Philly schools spent $25 million on a new English curriculum. Here’s what teachers are saying about it.

Standardizing the curriculum was a priority when Superintendent Tony B. Watlington Sr. came to Philadelphia, and he allocated millions in federal stimulus funds to purchase new, research-based programs: Math rolled out last school year, and English late last month.

The district spent $25 million on two sets of English Language Arts materials: Expeditionary Learning for grades K-8, and Study Sync for 9-12, which adopt the so-called science of reading approach.

The stakes are high: Just 35% of district students read at grade level.

While some Philadelphia School District teachers called the curriculum “evidence-based” and “wonderful,” others have been vocal about their struggles with the new material. They say they had inadequate preparation to teach it and find it overly prescriptive, and, in some cases, uninteresting for students.

Both elementary and secondary teachers have said they are overwhelmed:

“This is not a resource,” a high school teacher said. “This is a burden.”

In response to the concerns, a district spokesperson said both curricula were rated highly by external research and also reviewed internally.

“While teachers are learning the program, it is common that they will encounter pacing challenges that we take into account when studying implementation,” Christina Clark said in a statement. “… We understand that teachers are learning, and we are providing supports at the system level and school level to support effective implementation.”

Grant funding from the William Penn Foundation will continue to support teacher training on the new materials, Clark said. The district’s own ELA team has also developed support materials for the curriculum, she said.

The Inquirer talked with dozens of teachers from schools around the city about the new curriculum. Here’s what some of them said.

Mark Macyk was “evangelical” about the district’s former ELA curriculum, implemented just two years ago and written by district teachers to be more culturally responsive. People visited his classroom — he teaches sixth and eighth graders at Steel Elementary in Nicetown — to observe his teaching.

But when Macyk, a Lindback Award winner, saw his students’ scores on state tests last year, he was downcast. Kids showed growth, but nowhere near the gains he had expected. Macyk then began delving into research about the science of reading and stronger writing instruction.

The curriculum is quite scripted, and his eighth-grade students have said they liked the old way better, Macyk said, but, “it’s rigorous and evidence-based.

Though the prior curriculum “transformed who I was as a teacher, it felt like we were building a house without a foundation,” Macyk said. “Now, we’re building the foundation. In the whole first unit, we’re spending time on [sentences]. Then we move on to paragraphs, then essays. … It’s the fourth week of school, but I see gaps being closed so much quicker.”

Kathryn Melnick, a first-grade teacher at Childs Elementary in Point Breeze, agrees. She knows she’s a good teacher, but with the prior curriculum, “I just felt like I wasn’t reaching enough kids.”

She has critiques about the new curriculum: Her students have seemed bored at points, but “part of that is me trying to figure it out. As I get used to it, I can go faster and be more entertaining.”

Jamie Goldberg, a school-based teacher leader at McDaniel Elementary in South Philadelphia, is unequivocal: “I actually think it’s a wonderful program; I think it will be really beneficial to children,” she said. Goldberg likes the extra time dedicated to literacy, skills, and small group work, which makes for more individualized attention.

But there’s a caveat — “it wasn’t properly rolled out,” Goldberg said. “Teachers weren’t provided enough time to get to know the curriculum, the components. People are overwhelmed, and I totally get it.”

Most teachers gained access to the new English curriculum in the spring, with paid summer training sessions offered but not mandated. When staff returned to work the week before students reported to class on Aug. 26, teachers got less than a full day of training on the curriculum and were told that it was a two-day training condensed into a few hours.

Cristina Gutierrez teaches kindergartners in a dual-language program. She’s working with a new Spanish curriculum and the new English curriculum and finds it extremely tough.

“It’s a lot. I am exhausted in planning and implementing, and it’s a constant cognitive demand on the children — they have 15 minutes of recess; it’s a rush all day long,” said Gutierrez. Some of her students have never been to school. Some cannot even hold a pencil.

Her kindergartners aren’t taking to the curriculum, Gutierrez said.

“They check out, and there’s no way to bring them back,” she said. And as for Gutierrez? “I’m sure this is going to cause an amazing exodus of teachers,” she said. “If I could find something else doing whatever that pays me the same, I would leave.”

Another elementary school teacher who wanted to remain anonymous for fear of reprisal echoed Gutierrez’s complaint of exhaustion, confounded by a platform that’s cumbersome and “a lot of moving pieces … a ton of preparation. My kids are very active, and it’s hard to keep their attention, and there are some things I can’t go over; I just don’t have the time. It’s been a rough go.”

One veteran elementary teacher called it “unsustainable, hours and hours of prep, 25 extra hours of work a week on our own time,” and was particularly frustrated by what she described as a combined 1,000 pages of teacher guides per unit. (Each school year includes multiple units.)

“I don’t think they understand how we’re supposed to make this work,” said the veteran teacher, who also feared repercussions for speaking out.

Some of the provided slides are incorrect, the veteran said.

“I have to tell the kids, ‘Cross that out, the definition is wrong,’” the teacher said. “And we were told explicitly we’re not allowed to leave anything out. Maybe I’m not seeing the forest for the trees here, but if teachers and kids can’t follow it, it doesn’t matter if it’s the science of reading. It’s impossible to follow.”

The Philadelphia Federation of Teachers is gathering feedback and data about the new English curriculum after hearing about widespread teacher frustration, said Arthur Steinberg, PFT president.

Concerns raised include the large numbers of hours of prep needed to prepare lessons, and the requirements for teachers to make many “anchor charts” — visual aids to help students remember key concepts — and bring in their own equipment to teach lessons. (One recent lesson asked for teachers to distribute dolls to help understand a concept; another asked for spatulas.) Teachers are also making many more copies, a potential issue in schools that don’t always have adequate copy paper.

“They’re spending hours at night making these charts, and then they have to bring in things from home, like kitchen equipment. They don’t have the materials they need for the program,” said LeShawna Coleman, PFT’s chief of staff.

(Clark said the extras like dolls and kitchen equipment are optional.)

“A number of veteran teachers say it’s difficult — folks have worked there for years, and they’re saying they’re frustrated and talking about leaving,” said Steinberg.

After a member survey is complete and data gathered, Steinberg and Coleman say, they plan to present information to the district and advocate for changes to help improve teacher and student experiences.