How a Comprehensive
Blueprint Prevents Isolated Solutions and Inconsistent Results
Dear Colleagues,
Introduction
Well. . . “all of a sudden,”
there has been a nationwide rush of policy, publication, media, and legal
attention to students’ academic outcomes. . . in the area of reading. And
interestingly, from a national and state proficiency perspective—at least as
measured by tests like the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)
and annual state standards/proficiency assessments, not much has changed.
And that, in fact, is the problem.
With all of the attention and
billions of dollars invested over the past twenty years in improving student
reading, student progress still is lacking... especially for students of
color and students with disabilities.
And for all of the national
reading “experts”—who have tried to address literacy at the curriculum and
instruction levels, at the assessment to intervention levels, and at the
student policy to practice levels—once again, progress is lacking.
And, I’m not blaming. . . I’m
just exclaiming.
_ _ _ _ _
While there are many triggers to
this “new” (actually, déjà vu) national focus on literacy instruction and
student proficiency, let me mention a few.
- First: Last week, on February 20, 2020, as part of a legal settlement agreement, the state of California agreed to provide $53 million for early (Kindergarten to Grade 3) literacy instruction—and a range of services to support this—for 75 Los Angeles schools with the highest concentrations of 3rd grade students scoring at the lowest level on the state’s reading tests.
This court-approved amount
settles a 2017 lawsuit that maintained that the Plaintiff’s constitutional
rights by failing to teach them to read. The Plaintiff’s were children from two
schools in the Los Angeles area, and one child from Stockton. These children
sued the California Board of Education, the State Education Department, and the
State Superintendent for Education.
If that did not get the
attention of state departments of education across the country, I’m not sure
what will.
_ _ _ _ _
- Second: Across the country, many states are realizing that their laws—requiring schools to retain students who are not reading at grade level at the end of Third Grade—are not resulting in substantially more students who are proficient in the different areas of reading.
Some of these states have now
decided that pre-service teacher preparation programs and post-employment
professional development offerings are lacking a sound and evidence-based focus
on the science of reading.
Thus, they are now passing
legislation that requires that these two groups of teachers (predominantly at
the elementary school level) master reading instruction that is grounded in
scientific research. Significantly, some of these laws have specified that
teachers need to demonstrate competence in the five components of reading and
in other skill areas (e.g., receptive/expressive language, students’
experiential and content knowledge) that contribute to reading proficiency.
Critically, some
of this legislation has focused only on teacher knowledge of typical learners.
. . rather than on the knowledge and understanding of able, struggling, and
disabled readers, and on ensuring that classroom teachers behaviorally
demonstrate differentiated instruction and other, related skills, behaviors,
and interactions.
Some—but not all—of this
legislation has focused on the fact that many university-based (and other)
teacher training programs have faculty (as well as clinical and internship
supervisors, and other coaches) who do not know (and/or reinforce) the reading
science-to-practice. . . but need to.
And some—most, in fact—of the
involved legislators have focused on isolated “pieces of the literacy puzzle”
without understanding (a) the complexity of the puzzle, (b) which pieces are
missing, and (c) which pieces are interdependent with others.
_ _ _ _ _
According to Education Week,
in the past three years alone, eleven states have enacted laws to better ensure
that evidence-based reading instruction is occurring, at least, in Kindergarten
through Grade 3. Significantly, a number of states are expected to follow
suit—increasing this number during the coming spring legislative sessions.
This is interesting because, in
May 2015 (not five years ago), the International Literacy Association
reported that (a) up to
34 states had no specific professional teaching standards in reading for
elementary teachers; (b) up to 24 states had no literacy or reading course
requirements; (c) many states had no practicum or internship requirements for
literacy practice and supervision; and (d) many states did not require a test
to assess competency in reading instruction for teacher-licensure candidates.
“Braiding Five Critical Concerns for Children: Reading
Instruction, Grade Retention, Skill Remediation, Response-to-Intervention, and
Chronic Absences. Why Effective Practice Needs to Dictate Good Policy (Rather
than the Other Way Around).”
