Why You SHOULDN’T Follow a Textbook With Fidelity

For almost my entire teaching career, I haven’t had to use a curriculum.  When I first started teaching in first grade, we had some old Reading Street books in closets.  We “used the stories” but then basically taught whatever we want.  Other than my foray into first grade, though, I had no textbook.  My team and I worked to create or find all the things we needed to teach (which is where I started making things for TPT-to use in my own classroom.)

But then the Virginia Literacy Act was implemented, and all districts in Virginia had to select a textbook from an approved list.  And Virginia is not alone.  In fact, almost all states (over 40 and counting) have implemented legislation requiring schools to use evidence-based reading practices.  In practice, this means adopting a curriculum of some sort.

But is a prepackaged curriculum the answer?  Is there a textbook out there that can “do it all?”   Here’s the truth: no curriculum is perfect, no curriculum can stand as-is and fit the needs of all your students, and no curriculum can replace the most powerful tool of all—teacher knowledge.

Today, I want to talk to you about a few things.  First, we’re going to explore what’s wrong with textbooks.  Then, I’m going to give you a few tips for things you can do to improve the utility of textbooks.  And none of those tips require you to follow a textbook with fidelity.

Where Textbooks Get it Wrong

Lack of Efficacy Studies

My biggest complaint about textbooks is this: teachers are expected to follow them “with fidelity.”  There’s this notion that if a textbook is just followed faithfully, then students will make progress.  It is inherently assumed that the textbook offers all the solutions for every reading difficulty a child might come across-but only if you follow exactly what it says.

But, should we follow a textbook blindly?  Do we have evidence to tell us that certain textbooks have evidence to prove their efficacy?  The answer to both of those questions is a resounding “no.”

Every single textbook company will tell you that they are research-based.  But all that means is that there are aspects of the textbook that research has shown to be effective.  It does not mean that this textbook as presented has been independently tested and proven to be effective.  That kind of research is EXPENSIVE, and there’s very little of it (There is some research that came out about CKLA in particular, that you can read here).

In 2009, Dewitz et al. analyzed five major core reading programs and asked an important question: do these “research-based” programs actually use comprehension strategies in the same way the original research did? They wanted to know whether the textbooks that claim these strategies are effective were providing instruction that resembled the conditions under which those strategies were proven to work.

Their findings were pretty surprising. The original researchers provided significantly more direct explanation and guided practice than what appears in today’s core programs. Dewitz et al. noted that “the researchers almost always provided more direct-explanation and guided-practice lessons than the core reading programs do” (p. 104). This gap is not a small detail. It speaks to whether students are getting enough modeling, practice, and support to actually learn the strategies the programs advertise.

So what does this mean for teachers? It means that while many of the skills and strategies in these programs are grounded in research, the programs themselves do not come close to delivering the level of explicit instruction that made those strategies successful in the original studies. When the instructional time and quality do not match the research conditions, we simply cannot expect the same results in our classrooms.

Textbook Curricula Doesn’t Spiral

Another problem with textbooks is how they are written. Anyone who has spent their summers working on curriculum for their county can tell you that one person alone cannot create a full K–5 plan. Textbook companies face the same challenge. They must hire large teams to write different grade-level materials, and although they may use shared templates or rubrics, the reality is that multiple people are creating pieces of what is supposed to feel like one cohesive curriculum. When so many hands are in the pot, cohesion inevitably suffers, and the result is a set of grade-level textbooks that do not always talk to each other.

This becomes especially obvious when you look at the supposed “spiraling” of skills. Many programs claim that their comprehension skills and strategies build across years, but when you actually track a single skill, such as point of view, the progression often falls apart. What first graders learn does not always connect to what second graders learn, and by the time students reach upper elementary, the skill may be taught in a completely different way or at a totally different depth. Teachers are told the curriculum spirals, but the materials themselves do not show a logical, intentional staircase of learning.

The same problem appears with content. Very few programs intentionally build background knowledge from year to year. I can think of only one curriculum (Benchmark) where the units align across grade levels so that the topics in kindergarten connect meaningfully to the topics in first grade, second grade, and beyond. Most programs jump from topic to topic without any careful consideration of what students have already learned or what knowledge would best prepare them for later grades. Because different writers create different pieces, no one is stepping back to ask the bigger questions: Is this content coherent? Does it build? Will students actually benefit from the order in which these units are placed?

Without that intentional design, teachers end up carrying the burden of stitching everything together, even though the curriculum claims to do it for them.

Tech Sessions Designed as Professional Development

My third complaint about textbooks is the lack of true professional learning that comes with them. When my district adopted a new curriculum, we were told it included professional development, and I remember feeling hopeful. Unfortunately, the “training” we received focused entirely on how to access the digital platform, where to find the pacing guide, and how to click through the online components. None of it helped teachers understand how to actually teach reading, and none of it strengthened the knowledge or skills we bring to our classrooms.

This has become one of the biggest missteps I see textbook companies make. Teachers do not need more tutorials on where the buttons are located. They need professional learning that deepens their understanding of reading instruction and helps them make informed instructional decisions. Instead of limiting their support to product navigation, companies should be hiring experienced educators and literacy consultants who can provide real professional learning that actually elevates teacher practice.

The absence of this kind of support is incredibly discouraging, especially when we know how important teacher knowledge is in every part of literacy instruction. When the curriculum arrives without meaningful professional learning, teachers are left to fill in the gaps on their own, even though the need for expert guidance has never been greater.

What Can We Do Instead?

