Category: literacy

  • Solving the staffing crisis is key to the Science of Reading movement

    Solving the staffing crisis is key to the Science of Reading movement

    Key points:

    As someone who’s dedicated my career to advancing the Science of Reading movement, I’ve seen firsthand what it takes to help every child become a strong, fluent reader. We’ve made incredible strides in shifting the conversation toward evidence-based instruction, but I know we’re at a critical inflection point. While we–obviously–continue our work helping schools and districts adopt SOR, there’s an issue that stands in the way of real, sustained, progress: the staffing crisis and leadership churn that are leaving our educators overwhelmed and skeptical toward “change.” Without addressing these deeper structural issues, we risk stalling the momentum we’ve worked so hard to build.

    The hidden costs of constant turnover

    The data on teacher and leader turnover is bleak, and I’ve seen how it undermines the long-term commitment needed for any meaningful change. Consider this: Roughly 1 in 6 teachers won’t return to the same classroom next year, and nearly half of new teachers leave within their first five years. This constant churn is a massive financial burden on districts, costing an estimated $20,000 per teacher to recruit, hire, and onboard. But the real cost is the human one. Every time a new leader or teacher steps in, the hard-won progress on a literacy initiative can be jeopardized.

    I’ve watched districts spend years building momentum for the Science of Reading, providing extensive training and resources, only to see a new superintendent or principal arrive with a new set of priorities. This “leader wobble” can pull the rug out from under an initiative mid-stream. It’s especially frustrating when a new leader decides a program has had “plenty of professional learning” without taking the time to audit its impact. This lack of continuity completely disrupts the 3-5 years it takes for an initiative to truly take hold, especially because new teachers often arrive with a knowledge gap, as only about one-quarter of teacher preparation programs teach the Science of Reading. We can’t build on a foundation that’s constantly shifting.

    Overwhelmed by “initiative fatigue”

    I know what it feels like to have too much on your plate. Teachers, already juggling countless instructional materials, often see each new program not as a solution but as one more thing to learn, implement, and manage. Instead of excitement, there’s skepticism–this is initiative fatigue, and it can stall real progress. I’ve seen it firsthand; one large district I worked with rolled out new reading, math, and phonics resources all at once.

    To prevent this, we need to follow the principle of “pull weeds to plant flowers.” Being critical, informed consumers of resources means choosing flowers (materials) that are:

    • Supported by high-quality, third-party research
    • Aligned across all tiers of instruction
    • Versatile enough to meet varied student needs
    • Teacher-friendly, with clear guidance and instructional dialogue
    • Culturally relevant, reflecting the diverse backgrounds of students

    Now, even when a resource meets these standards, adoption shouldn’t be additive. Teachers can’t layer new tools on top of old ones. To see real change, old resources must be replaced with better ones. Educators need solutions that provide a unified, research-backed framework across all tiers, giving teachers clarity, support, and a path to sustainable student progress.

    Building a stable environment for sustained change

    So, how do we create the stable environment needed to support our educators? It starts with leadership that is in it for the long game. We need to mitigate turnover by using data to understand why teachers are leaving and then acting on that feedback. Strengthening mentorship, clarifying career pathways, and improving school culture are all crucial steps.

    Beyond just retaining staff, leaders must foster a culture of sustained commitment. It’s not enough to have a few “islands of excellence” where a handful of teachers are getting great results.

    We need system-wide adoption. This requires strong leaders to balance support and accountability. I’ve seen how collaborative teams, engaged in problem-solving and data-based decision-making, can transform a school. When teachers see students as “our students” and not just “my students,” shared ownership grows.

    A leader’s job is to protect and sustain this vision, making sure the essential supports–like collaborative planning time, ongoing professional development, and in-classroom coaching–are in place. But sustaining change goes beyond daily management; it requires building deep capacity so the work continues even if leadership shifts. This means hiring, training, and retaining strong educators, investing in future leaders, and ensuring committed advocates are part of the implementation team. It also requires creating a detailed, actionable roadmap, with budgets clearly allocated and accountability measures established, so that any initiative isn’t just a short-term priority but a long-term promise. By embedding these structures, leaders can secure continuity, maintain momentum, and ensure that every step forward in literacy translates into lasting gains for students.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Scaling structured literacy with implementation science

    Scaling structured literacy with implementation science

    When districts adopt evidence-based practices like Structured Literacy, it’s often with a surge of excitement and momentum. Yet the real challenge lies not in the initial adoption, but in sustaining and scaling these practices to create lasting instructional change. That’s the point at which implementation science enters the picture. It offers a practical, research-backed framework to help district leaders move from one-time initiatives to systemwide transformation.

    Defining the “how” of implementation

    Implementation science is the study of methods and strategies that support the systematic uptake of evidence-based practices. In the context of literacy, it provides a roadmap for translating the science of reading, based on decades of cognitive research, into day-to-day instructional routines.

