TROY, MI — The Troy School District Board of Education is grappling with rising concerns over its elementary reading and writing curriculum as student proficiency scores continue to decline — part of a broader trend linked to the use of now-disputed teaching methods across Michigan.
At its latest meeting, the board considered whether to continue using the "Units of Study" curriculum, developed by education professor Lucy Calkins. While the curriculum has been widely used in districts across the country, it has come under fire in recent years for lacking alignment with the “science of reading,” a research-based approach emphasizing phonics and explicit instruction.
A resolution was brought forward to approve the continued use of the writing component of the Calkins curriculum for grades K–5 starting in the 2025–2026 school year. After lengthy discussion, the board voted 5–2 in favor of the plan, though the vote revealed a deep divide over the curriculum’s effectiveness.
If you are not yet a paid subscriber please consider becoming one. I left the mainstream legacy media to go independent. I can’t keep doing this without you.
One board member, who voted against the adoption, expressed strong concern that the curriculum does not reflect the latest evidence-based practices. “Our district must begin to align all literacy instruction with the science of reading,” the member said. “The curriculum you’re asking us to approve has been widely criticized for lacking a strong evidence base and not adequately addressing foundational skills. Adopting this would be a step backward.”
Another board member echoed those concerns, sharing that after speaking with administrators in other districts that had transitioned away from Calkins' "Units of Study," she was left questioning why Troy hadn’t explored more alternatives. “I think we lost out on an opportunity to do a deeper dive into other curriculums. That was disappointing to me,” she said.’
These concerns are not unique to Troy. As Michigan Capitol Confidential recently reported, numerous Michigan school districts saw reading scores decline after adopting the Calkins-style curriculum. Troy’s own third-grade English Language Arts proficiency fell from 84.6% in 2014–15 to 63.2% in 2023–24, even as the district spent over $170,000 on reading consultants. The report cited experts who say the decline coincides with the implementation of balanced literacy methods and a move away from phonics-based teaching.
However, supporters of the Calkins curriculum on the board pointed to important strengths. One member who voted in favor of the adoption said the curriculum has been in place for nearly a decade and has evolved over time with improvements in areas such as grammar and spelling. “This is not a brand new curriculum. It’s something our teachers are already familiar with and support,” the member said. “Even those who don’t fully endorse it are mostly concerned with timing, given expected changes in the state’s reading curriculum.”
Another board member added, “The writing that was talked about is motivating for students. It’s not just workbook-based — it’s rich, student-driven, and encourages creativity. That’s important.”
The board emphasized that while the writing curriculum was approved, it does not mean the conversation is over. Several members suggested a reassessment of the reading program may be on the horizon.
“We may reassess our writing and reading curriculum together and make adjustments as needed,” said one board member, acknowledging the growing momentum toward science-of-reading approaches.
The vote reflects the tension between honoring teacher familiarity with an existing program and responding to data and research that call for change.
What’s next:
The board plans to closely monitor writing outcomes over the next two years.
Possible changes to the district’s reading curriculum are expected as the state finalizes new literacy mandates.
Ongoing discussions with teachers, administrators, and parents will help shape future decisions.
While some board members argue that change is needed now, others believe that building on the current curriculum — with continuous improvement and teacher support — can still benefit students.
“We all want what’s best for kids,” said one board member. “This decision was difficult, but it reflects our desire to keep moving forward, even as we keep learning.”
