1
RES 5153 Module 4 Application-Reflection | The Critical Impact of a Viable Literacy Curriculum | Latest 2025
Update with complete solutions - American College of Education.
Module 4 Application-Reflection
The Lack of a Guaranteed and Viable
Literacy Curriculum
Sydney C. Kane
American College of Education
RES 5153: Research Methods
Dr. Harold Fisher
August 4, 2024
, 2
Introduction
In recent years, the education system has undergone significant changes, particularly in
English Language Arts (ELA) standards. Unfortunately, our district has observed a decrease in
student literacy proficiency. John Hopkins School of Education states, “Curriculum literacy is a
teacher’s capacity to decide whether a given set of instructional materials is strong or weak – and
how to remedy weak materials. Research shows that the capacity to make these decisions can
have a far-reaching impact on student performance. Teachers who use strong instructional
materials get better results than those who don’t” (Teachers & Curriculum Literacy - JHU
Institute for Education Policy, 2023). That is just what our teacher did. In the past, grade-level
teams disjointedly used fragments of a curriculum to develop their literacy findings and integrate
them into their daily instruction. Teachers could only sustain that habit for so long. According to
most elementary teachers in our district, the issue stems not only from a lack of curriculum but
also from the absence of a consistent, diverse, and effective literature curriculum, which has had
a notable impact on student proficiency. Past implementations have lacked material that builds
new or upon existent background knowledge and reaches many diverse learners.
Our school’s literacy proficiency data is based on the results of students completing the
FAST assessment (Formative Assessment System for Teachers). FAST is a universal screener
that measures the effectiveness of MTSS. The FAST Assessment aims to predict the future
reading success of elementary students. The assessment measures growth, identifies the need for
diagnostic assessments, and monitors the progress of students at risk for reading issues. Because
FAST is a screener measure of a guaranteed and viable curriculum, we hypothesize that the lack
of a guaranteed and viable literacy curriculum prevents a solid foundation of specified
instruction that aligns longitudinally across grade levels. “A guaranteed and viable curriculum is
, 3
one of the most powerful things a school can do to help enhance student achievement is to
guarantee that specific content is taught in specific courses and grade levels” (DuFour &
Marzano, pp. 89–91, 2011).
The 2023-2024 data presented reflects student proficiency and is compromised from a
school-wide Title I building. In Iowa, “schools with greater than 40% of families considered
low-income are qualified to apply funding to school-wide programming” (Reed, 2018).
Specifically, our school’s data showed that 64% of students were at benchmark with a goal of
80% school-wide proficiency. As we looked at drill-down data, we noticed that 77% of students
not identified as Free and Reduced Lunch (FRL) were at benchmark compared to only 52% of
students identified as FRL. Finally, from our data snapshot, we determined that our most
significant data discrepancy was between racial groups. White students were 72% at benchmark,
whereas only 41% of black students were at benchmark. “That is, a guaranteed and viable
curriculum is the school-level factor with the most impact on student achievement, followed by
challenging goals and effective feedback, and so on down the list” (Marzano, p. 117, 2003). The
lack of a guaranteed and viable literacy curriculum has significantly and negatively impacted our
students' proficiency and performance in literacy, especially those in the above specific
sub-groups that extensively make up our school’s student population.
Problem
The problem is the lack of a guaranteed and viable literacy curriculum. Our district needs
to adopt a curriculum encompassing both parts of the concept to give our students the literacy
skills they need to succeed in all literacy components. “The fact that it is guaranteed assures us
that specific content is taught in specific courses and at specific grade levels, regardless of the
teacher to whom a student is assigned. The fact that it is viable indicates that there is enough
, 4
instructional time available to actually teach the content identified as important” (DuFour &
Marzano, pp. 89–91, 2011). The background of the problem is the significant need for a literacy
curriculum that is both guaranteed and viable and lays the foundation of specified instruction that
aligns longitudinally across grade levels. Our students, specifically those at Grant Wood
Elementary, come to school with various backgrounds, knowledge, exposure, and diverse
experiences. Education is not a one-size-fits-all, including what we teach and what is used to
teach our students. To fill those gaps, reach all learners, and grow proficiency, the literacy
curriculum to be implemented must consist of high-quality instructional materials that are
guaranteed to be taught explicitly at grade level, and a viable amount of time is allotted to teach
and implement the required content. “A guaranteed and viable curriculum provides a roadmap
for teachers that guarantees all students gain equal access to a high-quality education” (Manley,
p. 32, 2020).
Purpose
The purpose of this action research study is to describe the impact of a lack of a
guaranteed and viable curriculum on literacy performance and proficiency in an elementary
school setting of 444 students, with 47.3% on FRL. Implementing a guaranteed and viable
literacy curriculum would benefit our diverse student population. It would lay the groundwork
for future learning and remove the burden of teachers creating standards-based lessons from
scratch. Including a team or panel of elementary teachers from various positions and grade levels
would increase teacher buy-in as they were part of the process and experts because they would
teach the curriculum, not upper administrators. Asking teachers to give input and their expertise
should be respected without a biased decision before all curriculums are thoroughly examined
and researched. Reaching out to literacy-successful districts with similar economic statuses and
RES 5153 Module 4 Application-Reflection | The Critical Impact of a Viable Literacy Curriculum | Latest 2025
Update with complete solutions - American College of Education.