    Without this roadmap, even the most well-intentioned literacy reforms struggle to take root. Strong ideas alone are not enough; educators need clear structures, ongoing support, and the ability to adapt while maintaining fidelity to the research. Implementation science brings order to change management and helps schools move from isolated professional learning sessions to sustainable, embedded practices.

    Common missteps and how to avoid them

    One of the most common misconceptions among school systems is that simply purchasing high-quality instructional materials or delivering gold-standard professional learning, like Lexia LETRS, is enough. While these are essential components, they’re only part of the equation. What’s often missing is a focus on aligned leadership, strategic coaching, data-informed decisions, and systemwide coordination.

    Another frequent misstep is viewing Structured Literacy as a rigid, one-size-fits-all approach. In reality, it is a set of adaptable practices rooted in the foundational elements of reading: Phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. Effective implementation requires both structure and flexibility, guided by tools like the Active Implementation Formula or NIRN’s Hexagon Tool.

    District leaders must also rethink their approach to leadership. Instructional change doesn’t happen in a vacuum or stay confined to the classroom. Leaders at every level–from building principals to regional directors–need to be equipped not just as managers, but as implementation champions.

    Overcoming initiative fatigue

    Initiative fatigue is real. Educators are weary of the pendulum swings that often characterize educational reform. What’s new today may feel like a rebranded version of yesterday’s trend. Implementation science helps mitigate this fatigue by building clear, supportive structures that promote consistency over time.

    Fragmented professional learning is another barrier. Educators need more than one-off workshops–they need coherent, job-embedded coaching and opportunities to reflect, revise, and grow. Coaching plays a pivotal role here. It serves as the bridge between theory and practice, offering modeling, feedback, and emotional support that help educators build confidence and capacity.

    Building sustainable systems

    Sustainability starts with readiness. Before launching a Structured Literacy initiative, district leaders should assess their systems. Do they have the right people, processes, and tools in place? Have they clearly defined roles and responsibilities for everyone involved, from classroom teachers to district office staff?

    Implementation teams are essential. These cross-functional groups help drive the work forward, break down silos, and ensure alignment across departments. Successful districts also make implementation part of their onboarding process, so new staff are immersed in the district’s instructional vision from day one.

    Flexibility is important, too. No two schools or communities are the same. A rural elementary school might need different pacing or grouping strategies than a large urban middle school. Implementation science supports this kind of contextual adaptation without compromising core instructional principles.

    Measuring progress beyond test scores

    While student outcomes are the ultimate goal, they’re not the only metric that matters. Districts should also track implementation fidelity, educator engagement, and coaching effectiveness. Are teachers confident in delivering instruction? Are they seeing shifts in their students’ engagement and performance? Are systems in place to sustain these changes even when staff turnover occurs?

    Dashboards, coaching logs, survey tools, and walkthroughs can all help paint a clearer picture. These tools also help identify bottlenecks and areas in need of adjustment, fostering a culture of continuous improvement.

    Equity at the center

    Implementation science also ensures that Structured Literacy practices are delivered equitably. This means all students, regardless of language, ability, or zip code, receive high-quality, evidence-based instruction.

    For multilingual learners, this includes embedding explicit vocabulary instruction, oral language development, and culturally responsive scaffolding. For students with disabilities, Structured Literacy provides a clear and accessible pathway that often improves outcomes significantly. The key is to start with universal design principles and build from there, customizing without compromising.

    The role of leadership

    Finally, none of this is possible without strong leadership. Implementation must be treated as a leadership competency, not a technical task to be delegated. Leaders must shield initiatives from political noise, articulate a long-term vision, and foster psychological safety so that staff can try, fail, learn, and grow.

    As we’ve seen in states like Mississippi and South Carolina, real gains come from enduring efforts, not quick fixes. Implementation science helps district leaders make that shift–from momentum to endurance, from isolated success to systemic change.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • 3,000 Children Repeating Third Grade Under New Indiana Literacy Requirement – The 74

    3,000 Children Repeating Third Grade Under New Indiana Literacy Requirement – The 74


    Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    About 3,000 Indiana students are repeating third grade this school year for not meeting the state’s reading proficiency standards.

    Data released Wednesday by the Indiana Department of Education showed 3.6% of the 84,000 children who took the statewide IREAD exam were retained in third grade under the first enforcement of a requirement approved by the Legislature in 2024.

    Those 3,040 retained students are more than seven times the 412 children held back in third grade two years ago.

    Education Secretary Katie Jenner credited improved performance by students in the IREAD exam given last school year with the retention figure being lower than anticipated when the literacy requirement was being debated.

    “The numbers that were being thrown out is that it would be 7,000 to 10,000 that this law would trigger retention,” Jenner told State Board of Education members. “But, in fact, a huge shout out to our teachers and our people, we have thousands of kids who are now readers.”

