Loyal School Board tables ARC reading curriculum again

After the American Reading Company (ARC) curriculum was brought up for discussion for the second meeting in a row, the Loyal School Board again opted to table purchasing the curriculum for the elementary school after concerns were voiced. Like what happened at the May board meeting, a couple of parents spoke against the ARC curriculum at the most recent meeting June 28.

“I think everyone there (at the May meeting) was informed about ARC. But that being said, it was clear that it was the only option that was researched thoroughly. And although it may be recommended by some organizations and schools, other options were not brought in for comparison,” said parent Curtiss Lindner.

“This topic was tabled, and it was requested that more information and a plan be presented to show how this would be implemented, including how to get teachers on board to teach it. As to my knowledge from the staff I’ve chatted with, no new communication was presented to them, aside from a potential training or workshop that was offered yesterday and today. I have talked to a few board members as well to simply ask if they were presented with any new plan for implementation, to which the answer was no.”

He asked that the board hold off on approving ARC until there was an “adequate plan” for implementation and clear communication with the staff.

Currently, the school district uses ARC at the middle school level and a curriculum called Wonders at the elementary level. The district was looking at adopting ARC in the elementary, in part to create continuity between grade levels. Also, the Greenwood School District uses ARC. The Loyal and Greenwood school districts are looking to collaborate more across grade levels and subject areas, which would be easier if they had the same curriculum. Loyal also already purchased ARC’s Independent Reading Level Assessment (IRLA) kits last year with the thought of using them this year. District Administrator Chris Lindner said that he and 7-12 grade Principal Doug Dieckman had talked with some of the teachers about piloting ARC in first and fourth grade this coming school year.

However, parent and Title I teacher Pam Smith, one of those who would be teaching the curriculum, cautioned against it. She said that other school districts that had used ARC had needed to supplement it with additional materials to help students learn to read. She asked why the school district should spend a lot of money (more than $8,000 per grade level) on ARC when it wasn’t enough.

She also said that ARC uses a leveling system, in which students take a test and are assigned a reading level. The levels are based on the difficulty of the book according to vocabulary and content. She said that despite the popularity of leveled books since the 1940s, research did not support the claim that reading levels helped students grow in reading.

“Tim Shanahan, a literacy expert, says, ‘I have sought studies that would support the original contention that we could facilitate student learning by placing kids in the right levels of text. Of course, guided reading and leveled books are so widely used that there would be lots of evidence as to their efficacy. Except that there is not.’ This quote is from 2011, and yet we’re still looking at curriculums that use leveled reading. Reading is such a complex subject to teach, but research shows that leveled reading is not educationally helpful,” said Smith.

She also said leveled reading could be socially and emotionally detrimental.

“After discussing low-level readers with the ARC rep last month, she recommended I suggest to students that they nestle their lower-level reader into a higher level reading book so that they’re not embarrassed by their reading level. I was appalled by that,” said Smith. “I don’t think we need to be teaching levels, but skills… Currently, we do not use a system that levels our students’ reading abilities. Instead teachers are focused on students’ skills, so that they can read whatever they want to. Instead of going forward, ARC pushes us backward. There are plenty of programs that would be enough and could be implemented with research backing, and we should be looking into those.”

Heidi Lind, another elementary Title I teacher, spoke. While she did not address ARC or any other reading program by name, she said, “we really need to make sure that whatever program we choose is strong in phonemic awareness and phonics.”

After the public comments, the board discussed the item. Board president Dennis Roehl asked what it would cost to update the Wonders curriculum to its newest version, but Dieckman didn’t have a price for that. For ARC, there are four units of instruction per school year and each unit is just over $2,000. A unit includes the teacher manual, student workbooks and a library of books. It would cost about $8,500 for a grade level to pilot the program for a year. Even if the school switched to a different curriculum, it could continue to use the books.

The school has just under $100,000 in Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) funding that can be used for curriculum and has to be spent by September 2024.

“So could we look into, what if you would pilot Wonders also?” asked Roehl. “You pilot them and see which one performs better, and that’s the one you go with. Otherwise, if we pilot one and don’t give anything else to go against, how — and I think we almost have to look at the updated version of Wonders to give us apples to apples… If we piloted them both, I think we would know after a while which one’s better, and I think that’s fair.”