Prune the Excess

Here is the thing about textbook companies: they want to sell to as many districts as possible. To do that, they have to make their programs as wide-reaching and universally appealing as they can. You want balanced literacy? They have leveled texts and anchor charts galore. You want structured literacy? They have hurriedly added a phonics component to check that box too. Instead of committing to one approach with clarity and purpose, many companies simply layer structured literacy on top of balanced literacy without removing anything. The result is a curriculum that tries to please everyone and ends up overwhelming the very teachers it is supposed to support.

This desire to be everything to everyone shows up in the day-to-day lessons as well. The pages are overflowing with visuals, sidebars, teaching notes, comprehension skills, strategy boxes, and an avalanche of questions. Some programs expect you to reread the same text so many times that even your most patient students start to give you the side-eye. No teacher can realistically deliver every single component, and no class of students needs all of it. The sheer volume works against you because it makes it harder to determine which pieces will actually move student learning forward.

So my first tip for improving both the functionality of your textbook and the success of your students is to think carefully about what you do not need. This is where pruning comes in. Look through the lessons and identify the parts that can be trimmed without sacrificing clarity or purpose. Maybe you eliminate one of the repeated readings. Maybe you skip the tenth comprehension question because the first nine already covered it. Maybe you shorten a discussion so you have time for actual practice. The goal is not to throw out the program, but to scale it down so the essential pieces can shine and your instruction can stay focused and effective.

Evaluate the Vocabulary

My second tip is to take a close look at the vocabulary your textbook asks you to teach. Most programs present every vocabulary word as if it carries the same weight and deserves the same level of attention. They hand you a list, give you a routine, and expect you to apply that routine to every single word, whether it is truly important or not. This is not how vocabulary instruction works, and it certainly is not how we build long-term language knowledge for our students. If we want to strengthen vocabulary, we need to recognize that not all words are created equal.

Tier 2 words are the ones that deserve the bulk of our instructional time because they transcend the specific story or passage and show up across content areas, grade levels, and real-world texts. These are the academic power words that actually move students forward as readers. Tier 3 words, on the other hand, are content-specific. They should be taught only to the depth needed for students to understand the passage at hand, not treated as if they are life-long academic tools (unless you’re teaching a content-area class. In that case, PLEASE teach the Tier 3 words in depth!). If your class is reading about volcanic eruptions, the word magma might matter for comprehension, but it does not require the same level of deep, conceptual instruction that a Tier 2 word like analyze or impact would.

This is where textbook vocabulary lists start to fall apart. I have seen programs expect teachers to teach words like locomotive with the same intensity and routine they would use for a foundational Tier 2 word. That is not necessary. Sometimes “locomotive means a type of train” is all students need in order to understand the text and move on. The real work comes in identifying the handful of words that deserve deeper exploration and intentionally planning activities that help students internalize them. This might involve a Frayer model, yes-or-no questions, sentence frames, or other explicit vocabulary strategies that build strong conceptual understanding.

So when you look at the vocabulary your textbook provides, decide which words are worth digging into and which ones can be taught quickly or skipped altogether. Focus your energy on the words that will support students not just now, but throughout their academic lives. Your goal is not to get through the entire list, but to teach the right words really well.

Actively Build Background Knowledge

My third tip may make me sound like a broken record, but I will happily repeat it on every podcast, Instagram caption, and blog post because it matters that much. Teachers need to actively build background knowledge. One of the biggest weaknesses in most textbooks is that they focus almost entirely on activating background knowledge instead of building it. I will give credit where it is due and say that the programs released in the past two or three years are improving in this area, but we still have a long way to go.

For the most part, textbooks try to activate knowledge by throwing out prompts like “What do you already know about this topic?” or by asking students to complete a KWL chart. In theory this sounds fine, but in reality it often sets students up to start from nothing. I once saw a fourth-grade unit on the space race that asked students what they already knew about the space race. They were nine years old. They knew absolutely nothing. Asking students to share information they do not have is not the same thing as giving them the knowledge they need to understand the upcoming text.

My suggestion is to shift from activation to construction. Before reading, look closely at the text and ask yourself what background knowledge is assumed. If there is information that would give students an edge in comprehension, offer it proactively. This does not mean you need to conduct a full science or social studies lesson. You simply need to identify the key concepts that will appear in the text and give students a brief, accessible introduction. For example, if your class is about to read a story that takes place during a drought, spend a minute explaining what a drought is, how it affects a community, and why it might matter in the story. That short burst of knowledge creates a scaffold that allows students to follow the plot and understand the stakes without getting lost.

The goal is not to teach an entire unit before every passage, but to make thoughtful decisions about which bits of knowledge will unlock comprehension. When students walk into a text with a small amount of well-chosen context, their cognitive load eases, their confidence grows, and their understanding deepens. Actively building background knowledge is one of the simplest and most powerful ways to improve comprehension, even when the textbook falls short.

Final Thoughts

Textbooks can offer structure, resources, and a jumping-off point, but they are not the magic solution to reading instruction. The real power lies in the teacher who knows how to evaluate what is in front of them, make thoughtful choices, and adapt instruction to meet the needs of real students in real classrooms. When we prune the excess, focus on meaningful vocabulary, and intentionally build background knowledge, we take back control of our instruction. No curriculum will ever be perfect, but with strong teacher knowledge and strategic decision-making, we can make any program work better for the students we serve.

Works Mentioned:

Dewitz, Peter, Jennifer Jones, and Susan Leahy. “Comprehension strategy instruction in core reading programs.” Reading research quarterly 44.2 (2009): 102-126. (PDF available for free on Google Scholar)

Wexler, Natalie. “Dramatic New Evidence That Building Knowledge Can Boost Comprehension and Close Gaps.” Forbes, 9 Apr. 2023, https://www.forbes.com/sites/nataliewexler/2023/04/09/dramatic-new-evidence-that-building-knowledge-can-boost-comprehension-and-close-gaps/. (forbes.com)