The following are bulleted highlights from the first literacy committee meeting on 11/19/24:

On November 19, the committee convened to review three curriculum presentations. Using the rubric developed during the last literacy committee meeting, the team collaboratively identified strengths and areas of concern for each curriculum. Below are the overall rankings and feedback summaries for the three curriculums. The committee's work will continue with three additional presentations scheduled for December 5.

1. Benchmark Advanced

Benchmark Advanced was praised by the committee for its comprehensive and well-structured curriculum that aligns with standards and provides a clear scope and sequence. It includes diversified materials, Tier 2 and 3 support, and resources for both print and online use. The explicit teaching of writing and spiraling of skills were highlighted as strengths, along with engaging content and rigor.

However, some concerns were noted:

• The extensive materials and components could feel overwhelming for teachers.

• The phonics section could be more robust and we do have the option of pairing a different phonics program with the knowledge building portion of this curriculum.

• Fitting writing instruction into the daily schedule might be challenging.

• Program does not guarantee ready-made teaching slides, and it does include consumable materials yearly for all students.

Overall, it was deemed user-friendly compared to alternatives, with strong potential for district-wide continuity and common language in literacy instruction.

2. Wit and Wisdom

Wit and Wisdom was praised for its engaging and diverse texts, rigorous content, and deep dives into trade books, which support a well-rounded student experience. Strengths included academic language, writing opportunities and culturally responsive instruction. The inclusion of art and repeated use of the same read-aloud texts with different focuses was also appreciated by the group.

However, some concerns were noted:

• Lack of phonics instruction and Spanish materials.

• Accessibility of whole-group texts for struggling readers and multilingual learners.

• Challenges with fitting the program into classroom schedules and supporting varied learners.

• A perceived need for more teacher preparation in culturally responsive instruction.

Overall, while the program was valued for its rigor and depth, additional support for diverse learners and clearer implementation guidance were recommended.

3. Open Up EL Education

Open Up curriculum received mixed feedback from the committee. Praise included the large resource library, explicit phonics instruction, and components needed for rigorous instruction.

However, some concerns were noted:

• Perceived as confusing, overly open-ended, and difficult to implement.

• Lack of clear structure may lead to inconsistency across classrooms.

• Time management challenges, particularly with extended independent work periods and skill blocks.

• The committee expressed concerns about the workload and potential for feeling overwhelmed.

Overall, while the curriculum has valuable elements. However, the concerns over better organization, clearer structure, and the risk of inconsistency were of great concern to the group.

As we reflect on our journey with Letterland, I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the dedication and commitment our teachers have demonstrated in implementing this curriculum.

The time and energy you’ve invested in bringing Letterland to life in your classrooms is extraordinary. From mastering the program’s unique elements to creatively engaging students with its characters and activities, your hard work has made this curriculum an integral part of our learning environment. We recognize the countless hours spent preparing lessons, tailoring activities to meet the needs of your students, and ensuring that every child had the opportunity to engage with literacy in meaningful ways. Your efforts have been a cornerstone of this program’s success, and for that, I am deeply grateful. As we transition to new approaches, we carry forward the lessons and experiences that have shaped our practices, knowing they were built on your unwavering commitment and hard work.

I have received additional questions as to why we must discontinue this curriculum. The Letterland curriculum is not approved by MDE/READ Act; it will be discontinuing. We are accepting Literacy Aid and therefore cannot pursue unapproved curricula. We are considering a curriculum that is up for re-review and has been adopted by multiple school districts who were early science of reading adopters and are getting excellent results. Due to this, MDE is reconsidering that curriculum for approval. Letterland was not approved and is not being considered for re-review. We are not getting results with this curriculum unless it is being delivered with additional Orton-Gillingham or LETRS science of reading strategies requiring substantial time for teachers to supplement.

Not only are we advised to discontinue this curriculum due to restrictions under the Read Act, I also want to call attention to some concerning stereotypes within the Letterland Curriculum that are incongruous with our district's commitment to Equity and Inclusion. The following are just a few examples:

• The letter q is represented as a quarrelsome queen. As a female leader, this stereotype is one that unfortunately resonants with me. In the newest Letterland updates, the quarrelsome queen has been changed to quizzing queen who must be quiet; this effort to make the curriculum more inclusive is still perpetuating cisgender norms and stereotypical gender roles and attributes.
• The prominent Latino character, Fix-it Max, within Letterland is a handy man.
• The original Black female character is Talking Tess, who misses details often because she is overly talkative.