    Education officials announced in August that 87.3% of third graders — about 73,500 out of more than 84,000 students statewide — demonstrated proficient reading skills in 2024-25. They hailed the nearly five percentage point improvement from the previous school year as the largest year-to-year jump since the state began IREAD testing in 2013.

    That left about 10,600 children who didn’t meet the standard, with almost 7,000 being given “good cause exemptions” to avoid retention. Nearly 75% of those given exemptions were special education students and about 24% are English learners with less than two years of specific literacy services.

    Anna Shults, the Department of Education’s chief academic officer, said the new retention requirement was having its intended effect.

    “We are now ensuring that students that are promoted on to grade four are doing so with an ability to read and show mastery of key foundational reading skills,” Shults told the State Board of Education.

    The Department of Education will have an online dashboard providing breakdowns of the Indiana Reading Evaluation and Determination assessment, or IREAD, by school district and individual schools, including charter schools and nonpublic schools.

    Officials noted about 670 children who didn’t meet the literacy standards were not enrolled in Indiana schools this year, saying they likely moved out of state or were being homeschooled.

    Jenner said a determination would need to be made about those students if they returned to Indiana schools.

    “That’s a question that we’ll need to sort through, because some may move back into Indiana, or if they left for homeschool may come back in,” Jenner said. “Because we’re looking at every unique student, I think we’ll try to figure out exactly where they are.”

    According to 2023 data, 13,840 third-graders did not pass I-READ-3. Of those, 5,503 received an exemption and 8,337 did not. Of those without an exemption, 95% moved onto 4th grade while only 412 were retained.

    Indiana Capital Chronicle is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Indiana Capital Chronicle maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Niki Kelly for questions: [email protected].


    Did you use this article in your work?

    We’d love to hear how The 74’s reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers. Tell us how

    Source link

  • What the NAEP Proficient Score Really Means for Learning – The 74

    What the NAEP Proficient Score Really Means for Learning – The 74


    Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    In September, The 74 published Robert Pondiscio’s opinion piece discussing how people without strong reading skills lack what it takes “to effectively weigh competing claims” and “can’t reconcile conflicts, judge evidence or detect bias.” He adds, “They may read the words, but they can’t test the arguments.”

    To make his case, Pondiscio relies on the skill level needed to achieve a proficient score or better on National Assessment of Educational Progress, a level that only 30% of tested students reached on 2024’s Grade 8 reading exam. Only 16% of Black students and 19% of Hispanics were proficient or more.

    Yet naysayers argue that the NAEP standard is simply set too high and that NAEP’s sobering messages are inaccurate. There is no crisis, according to these naysayers.

    So, who is right?

    Well, research on testing performance of eighth graders from Kentucky indicates that it’s Pondiscio, not the naysayers, who has the right message about the NAEP proficiency score. And, Kentucky’s data show this holds true not just for NAEP reading, but for NAEP math, as well.

    Kentucky offered a unique study opportunity. Starting in 2006, the Bluegrass State began testing all students in several grades with exams developed by the ACT, Inc. These tests include the ACT college entrance exam, which was administered to all 11th grade public school students, and the EXPLORE test, which was given to all of Kentucky’s public school eighth graders.

    Both the ACT and EXPLORE featured something unusual: “Readiness Benchmark” scores which ACT, Inc. developed by comparing its test scores to actual college freshman grades years later. Students reaching the benchmark scores for reading or math had at least a 75% chance to later earn a “C” or better in related college freshman courses.

    So, how did the comparisons between Kentucky’s benchmark score performance and the NAEP work out?

     Analysis found close agreement between the NAEP proficiency rates and the share of the same cohorts of students reaching EXPLORE’s readiness benchmarks. ​

    For example, in Grade 8 reading, EXPLORE benchmark performance and NAEP proficiency rates for the same cohorts of students never varied by more than four percentage points for testing in 2008-09, 2010-11, 2012-13 or 2014-15.

    The same, close agreement was found in the comparison of NAEP grade 8 math proficiency rates to the EXPLORE math benchmark percentages. 

    EXPLORE to NAEP results were also examined separately for white, Black and learning-disabled students. Regardless of the student group, the EXPLORE’s readiness benchmark percentages and NAEP’s proficient or above statistics agreed closely.

    Doing an analysis with Kentucky’s ACT college entrance results test was a bit more challenging because NAEP doesn’t provide state test data for high school grades. However, it is possible to compare each student cohort’s Grade 8 NAEP performance to that cohort’s ACT benchmark score results posted four years later when they graduated from high school. Data for graduating classes in 2017, 2019 and 2021 uniformly show close agreement for overall average scores, as well as for separate student group scores.

    It’s worth noting that all NAEP scores have statistical sampling errors. After those plus and minus errors are considered, the agreements between the NAEP and the EXPLORE and ACT test results look even better.

