Image shows brass balance scale on wood desk with state standards binder on one side and stack of reading programs on the other.

Who Says Knowledge-Building Has to Come in a Boxed Program?

By now, the education world is well aware of how important it is for students to know things about the world. What they bring to their reading and writing in terms of background knowledge and experience is paramount. And that, of course, is where companies have stepped in to provide “knowledge-building” curriculum. But is it necessary to purchase a whole program for knowledge-building? Or can we do this on our own, guided by our own state standards?

An important question.

Let’s take a look at the basic premise of knowledge-building curricular programs.

Usually, there is a scope of topics that progresses over years. These core topics begin at a more basic level and then gradually build, adding more and more nuance to concepts and vocabulary as the years progress.

These programs also include text sets around each big topic. The types of texts included vary, where some programs heavily rely on mainly expository material, others use a mix of genres. The discussions, writing, and all the teaching within a unit is all centered around that one concept.

Excellent premise. Knowledge of concepts both widens and deepens over time. Vocabulary around these topics is built. Writing about what students are reading about is a very sound practice. It builds writing skills and deepens reading comprehension, something Graham and Hebert reported on in a 2010 meta-analysis that included experimental and quasi-experimental research studies.

But do we really need a boxed program to do this for us?

Not really.

Teachers can pretty easily replicate this same approach, using their own K-12 social studies and science state standards.

State standards provide the content and topics around which a scope and sequence can be built. These topics were designed to build over the grade levels and are what students are expected to know when they graduate school. They are their own, perfectly legitimate knowledge-building sequence.

Teachers can build units, discussions, text sets, and focus writing that’s centered around these specific topics, just like purchased programs do. Teachers can begin with a more basic text, video, or image, then sequence texts to follow in a way that builds deeper and deeper vocabulary and conceptual understanding. (I say much more about text sets in this post).

Because here’s the thing.

School itself is inherently built upon the idea of knowledge-building.

Standards guide how we design the curriculum. Math concepts build upon each other. Reading and writing skills deepen over time. Science and social studies concepts gradually layer, adding depth and breadth to students’ understanding.

Curriculum is what we teach–the learning we want to instill in students. With this in mind, we then make decisions about which tools, activities, and resources we employ to deliver the lessons we plan. This can come from our own design, or it can come from a program. The Literacy View podcast hosts explain this difference nicely in the video clip below.

But, isn’t more knowledge always a good thing?

Wouldn’t knowledge from the boxed reading program on top of what our standards say we need to teach just be the icing on the cake?

In a perfect world, yes.

But…

Some of the biggest questions that must be raised with programs, however, is what knowledge gets included? Why? And what is left out? Why? Who is advantaged? Why? Who is disadvantaged? Why? Dr. Nancy Bailey explains this issue beautifully in a post about one very widely-adopted knowledge-building reading program, CKLA.

Given the rigor and pace these programs are designed for, how much will teachers need to supplement in order to help all learners access the content? How much time will that take? Is this realistic, given the myriad tasks in a teacher’s week?

And here’s another question.

The reality is that teachers have very limited time. If the focus of knowledge-building is placed on what the boxed program provides, and that program takes up so much time that there isn’t really any time left to do justice to the curriculum our standards demand, we risk just replacing the knowledge our state standards deem important with the knowledge the program’s authors say matters most.

So while yes, we might be teaching students about XYZ, there may not have been room to teach what our standards list as ABC. Students might well know all about the causes and effects of the War of 1812, and they might well have a deep understanding of fossils. But will they just as deeply understand what your state standards want students to know about? If your state assesses students in social studies or science, this would likely mean your students may be ill-prepared.

It’s not sexy, and it’s not a new idea.

School is already designed to build knowledge. It’s what school is for.

Maybe we don’t actually need to buy a separate “knowledge-building” curriculum to do something that our schools, teachers, and standards are already designed to do.

Coach from the Couch Michelle Ruhe doing virtual coaching session for literacy teachers.

Who is Coach from the Couch?I’m Michelle Ruhe, a 25+ 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.