Module 4 Application-Reflection
The Lack of a Guaranteed and Viable
Literacy Curriculum
Sydney C. Kane
American College of Education
RES 5153: Research Methods
Dr. Harold Fisher
August 4, 2024
, 2
Introduction
In recent years, the education system has undergone significant changes, particularly in
English Language Arts (ELA) standards. Unfortunately, our district has observed a decrease in
student literacy proficiency. John Hopkins School of Education states, “Curriculum literacy is a
teacher’s capacity to decide whether a given set of instructional materials is strong or weak – and
how to remedy weak materials. Research shows that the capacity to make these decisions can
have a far-reaching impact on student performance. Teachers who use strong instructional
materials get better results than those who don’t” (Teachers & Curriculum Literacy - JHU
Institute for Education Policy, 2023). That is just what our teacher did. In the past, grade-level
teams disjointedly used fragments of a curriculum to develop their literacy findings and integrate
them into their daily instruction. Teachers could only sustain that habit for so long. According to
most elementary teachers in our district, the issue stems not only from a lack of curriculum but
also from the absence of a consistent, diverse, and effective literature curriculum, which has had
a notable impact on student proficiency. Past implementations have lacked material that builds
new or upon existent background knowledge and reaches many diverse learners.
Our school’s literacy proficiency data is based on the results of students completing the
FAST assessment (Formative Assessment System for Teachers). FAST is a universal screener
that measures the effectiveness of MTSS. The FAST Assessment aims to predict the future
reading success of elementary students. The assessment measures growth, identifies the need for
diagnostic assessments, and monitors the progress of students at risk for reading issues. Because
FAST is a screener measure of a guaranteed and viable curriculum, we hypothesize that the lack
of a guaranteed and viable literacy curriculum prevents a solid foundation of specified
instruction that aligns longitudinally across grade levels. “A guaranteed and viable curriculum is
, 3
one of the most powerful things a school can do to help enhance student achievement is to
guarantee that specific content is taught in specific courses and grade levels” (DuFour &
Marzano, pp. 89–91, 2011).
The 2023-2024 data presented reflects student proficiency and is compromised from a
school-wide Title I building. In Iowa, “schools with greater than 40% of families considered
low-income are qualified to apply funding to school-wide programming” (Reed, 2018).
Specifically, our school’s data showed that 64% of students were at benchmark with a goal of
80% school-wide proficiency. As we looked at drill-down data, we noticed that 77% of students
not identified as Free and Reduced Lunch (FRL) were at benchmark compared to only 52% of
students identified as FRL. Finally, from our data snapshot, we determined that our most
significant data discrepancy was between racial groups. White students were 72% at benchmark,
whereas only 41% of black students were at benchmark. “That is, a guaranteed and viable
curriculum is the school-level factor with the most impact on student achievement, followed by
challenging goals and effective feedback, and so on down the list” (Marzano, p. 117, 2003). The
lack of a guaranteed and viable literacy curriculum has significantly and negatively impacted our
students' proficiency and performance in literacy, especially those in the above specific
sub-groups that extensively make up our school’s student population.
Problem
The problem is the lack of a guaranteed and viable literacy curriculum. Our district needs
to adopt a curriculum encompassing both parts of the concept to give our students the literacy
skills they need to succeed in all literacy components. “The fact that it is guaranteed assures us
that specific content is taught in specific courses and at specific grade levels, regardless of the
teacher to whom a student is assigned. The fact that it is viable indicates that there is enough
, 4
instructional time available to actually teach the content identified as important” (DuFour &
Marzano, pp. 89–91, 2011). The background of the problem is the significant need for a literacy
curriculum that is both guaranteed and viable and lays the foundation of specified instruction that
aligns longitudinally across grade levels. Our students, specifically those at Grant Wood
Elementary, come to school with various backgrounds, knowledge, exposure, and diverse
experiences. Education is not a one-size-fits-all, including what we teach and what is used to
teach our students. To fill those gaps, reach all learners, and grow proficiency, the literacy
curriculum to be implemented must consist of high-quality instructional materials that are
guaranteed to be taught explicitly at grade level, and a viable amount of time is allotted to teach
and implement the required content. “A guaranteed and viable curriculum provides a roadmap
for teachers that guarantees all students gain equal access to a high-quality education” (Manley,
p. 32, 2020).
Purpose
The purpose of this action research study is to describe the impact of a lack of a
guaranteed and viable curriculum on literacy performance and proficiency in an elementary
school setting of 444 students, with 47.3% on FRL. Implementing a guaranteed and viable
literacy curriculum would benefit our diverse student population. It would lay the groundwork
for future learning and remove the burden of teachers creating standards-based lessons from
scratch. Including a team or panel of elementary teachers from various positions and grade levels
would increase teacher buy-in as they were part of the process and experts because they would
teach the curriculum, not upper administrators. Asking teachers to give input and their expertise
should be respected without a biased decision before all curriculums are thoroughly examined
and researched. Reaching out to literacy-successful districts with similar economic statuses and