    The bottom line is: Close agreement between NAEP proficiency rates and ACT benchmark score results for Kentucky suggests that NAEP proficiency levels are highly relevant indicators of critical educational performance. ​Those claiming NAEP’s proficiency standard is set too high are incorrect.

    That leaves us with the realization that overall performance of public school students in Kentucky and nationwide is very concerning. Many students do not have the reading and math skills needed to navigate modern life. Instead of simply rejecting the troubling results of the latest round of NAEP, education leaders need to double down on building key skills among all students.


    Did you use this article in your work?

    We’d love to hear how The 74’s reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers. Tell us how

    Source link

  • What Football Can Tell Us About How to Teach Reading – The 74

    What Football Can Tell Us About How to Teach Reading – The 74


    Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    When I go to my son’s football games, I can tell you which team will win — most of the time — just by watching them warm up. It’s not necessarily having the flashiest uniforms or the biggest player; it’s about the discipline, the focus and the precision of their routines.

    A school is no different.

    In my Texas school district, I can walk into a classroom and, in the first five minutes, tell you if effective reading instruction is happening. I don’t need to see the lesson plan or even look at the teacher. I just need to look at the kids. Are they engaged? Are they in a routine? Are they getting the “reps” they need?

    For too long, districts have been losing the game before it starts. They buy a new playbook (i.e., a curriculum) as a “hail Mary,” hoping for a fourth-quarter miracle. Still, they ignore the fundamentals, practice and team culture required for sustainable success.

    Chapel Hill Independent School District is committed to educating all children to compete in an ever-changing world. To that end, we’ve made literacy a nonnegotiable priority across all campuses. We anchor our approach in research-based practices and a culture of continuous learning for both students and staff.

    We’re building for the long run: a literacy dynasty. But our literacy success hasn’t come without putting in the work. We have a relentless focus on the fundamentals and, most importantly, a culture where every player — every teacher and administrator — fits our system.

    Trust the Analytics, Not Your Gut

    In reading instruction, we can’t make assumptions; all instruction has to start with the fundamentals. For decades, instruction was based on gut feelings, like an old-school coach deciding whether to go for it on fourth down or punt based on a hunch. But today, the best coaches trust the analytics, not their gut. They watch the game film.

    Chapel Hill is an analytics district; we do our research. And our game film is the science of reading.

    Many years ago, we started using structured literacy for a small group of students with dyslexia. It worked so well that we asked ourselves: If structured literacy is effective for a small group of students with dyslexia, shouldn’t it be essential for all students?

    We didn’t just adopt a new curriculum; we redesigned our literacy infrastructure — from structured literacy professional development for every teacher to classroom coaching and a robust tiered system of support to ensure no student falls through the cracks.

    That logic is our offensive strategy. It’s why we use tools like the Sold a Story podcast to show our staff why we’ve banned the strategies of a bygone era, like three-cueing. We have to be willing to reprogram the brain to align with what research proves works. But having the right playbook is only half the battle.

    A great playbook is useless without the right team to execute it.

    This is the most crucial part: “First who, then what.” In the NFL draft, teams don’t always draft the most talented player available. They conduct interviews and personality assessments and ultimately draft the player who best fits their system—the cultural fit.

    Tom Brady is arguably the greatest quarterback of all time, but he couldn’t run a read-option offense, which requires a fast, running quarterback. He wouldn’t fit the system, and the team would fail. But put Brady in a play-action offense, sit back and watch the magic happen.

    We operate the same way. When we interview, we’re not just looking for a teacher with excellent credentials and experience; we’re looking for a “Chapel Hill Way” teacher. It’s a specific profile: someone who believes in our philosophy of systematic, explicit, research-based instruction.

    This culture starts with our team captains: our campus principals. We need them to believe in our playbook, not just buy in because the district office said so. We invest in their development so they can champion literacy daily, monitor instruction and ensure every classroom executes our playbook with fidelity. It’s their conviction that turns a curriculum on a shelf into a living, breathing part of our culture.

    Talented teams win games. Disciplined, team-first organizations build dynasties.

    Building a dynasty requires sacrifice. When an educator joins our team, whether they’re a rookie or a seasoned veteran, we ask them to let go of the “I’ve always done it this way” mindset. That’s the equivalent of a player prioritizing their personal stats over a team win.

    It’s a team-first mindset. It’s about a willingness to put personal preference aside to build a championship team. For Chapel Hill ISD, our championship is ensuring every child learns to read.

    Our team-first philosophy has translated into measurable results: Across campuses, students are gaining the foundational skills they need, and data shows growth for every subgroup, including students with dyslexia and multilingual learners. We want students to become a product of our expectations, rather than their environment. Our district, which serves a diverse population, including a high percentage of students classified as low socioeconomic status, consistently scores above the state average in third-grade reading.