Dieckman gave some additional context as to why the school district was considering ARC. He said the school district pays for services from CESA 10, and the people at CESA keep track of what’s going on in the education world and regularly host curriculum rodeos where they meet with educational vendors, analyze their offerings and see how well they line up with state standards.

“CESA doesn’t endorse a curriculum, but endorses programming. So when looking at UDL, Universal Design for Learning, is a big endorsement for them, that style of learning… So American Reading Company, their framework fits very well into that,” said Dieckman.

“They have a network already established for ARC on the third Tuesday of each month where they pull in presenters and specialists. There’s a network of eight schools right now that are running that. So they’re very supportive of the framework and the deliverables that this offers. So that’s what got our interest in it originally and that’s what continues to bring my interest because of where we’re relying on, and I know it’s not a one-stop shop, but we’re paying for services and typically we rely on CESA to make a recommendation because they have the time, energy and resources to look at what’s out there,” he added.

“Does CESA look at Wonders too? Or no?” asked Roehl. “Yeah, so they have a network of vendors, yes,” said Dieckman.

“OK, so no matter what we could use CESA for one of our reading curriculums,” said Roehl.

“Right, so if you looked at their strategic support for materials, they’ll look at a bunch of different — yup,” said Dieckman.

Board member Derek Weyer asked what the response was when the administration talked to the first and fourth grade teachers about piloting the program.

“I talked to the fourth grade teachers and they were both open to doing a pilot,” said Dieckman. “And my thought would be if you were willing to do a pilot, it would be nice to do two grade bands because there’s differences in the skills and the goals and the strategies there.”

“I just think if you’re going to pilot one, you should pilot more than one. I really do. Otherwise, you’re not giving anything else a fair shake, you know,” said Roehl.

“I think that might lead to a discussion of how do we select curriculum moving forward. Do we have a requirement of three or four have to be reviewed? You know, do we use the guidance coalition that you put together and rely on their guidance and opinions? Like I said at the last meeting, clearly you’re passionate about ARC and I don’t know enough to debate, but I’d sure like to see some more staff stand up and say ‘Yeah, I’m supportive of this,’ just so it doesn’t fail,” said Weyer.

“And I would say one way you can do it like you’re saying is, utilize some services that we’re paying for. They do these rodeos with curriculum and programming; it’s getting some of our people over to the rodeos or the adoption services and support that CESA provides,” said Dieckman.

Roehl offered the idea of having the first and fourth grades switch to ARC, while the other grades switched to the updated version of Wonders as a comparison. Odeen suggested just having fourth grade try ARC, because they should be more advanced readers, so perhaps would pick up on the curriculum easier, and it wouldn’t take as much funds out of the ESSER pot.

“And if it’s possible, to get the upgrade for that grade just for Wonders and be able to have that grade look at it, I would be in favor of that,” said Odeen. “And if Greenwood is already using ARC, could there be some collaboration? You know, what has worked well in the past? What isn’t working well? Can those teachers collaborate a little bit more and how will that work going forward?”

“The problem is, we’re getting two sides to this. One says ‘Oh, my God, don’t do this’ and the other side says it’s the best thing ever. So how do we know who’s right?” said Roehl.

Weyer said he would like to see a coalition of teachers look at curricula and decide, along with administration, which one they think is the best and bring that back to the board.

“Until a teacher stands up in front of me who’s actually going to be tasked with doing a pilot and they say they’re OK with this, I’m not comfortable with assigning them the pilot. I don’t think that’s fair,” said Weyer.

Roehl pointed out that if the administration and staff were going to work together to look at curricula, they should wait until they hired a director of curriculum, because that person should part of the discussion.

Dieckman said when he came to Loyal and the school was changing its math curriculum, the administration worked with a couple of people from CESA, who laid out the pros and cons of each product, and from there they decided. So he wanted CESA to be involved.

Odeen made a motion to table purchasing the ARC curriculum until further notice, seconded by Dave Clintsman. The motion carried unanimously.

The next Loyal School Board meeting will be Monday, July 24, in the school district conference room, with open session at 7 p.m.