_ _ _ _ _
- Third: Two recent surveys—of 3,500 principals by the RAND Corp.’s American Educator Panel program, and 1,467 special education teachers in the Council for Exceptional Children’s “State of the Special Education Profession” report—noted that:
* Many principals—especially in schools serving more
students of color—felt that they could be doing more to support students with
disabilities, but that they felt unprepared to meet these students’ needs as
school leaders;
This is significant given that (a) the largest percentage
of students with disabilities in most schools are identified as having learning
disabilities in reading; and (b) most states in this country have demonstrated
extremely poor outcomes relative to improving the reading proficiency of these
students.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _
What’s Missing in Our Country’s
Attempts to Improve Reading?
Education Week crystallized many of
the issues discussed above in a special report, “Getting Reading Right,” that
was published on December 4, 2019.
Some of the important points made in this
Report included the following:
- Learning to read is arguably the most important academic experience students will have during their school years. But it’s not a given.
- The “nation’s report card” shows that just 35% of 4th graders are proficient readers despite decades of cognitive research clarifying exactly what skills students need to be taught to read fluently.
- The cognitive science is clear: Teaching systematic phonics is the most reliable way to ensure that children learn how to read words.
- And yet, most K-2 teachers and education professors are using instructional methods that run counter to the cognitive science.
- These flawed methods for teaching reading are often passed down through cherished mentors, popular literacy programs, and respected professional groups.
- Many teachers leave preservice training without clarity on what the cognitive science says about how students learn to read.
- An analysis of the five most-used programs for early reading shows that they often diverge from evidence-based practices.
While a significant contribution
to our national discussion, I believe that this discussion has not maximized
its effects on all students because of three missing factors:
- We are not conceptualizing literacy instruction and students’ reading proficiency within a systemic, ecological, multi-factored, and multi-tiered continuum that is built on evidence-based blueprints.
- We are developing and implementing policies, procedures, processes, and practices in disorganized, segmented, and disparate ways such that “whole has holes, and the parts never add up to a whole.”
- We are not effectively using the psychoeducational research relative to child development, learning and cognition, psychometrics and assessment, and data-based decision-making and evaluation.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
The rest of this Blog (Part I)
presents the essential blueprints that must be considered when “piecing
together” a sound multi-tiered system of literacy instruction and supports.
These blueprints include the
following:
Blueprint
1: The Principles Underlying
Effective Educational Policy
_ _ _ _ _
Blueprint 2: A
Psychoeducational Science-to-Practice Blueprint for Effective Literacy
Instruction and Multi-Tiered Services and Supports
The seven flaws and ten scientifically-based
practices that create an effective, comprehensive multi-tiered system of
supports for literacy.
_ _ _ _ _
Blueprint 3: Understanding
the Instructional Environment and Its Contribution to Student Reading
Proficiency
- Teacher/Instructional Factors
- Curriculum and Support Factors
- Student Learning and Mastery Factors
_ _ _ _ _
Blueprint 4. The Data-based
Problem-Solving Blueprint for Struggling and Failing Readers
_ _ _ _ _
Blueprint 5. The Seven High-Hit
Reasons Why Students Struggling or Fail in Reading
_ _ _ _ _
Blueprint 6: The Multi-tiered Positive Academic Supports and Services
Continuum
_ _ _ _ _
Part II of this Blog series will
continue to discuss the state of literacy intervention (linking Blueprint 5 and
Blueprint 6), and the multi-tiered questions needed to address the needs of
struggling readers and students with reading disabilities.
_ _ _ _ _
I hope that this Blog provides a
comprehensive perspective of the complexity of literacy instruction in our
schools, and the challenges that we face in helping more students to become
proficient readers.
I appreciate the time that you
invest in reading these Blogs, and your dedication to your students, your
colleagues, and the educational process.
Please feel free to send me your
thoughts and questions.
And please know that I continue
to work on-site with schools across the country. . . helping them to maximize
their instructional and support resources as they fully implement these
blueprints with high levels of success and impressive student outcomes.
I would love to work with your
school or district. Contact me at any time.
Best,
Howie