    At Wise Elementary, our largest campus[MOU1] , 56% of third graders met grade-level standards, and 23% scored above grade level on the 2023-2024 STARR assessment. And we had similar results across the district.

    So to my fellow education leaders: Before you shop for a new playbook, ensure you have the right team culture in place. Define your culture. Draft the right players. Build your team. Coach your captains. And obsess over the fundamentals.

    That’s how you win.


    Did you use this article in your work?

    We’d love to hear how The 74’s reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers. Tell us how

    Source link

  • I didn’t think I needed the help or advice, but a new literacy teaching coach from afar gave me the self-confidence I lacked

    I didn’t think I needed the help or advice, but a new literacy teaching coach from afar gave me the self-confidence I lacked

    by Thomas MacCash, The Hechinger Report
    November 24, 2025

    I was the only guy in my education classes at Missouri State University, and until this year I was the only male out of nearly 100 teachers in my school. My approach to teaching is very different, and more often than not was met with a raised brow rather than a listening ear.  

    I teach kindergarten, and there are so few men in early childhood education that visitors to my classroom tend to treat me like a unicorn. They put me in a box of how I am “supposed” to be as a male in education without knowing the details of my approach to teaching.  

    As a result, I’d grown skeptical about receiving outside help. When someone new came into my classroom to provide unsolicited “support,” my immediate thought was always, “OK, great, what are they going to cook up? What are they trying to sell me?” I’d previously had former high school administrators come into my classroom to offer support, but they didn’t have experience with the curriculum I used or with kindergarten. The guidance was well-intentioned, but not relevant. 

    Related: A lot goes on in classrooms from kindergarten to high school. Keep up with our free weekly newsletter on K-12 education.  

    My entire view of getting help and support changed when Ashley Broadnax, a literacy coach from New Orleans, nearly 700 miles away, came into my class in St. James, Missouri, population 3,900. Ashley works for The New Teacher Project, or TNTP, a nonprofit aiming to increase students’ economic and social mobility. Once a month for a full academic year, she came in to help us transition to a “science of reading” approach, as part of a special pilot program, the Rural Schools Early Literacy Collaborative. 

    I never thought I would love having a literacy coach and their feedback, but I now believe it is something that can work for many teachers. I hope that as Missouri and other states transition to new ways of teaching reading, more coaches will be available for others who could use the support. The state says that over 15,000 teachers may get trained in the science of reading to help build our knowledge of how children learn to read and what type of instruction is most effective.  

    Ashley had used the curriculum herself and was on hand to provide timely support. This was the first time I received relevant feedback from a former teacher who had firsthand experience with the lessons I was leading.  

    It completely changed my approach and my students’ learning. Although I come from a family of teachers — my mom, grandma and brother all taught — I had started teaching two weeks out of college, and I wasn’t familiar with the new reading curriculum and didn’t have a lot of self-confidence. 

    When Ashley came in for the very first visit, I knew working with her was going to be different. Even though she had never been to St. James, she was sensitive to the rural context where I’ve spent all my life. We’re 90 minutes southwest of St. Louis and a little over an hour southeast of Jefferson City, the state capital. In St. James, you may see a person on a horse riding past a Tesla a few times a year. I’ve seen this world of extremes play out in school open houses and in the learning gaps that exist in my kindergarten classroom.  

    Ashley had researched our community and was open to learning more about our nuances and teaching styles. She was also the first coach I’d met who actually had taught kindergarten, so she knew what worked and what didn’t. As a young teacher with a significant number of students with special needs, I really appreciated this.  

    Related: How coaches for teachers could improve reading instruction, close early academic gaps 

    Ashley provided me with a pathway to follow the new curriculum while also maintaining my unique approach to teaching. Everything came from a place of ensuring that teachers have what they need to be successful, rather than an “I know better than you do” attitude. She would let me know “I loved how you did this” and she’d ask, “Can you extend it in this way?” or tell me, “This was great, here’s how you can structure it a bit further.” 

    Not everything she did to help was profound. But her little tips added up. For example, the curriculum we used came with 10 workbooks for each student as well as stacks of literature, and I needed help integrating it into my lessons.  

    I soon noticed a shift in my ability to teach. I was learning specific ways to help students who were on the cusp of catching on, along with those who weren’t getting it at all.  

    Throughout the course of the year, we saw how our students were more quickly achieving proficiency in English language arts. In my school, according to the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, the percentage of kindergartners reading on grade level went from 82 percent in the fall to 98 percent in the spring; the percentage of first graders on grade level went from 41 percent to 84 percent.  

    There were similar gains across the other schools in my county participating in the pilot program; one school had all of its kindergarten and first grade students demonstrate growth on reading assessments. Those students, on average, made gains that were more than double typical annual growth, TNTP found. 

    I attribute a great deal of this progress to the support from Ashley and her peers. I know I am a better educator and teacher for my students. Her support has made a change for the better in my grade and classroom. 

