EPIC researchers tell subcommittee Michigan elementary classrooms use hundreds of literacy resources; many lack strong evidence
Loading...
Summary
EPIC researchers told the House Appropriations Subcommittee that Michigan elementary classrooms use a large number of ELA resources and that more than two-thirds of teachers rely on materials that EDReports rates as unrated or not meeting expectations; researchers urged consistent evaluation and expanded professional development.
Researchers from the Education Policy Innovation Collaborative (EPIC) told the House Appropriations Subcommittee that literacy curriculum use in Michigan elementary classrooms varies widely, with teachers using a large pool of core and supplemental resources and many of those materials lacking strong independent evidence of effectiveness.
“Elementary LA curriculum across Michigan varies widely,” said Emily Moore, managing director at EPIC. Moore summarized results from EPIC’s multi‑year study with Michigan State and the University of Michigan, noting that the state surveys tracked curriculum use and that many commonly used resources lack independent ratings from sources such as What Works Clearinghouse or Evidence for ESSA.
Why it matters: wide variability in instructional materials raises equity concerns because students in different classrooms may receive substantively different literacy instruction. EPIC researchers said increased professional development and coaching are important complements to materials selection, especially in districts with lower ELA performance.
Key findings presented: - EPIC reported that the total number of resources reported used in 2019 was 464 across elementary ELA (EPIC used statewide surveys collected from 2020–2023 as part of a larger study tied to Read by Grade 3). - The research team found many teachers were supplementing core curricula with professional texts, assessments and materials from teacher marketplaces; EPIC reported that teachers increasingly used supplemental phonics, writing and spelling resources to fill instructional gaps. - “More than two thirds of teachers still use curriculum resources that are either unrated or do not meet expectations according to Ed Reports,” Moore said. - EPIC said the majority of commonly used resources do not have ratings from What Works Clearinghouse or Evidence for ESSA, creating a knowledge gap about their effectiveness. - EPIC documented increased professional development focused on curriculum implementation in districts with low ELA performance and higher shares of economically disadvantaged students, but noted rural educators received less support than suburban and urban counterparts.
Dr. Adria Truckenmiller, associate professor of special education at Michigan State and an EPIC research affiliate, told the committee that curriculum markets and limited diagnostic assessments complicate statewide implementation. “There’s this persistent history in education that curriculum is typically driven by the market as opposed to what is shown to work in scientific studies,” she said, and she noted that only one of the top‑ten programs used statewide had been examined in a controlled research study.
On assessments, Truckenmiller said many commonly used screening tools do not provide the diagnostic detail teachers need (phonics, fluency, language comprehension) and that combining complementary measures (for example, a computer‑adaptive screener plus a curriculum‑based fluency measure) can improve accuracy for intervention decisions.
Discussion vs. decisions: EPIC presented evidence and policy recommendations—evaluate curriculum resources, promote consistency while preserving teacher judgment, and expand curriculum‑aligned professional development and coaching—but the subcommittee did not take formal action on those recommendations at this meeting.
Ending: EPIC asked MDE and legislators to use evidence and the committee process to guide materials and coaching investments and to address rural professional‑development disparities.
