School districts across the country are rethinking how they teach children to read, and Needham is at a pivotal moment in that debate. With growing criticism of “balanced literacy” — including the widely used Units of Study curriculum — Needham Public Schools has launched a pilot program to evaluate new literacy curricula and determine the best path forward.
Background: A Shifting Literacy Landscape
Reading instruction has long been a subject of debate, and school systems seem to try different approaches every 15 years or so. For a decade, Needham Public Schools has used Units of Study as its core literacy curriculum, aiming to create consistency across schools after years of fragmented literacy instruction. The program emphasized reading through exposure to books and context clues over phonics instruction.
But research has challenged this approach, showing that students — particularly those who struggle with reading — benefit from instruction in phonemic awareness (the ability to identify and manipulate the individual sounds in spoken words) and phonics to build foundational literacy skills. An approach called “science of reading” — based on decades of research in cognitive science — emphasizes phonemic awareness, systematic phonics, fluency, vocabulary and comprehension.
Critics of balanced literacy, including the newly formed Needham Literacy Coalition, point to studies showing that students need direct, structured instruction in all of these areas to develop strong reading skills. They argue that Units of Study fails to adequately teach foundational reading skills, leaving students, particularly those with disabilities and English learners, at a disadvantage.
“A third of our kids aren’t meeting MCAS expectations,” said coalition member Carolyn Kenline. “For marginalized groups, it’s two-thirds. We just don’t think it’s working.”
More than 40 states have passed laws mandating curricula that align with the science of reading. Massachusetts, where curriculum decisions are left to individual districts, has no such requirement — though a bill currently under consideration on Beacon Hill could change that.
Needham Puts Reading Instruction to the Test
As part of its periodic curriculum review, Needham Public Schools is piloting four literacy programs to assess their effectiveness and alignment with the latest research on reading instruction. The goal is to select a curriculum that improves outcomes for all students, particularly those who have historically struggled with reading.
The four curricula being tested are:
- Units of Study — A newly updated version that purports to incorporate phonics and align more closely with reading science.
- American Reading Company (ARC) — A knowledge-based literacy curriculum with structured reading components.
- Benchmark Advance — A comprehensive literacy program integrating reading, writing and phonics.
- Collaborative Classroom — A literacy approach blending reading, writing and social-emotional learning.
Teachers in select classrooms are implementing the pilot curricula, while the district tracks their effectiveness through classroom observations, student assessments and teacher feedback. The evaluation process includes measuring student reading growth, reviewing teacher-reported challenges, and analyzing engagement levels across different student groups. Additionally, the School Department is seeking community feedback through public forums and an online survey to gauge parent perspectives on literacy instruction.
However, the Needham Literacy Coalition is concerned that the pilot is being set up to reach a particular conclusion, with the updated Units of Study being the only curriculum piloted in all grades. Coalition members question why a program with no Department of Elementary and Secondary Education or EdReports approval continues to receive district support and funding while other, research-backed programs were excluded from the pilot.
Lisa Messina, the school department’s director of literacy, pushed back on claims that the pilot lacks balance, emphasizing that the district is considering multiple options.
“We’re not piloting the discredited curriculum,” Messina said. “We’re piloting a revised version that claims to align with the science of reading. The pilot will determine if the changes the publishers made to the most recent version are enough.”
Balancing Budgets, Policies and Student Needs
The pilot faces several challenges that could influence the final decision on curriculum adoption.
One major consideration is cost. The price of these curricula varies significantly, with Units of Study updates costing around $1,000 per classroom, while ARC could require as much as $1.7 million for districtwide implementation.
While cost is a major factor, the price of the curriculum alone does not tell the full story. Some curricula, like ARC, include classroom libraries and other tools, while others require additional purchases for full implementation. Some even require the purchase of a separate, supplemental phonics program.
The district must also consider evolving state standards. Massachusetts is revising its review process for literacy curricula, and changes could impact which programs receive state approval or funding.
Equity remains a pressing issue in Needham’s literacy debate. Any new curriculum must address the needs of historically underserved students — particularly those with disabilities, English learners and students from lower-income backgrounds. Ensuring all students receive effective, research-based instruction will be key to closing existing literacy gaps.
District officials acknowledged the challenges of literacy reform, particularly for struggling students.
“It’s unacceptable to have students not meeting their full potential,” said Messina. “We’ve made strides, but I have yet to find a district that’s cracked this for the 20% of students who consistently struggle.”
The Road Ahead: How and When Needham Will Decide
When the current school year concludes, the literacy steering committee will analyze pilot data, including classroom observations, student assessments and teacher feedback. If one program stands out as the clear choice, the steering committee will recommend it for adoption. The School Committee will then vote on the final curriculum selection. However, if results are inconclusive, the pilot may be extended into the next school year, or additional modifications may be made to refine the evaluation process.
“Needham should be addressing this with some urgency,” said Mike Moriarty, a member of the state Board of Elementary and Secondary Education who has long advocated for stronger early literacy instruction. “The selection of curriculum matters a great deal.”
Save as PDF