    Thomas MacCash is a kindergarten teacher at Lucy Wortham James Elementary in St. James, Missouri.  

    Contact the opinion editor at [email protected].  

    This story about literacy teaching coaches was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Hechinger’s weekly newsletter.

    This <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org/teacher-voice-im-a-new-male-kindergarten-teacher-in-rural-missouri-extra-support-made-a-huge-difference-to-my-class/”>article</a> first appeared on <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org”>The Hechinger Report</a> and is republished here under a <a target=”_blank” href=”https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/”>Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src=”https://i0.wp.com/hechingerreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/cropped-favicon.jpg?fit=150%2C150&amp;ssl=1″ style=”width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;”>

    <img id=”republication-tracker-tool-source” src=”https://hechingerreport.org/?republication-pixel=true&post=113481&amp;ga4=G-03KPHXDF3H” style=”width:1px;height:1px;”><script> PARSELY = { autotrack: false, onload: function() { PARSELY.beacon.trackPageView({ url: “https://hechingerreport.org/teacher-voice-im-a-new-male-kindergarten-teacher-in-rural-missouri-extra-support-made-a-huge-difference-to-my-class/”, urlref: window.location.href }); } } </script> <script id=”parsely-cfg” src=”//cdn.parsely.com/keys/hechingerreport.org/p.js”></script>

    Source link

  • In Los Angeles, 45 Elementary Schools Beat the Odds in Teaching Kids to Read – The 74

    In Los Angeles, 45 Elementary Schools Beat the Odds in Teaching Kids to Read – The 74

    This article is part of Bright Spots, a series highlighting schools where every child learns to read, no matter their zip code. Explore the Bright Spots map to find out which schools are beating the odds in terms of literacy versus poverty rates.

    This story is part of The 74’s special coverage marking the 65th anniversary of the Los Angeles Unified School District. Read all our stories here.

    When The 74 started looking for schools that were doing a good job teaching kids to read, we began with the data. We crunched the numbers for nearly 42,000 schools across all 50 states and Washington, D.C. and identified 2,158 that were beating the odds by significantly outperforming what would be expected given their student demographics. 

    Seeing all that data was interesting. But they were just numbers in a spreadsheet until we decided to map out the results. And that geographic analysis revealed some surprising findings. 

    For example, we found that, based on our metrics, two of the three highest-performing schools in California happened to be less than 5 miles apart from each other in Los Angeles. 

    The PUC Milagro Charter School came out No. 1 in the state of California. With 91% of its students in poverty, our calculations projected it would have a third grade reading rate of 27%. Instead, 92% of its students scored proficient or above. Despite serving a high-poverty student population, the school’s literacy scores were practically off the charts.  

    PUC Milagro is a charter school, and charters tended to do well in our rankings. Nationally, they made up 7% of all schools in our sample but 11% of those that we identified as exceptional. 

    But some district schools are also beating the odds. Just miles away from PUC Milagro is our No. 3-rated school in California, Hoover Street Elementary. It is a traditional public school run by the Los Angeles Unified School District. With 92% of its students qualifying for free- or reduced-price lunch, our calculations suggest that only 23% of its third graders would likely be proficient in reading. Instead, its actual score was 78%. 

    For this project, we used data from 2024, and Hoover Street didn’t do quite as well in 2025. (Milagro continued to perform admirably.)

    Still, as Linda Jacobson reported last month, the district as a whole has been making impressive gains in reading and math over the last few years. In 2025, it reported its highest-ever performance on California’s state test. Moreover, those gains were broadly shared across the district’s most challenging, high-poverty schools. 

    Our data showed that the district as a whole slightly overperformed expectations, based purely on the economic challenges of its students. We also found that, while Los Angeles is a large, high-poverty school district, it had a disproportionately large share of what we identified as the state’s “bright spot” schools. L.A. accounted for 8% of all California schools in our sample but 16% of those that are the most exceptional. 

    All told, we found 45 L.A. district schools that were beating the odds and helping low-income students read proficiently. Some of these were selective magnet schools, but many were not. 

    INTERACTIVE

    Map of Los Angeles Area Bright Spots

    

    Some of the schools on the map may not meet most people’s definition of a good school, let alone a great one. For example, at Stanford Avenue Elementary, 47% of its third graders scored proficient in reading in 2024. That may not sound like very many, but 97% of its students are low-income, and yet it still managed to outperform the rest of the state by 4 percentage points. (It did even a bit better in 2025.)
    

    Schools like Stanford Avenue Elementary don’t have the highest scores in California. On the surface, they don’t look like they’re doing anything special. But that’s why it’s important for analyses like ours to consider a school’s demographics. High-poverty elementary schools that are doing a good job of helping their students learn to read deserve to be celebrated for their results.
    

                    
    
                                    
    

    Did you use this article in your work?
    

