New York City’s Middle School Curriculum Makeover
The challenge of raising student achievement in one of the nation’s most complex public education systems has prompted yet another sweeping reform. Mayor Eric Adams and Schools Chancellor Melissa Aviles-Ramos announced that, beginning this September, 186 New York City middle schools will be mandated to adopt new, evidence-based reading and math curricula. This expansion, targeting roughly half a million students, aims to bring consistency and higher standards to classrooms that serve as gateways between elementary and high school.
At the heart of this initiative are two citywide mandates: NYC Reads for literacy and NYC Solves for math. Both are not just policy slogans but represent a sharp turn toward structured, research-backed programs in a district marred by uneven student success. Elementary and high schools have already experienced a version of this curriculum streamlining. Middle schools — often the overlooked middle child in education policy — now find themselves in the spotlight as test results reveal persistently low reading and math proficiency. According to the latest state assessments, less than 50% of New York City students achieve reading proficiency and just over 50% meet math standards. In Mayor Adams’ pointed words, these “inexcusable” numbers demand a better path forward.
Yet as educators and families know well, introducing new curriculum is never just about textbooks, lesson plans, or talking points at city hall. It’s personal. It determines whether an eighth-grader finally discovers a love of reading or continues to dread the school day. The city’s curriculum selection process has tried to address past critiques: the controversial HMH Into Reading, once faulted for being “boring” and offering only snippets — rather than rich, whole books — has been left out of this phase. Instead, most districts will implement EL Education’s reading program, with a few selecting Wit & Wisdom for a more literature-rich approach. Brooklyn’s District 19 is piloting this alternative, while Staten Island’s District 31 will focus only on math for now.
Students in math get to see another side of the standardization effort. Middle schools can choose from three city-approved programs—Illustrative Mathematics, Amplify Desmos, or IReady Mathematics—under the NYC Solves program. Variety here could be a double-edged sword: schools are expected to tailor choices to student needs, but with rigid city mandates, how much choice actually remains?
Promises of Equity — and the Realities in the Classroom
Supporters believe unified curriculum is the first step towards remedying chronic disparities between schools separated by nothing more than subway stops, but worlds apart in resources. “We can’t continue to do the same things that we have been always doing and expect better results,” said Mayor Adams, voicing a sentiment echoed by so many frustrated parents and educators. Standardizing curriculum is meant to anchor all students in the same high expectations, whether their family lives in the shadows of Wall Street or the Bronx’s Grand Concourse.
This sounds laudable, but the history of education reform in New York and beyond teaches us to be skeptical of silver bullets and top-down mandates. Joseph P. McDonald, professor emeritus at NYU Steinhardt, warns, “Curriculum alone is only part of the puzzle. What really matters is the professional community—the support, the training, and the buy-in from teachers who work with our kids every day.”
The city promises robust coaching and professional development as part of NYC Reads and NYC Solves. But ask a veteran teacher in East New York or Washington Heights, and you’ll often hear about the training that failed to materialize or the scripted lessons that fit awkwardly with the unique needs of a class. The rollout of HMH Into Reading in elementary grades, for example, left many teachers and students cold—its emphasis on short excerpts drained the joy from reading while leaving struggling learners to slip between the cracks. “We were told this was evidence-based, but it felt like another experiment with our students as guinea pigs,” one Brooklyn teacher reflected.
Are we at risk of repeating the same errors by expecting a curriculum alone to act as a panacea for deep-rooted inequity? The answer hinges on whether the system invests in more than materials—on whether teachers are actually empowered to adapt, deepen, and breathe life into lessons, and on whether struggling students get the real, individualized support they deserve. If not, promises of improvement will remain just that: promises.
“The success of any curriculum lies not in the script but in the skill and care of the teacher who brings it to life. Without authentic investment in our educators and the communities they serve, new mandates become yet another layer of bureaucracy on already overburdened classrooms.”
According to a 2023 Pew Research Center report, curriculum changes often yield the biggest dividends when paired with intensive teacher training and robust interventions for students who fall behind. Piecemeal changes rarely move the needle on opportunity. What’s needed is a commitment to see these reforms as the beginning, not the endpoint, of a broader campaign for educational justice.
Fixing the System or Papering Over Deeper Issues?
New York City’s latest round of curriculum mandates is arriving at a moment when public faith in education is under strain. Acrimonious battles over charter schools, discipline, and standardized tests have exposed tensions between equity and local control. Some conservative critics argue that curriculum overhauls are little more than performative bureaucratic reshuffling, insisting that “back to basics” approaches and standardized benchmarks are the only way to guarantee rigor. These arguments often ignore the deep and lingering legacies of segregation, underfunding, and structural racism that shape children’s opportunities before they ever pick up a book.
Progressive advocates recognize that you can’t raise standards by waving a magic wand or imposing a one-size-fits-all playbook from above. Real reform is about “changing the culture of schooling,” as Harvard education scholar Jal Mehta insists. It requires empowering teachers, reducing class sizes, investing in whole-child supports, and acknowledging the complexities of the city’s diverse student body. Curriculum alone—no matter how evidence-based—cannot substitute for the resource deficits and social challenges endemic to so many city schools.
A closer look reveals that New York’s public schools are hungry for both innovation and stability. The promise of “evidence-based” programs rings hollow when not paired with the resources and trust needed to bring them alive. “The difference between a script and real teaching,” says Bronx principal Angela Torres, “is everything. We need support, collaboration, and time to adapt, not just binders and mandates.”
Yet even as weary teachers brace for another change and parents wonder what all this disruption will yield, the urgency for something better can’t be denied. No child’s education should depend on their zip code. If New York City can turn this mandate into a foundation for honest, inclusive, and creative learning, then perhaps standardized curriculum will begin to narrow gaps, not merely paper them over.
That, of course, requires the sustained commitment of policymakers and communities to not just enforce the letter of curriculum reform, but embody its spirit—one that values students as individuals, empowers teachers, and places educational justice at the very heart of public life.
