows that we just don’t yet have evidence to prove that this curriculum is much better than any other.  Yet Wexler so whole-heartedly believes in this approach that she goes on in her book to push for everyone to use this curriculum, saying that “the stakes are too high to wait for more evidence.” (Beyond the Science of Reading, 2025)

What the what??

When following this curriculum is a crapshoot?  

What sense does THAT make?

For the record, I’d argue that following any reading curriculum with tight “fidelity” is a crapshoot. 

It behooves us to heed Seidenberg’s wise warning that “Education is a massive enterprise with numerous stakeholders whose interests are not all alike.  Creating the paths to meaningful change is difficult in this environment. Course corrections may be necessary along the way.” 

Another very real issue that must be acknowledged

Further, one of the most common complaints about this curriculum, as found in numerous Facebook groups, is the time it takes.  Far longer than teachers actually have.  While the topics taught in CKLA may well be interesting, they usually don’t tie to state science or social studies standards.  

When the reading curriculum takes so long to do, it inevitably pushes out time for the actual science and social studies concepts kids will eventually be tested on.  It’s also very teacher-talk heavy, meaning there is a whole lot of teacher talk via direct instruction, but little to no time for differentiated small group teaching, writing instruction, or independent reading–all things that are absolutely backed by years of research to make a big impact on reading achievement. 

It’s easy to get so caught up in the programs that, as Tim Shanahan says, “Teachers can get too bogged down in methods, activities, approaches, and the like, and lose sight of the purpose of those actions.”  

As well, the push for our K-2 students to only work on building comprehension through read alouds is another highly questionable current practice.  Of course, reading aloud plays a prominent role in literacy instruction.  It’s my most favorite, high-leverage teaching tool.  

But to assume that kids can leap from listening to reading, where the teacher does all of the decoding and fluency work and guides all the comprehension-building to being able to do all that work independently when they have their own books in their hands (that are not simple decodables), is a little far-fetched.  Shanahan concurs, saying that “Listening skills do not translate to higher reading achievement. The scheme claims to recognize that listening comprehension outpaces reading, but it ignores the kind of time needed to teach reading.”

So in my mind, the best option is to reimagine whatever reading curriculum we have.

None is perfect.  None will work exactly the same in two classrooms.  They all have their strengths, and they all have their limitations.

As always, we must keep in mind what our students need alongside what we’ve learned about teaching and learning.  All that we’ve learned about teaching and learning.  We must do what Seidenberg tells us– that “people need to think about what they are doing and why.”

Sometimes, this will mean de-implementing some of the curriculum mandates we were first handed, as Peter DeWitt  often talks about.  Sometimes, it will mean not letting go of things you know darn well matter a lot for students, like writing instruction or independent reading.  Other times, it will mean we tweak the lessons we’re provided, and make them stronger.  Often, it will mean we “bend the curriculum,” as literacy consultant Leah Mermelstein suggests.  

In other words, we must hold the art of teaching alongside the science of teaching , and use the curriculum for what it is–a helpful resource, not the end-all, be-all.    

If you could use a thinking partner to help you make your curriculum work for your students, reach out!  I’m here to support you through virtual coaching!  Simply email me at [email protected] or reach out for a coaching call!

---

Who is Coach from the Couch??  I’m Michelle, a 24-year veteran educator, currently a K-5 literacy coach.  I continue to learn alongside teachers in classrooms each and every day, and it’s my mission to support as many teachers as I can, because this work is way too hard to do alone. 

Or, consider joining my Facebook community–a safe, supportive environment (really–no blaming or shaming allowed!)  where you can ask questions, learn ideas, and share your thoughts among other literacy-loving educators!