    
    

    We’d love to hear how The 74’s reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers. Tell us how



    Source link

  • How tutors can support student thinking

    How tutors can support student thinking

    Key points:

    Consider the work of a personal trainer. They can explain and model a workout perfectly, but if the athlete isn’t the one doing the lifting, their muscles won’t grow. The same is true for student learning. If students only copy notes or nod along, their cognitive muscles won’t develop. Cognitive lift is the mental work students do to understand, apply, and explain academic content. It’s not about giving students harder problems or letting them struggle alone. It’s about creating space for them to reason and stretch their thinking.

    Research consistently shows that students learn more when they are actively engaged with the material, rather than passively observe. Learners often forget what they’ve “learned” if they only hear an explanation. That’s why great tutors don’t just explain material clearly–they get students to explain it clearly. 

    Tutoring, with its small group format, is the ideal space to encourage students’ cognitive lift. While direct instruction and clear explanations are essential at the right times in the learning process, tutorials offer a powerful opportunity for students to engage deeply and productively practice with support.

    The unique power of tutorials

    Small-group tutorials create conditions that are harder to foster in a full classroom. Having just a few students, tutors can track individual student thinking and adjust support quickly. Students gain more chances to voice reasoning, test ideas, and build confidence. Tutorials rely on strong relationships, and when students trust their tutor, they’re more willing to take risks, share half-formed thoughts, and learn from mistakes. 

    It’s easier to build space for every student to participate and shine in a tutorial than in a full class. Tutors can pivot when they notice students aren’t actively thinking. They may notice they’re overexplaining and can step back, shifting the cognitive responsibility back to the students. This environment gives each learner the opportunity to thrive through cognitive lift.

    What does cognitive lift look like?

    What does cognitive lift look like in practice? Picture two tutorials where students solve equations like they did in class. In the first, the tutor explains every step, pausing only to ask quick calculations like, “What’s 5 + 3?” The student might answer correctly, but solving isolated computations doesn’t mean they’re engaged with solving the equation.

    Now imagine a second tutorial. The tutor begins with, “Based on what you saw in class, where could we start?” The student tries a strategy, gets stuck, and the tutor follows up: “Why didn’t that work? What else could you try?” The student explains their reasoning, reflects on mistakes, and revises. Here, they do the mental heavy lifting–reaching a solution and building confidence in their ability to reason through challenges.

    The difference is the heart of cognitive lift. When tutors focus on students applying knowledge and explaining thinking, they foster longer-term learning. 

    Small shifts, big impact

    Building cognitive lift doesn’t require a complete overhaul. It comes from small shifts tutors can make in every session. The most powerful is moving from explaining to asking. Instead of “Let me show you,” tutors can try “How might we approach this?” or “What do you notice?” Tutoring using questions over explanations causes students to do more work and learn more.

    Scaffolds–temporary supports that help students access new learning–can support student thinking without taking over. Sentence stems and visuals guide thinking while keeping responsibility with the student. Simple moves like pausing for several seconds after questions (which tutors can count in their heads) and letting students discuss with a partner also create space for reasoning. 

    This can feel uncomfortable for tutors–resisting the urge to “rescue ” students too quickly can be emotionally challenging. But allowing students to wrestle with ideas while still feeling supported is where great learning happens and is the essence of cognitive lift.

    The goal of tutoring

    Tutors aren’t there to make learning easy–they’re there to create opportunities for students to think and build confidence in facing new challenges. Just like a personal trainer doesn’t lift the weights, tutors shouldn’t do the mental work for students. As athletes progress, they add weight and complete harder workouts. Their muscles strengthen as their trainer encourages them to persist through the effort. In the same way, as the academic work becomes more complex, students strengthen their abilities by wrestling with the challenge while tutors coach, encourage, and cheer.

    Success in a tutorial isn’t measured by quick answers, but by the thinking students practice. Cognitive lift builds independence, deepens understanding, and boosts persistence. It’s also a skill tutors develop, and with the right structures, even novices can foster it. Imagine tutorials where every learner has space to reason, take risks, and grow. When we let students do the thinking, we not only strengthen their skills, we show them we believe in their potential.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • 3 strategies to boost student reading fluency this school year

    3 strategies to boost student reading fluency this school year

    Key points:

    With the new school year now rolling, teachers and school leaders are likely being hit with a hard truth: Many students are not proficient in reading.

    This, of course, presents challenges for students as they struggle to read new texts and apply what they are learning across all subject areas, as well as for educators who are diligently working to support students’ reading fluency and overall academic progress. 

    Understanding the common challenges students face with reading–and knowing which instructional strategies best support their growth–can help educators more effectively get students to where they need to be this school year.

    Understanding the science of learning

    Many districts across the country have invested in evidence-based curricula grounded in the science of reading to strengthen how foundational skills such as decoding and word recognition are taught. However, for many students, especially those receiving Tier 2 and Tier 3 interventions, this has not been enough to help them develop the automatic word recognition needed to become fluent, confident readers.

    This is why coupling the science of reading with the science of learning is so important when it comes to reading proficiency. Simply stated, the science of learning is how students learn. It identifies the conditions needed for students to build automaticity and fluency in complex skills, and it includes principles such as interleaving, spacing practice, varying tasks, highlighting contrasts, rehearsal, review, and immediate feedback–all of which are essential for helping students consolidate and generalize their reading skills.

    When these principles are intentionally combined with the science of reading’s structured literacy principles, students are able to both acquire new knowledge and retain, retrieve, and apply it fluently in new contexts.

    Implementing instructional best practices

    The three best practices below not only support the use of the science of learning and the science of reading, but they give educators the data and information needed to help set students up for reading success this school year and beyond. 

    Screen all students. It is important to identify the specific strengths and weaknesses of each student as early as possible so that educators can personalize their instruction accordingly.

    Some students, even those in upper elementary and middle school, may still lack foundational skills, such as decoding and automatic word recognition, which in turn negatively impact fluency and comprehension. Using online screeners that focus on decoding skills, as well as automatic word recognition, can help educators more quickly understand each student’s needs so they can efficiently put targeted interventions in place to help.

    Online screening data also helps educators more effectively communicate with parents, as well as with a student’s intervention team, in a succinct and timely way.

    Provide personalized structured, systematic practice. This type of practice has been shown to help close gaps in students’ foundational skills so they can successfully transfer their decoding and automatic word recognition skills to fluency. The use of technology and online programs can optimize the personalization needed for students while providing valuable insights for teachers.

    Of course, when it comes to personalizing practice, technology should always enhance–not replace–the role of the teacher. Technology can help differentiate the questions and lessons students receive, track students’ progress, and engage students in a non-evaluative learning environment. However, the personal attention and direction given by a teacher is always the most essential aid, especially for struggling readers. 

    Monitor progress on oral reading. Practicing reading aloud is important for developing fluency, although it can be very personal and difficult for many struggling learners. Students may get nervous, embarrassed, or lose their confidence. As such, the importance of a teacher’s responsiveness and ongoing connection while monitoring the progress of a student cannot be overstated.

    When teachers establish the conditions for a safe and trusted environment, where errors can occur without judgment, students are much more motivated to engage and read aloud. To encourage this reading, teachers can interleave passages of different lengths and difficulty levels, or revisit the same text over time to provide students with spaced opportunities for practice and retrieval. By providing immediate and constructive feedback, teachers can also help students self-correct and refine their skills in real time.

    Having a measurable impact

    All students can become strong, proficient readers when they are given the right tools, instruction, and support grounded in both the science of learning and the science of reading. For educators, this includes screening effectively, providing structured and personalized practice, and creating environments where students feel comfortable learning and practicing skills and confident reading aloud.

    By implementing these best practices, which take into account both what students need to learn and how they learn best, educators can and will make a measurable difference in students’ reading growth this school year.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Why one reading expert says ‘just-right’ books are all wrong

    Why one reading expert says ‘just-right’ books are all wrong

    by Jill Barshay, The Hechinger Report
    October 27, 2025

    Timothy Shanahan, a professor emeritus at the University of Illinois at Chicago, has spent his career evaluating education research and helping teachers figure out what works best in the classroom. A leader of the National Reading Panel, whose 2000 report helped shape what’s now known as the “science of reading,” Shanahan has long influenced literacy instruction in the United States. He also served on the National Institute for Literacy’s advisory board in both the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations.

    Shanahan is a scholar whom I regularly consult when I come across a reading study, and so I was eager to interview him about his new book, “Leveled Reading, Leveled Lives.” (Harvard Education Press, September 2025). In it, Shanahan takes aim at one of the most common teaching practices in American classrooms: matching students with “just-right” books. 

    He argues that the approach — where students read different texts depending on their assessed reading level — is holding many children back. Teachers spend too much time testing students and assigning leveled books, he says, instead of helping all students learn how to understand challenging texts.

    “American children are being prevented from doing better in reading by a longstanding commitment to a pedagogical theory that insists students are best taught with books they can already read,” Shanahan writes in his book. “Reading is so often taught in small groups — not so teachers can guide efforts to negotiate difficult books, but to ensure the books are easy enough that not much guidance is needed.”

    Comprehension, he says, doesn’t grow that way.

    The trouble with leveled reading

    Grouping students by ability and assigning easier or harder books — a practice known as leveled reading — remains deeply embedded in U.S. schools. A 2018 Thomas B. Fordham Institute survey found that 62 percent of upper elementary teachers and more than half of middle school teachers teach at students’ reading level rather than at grade level.  

    That may sound sensible, but Shanahan says it’s not helping anyone and is even leading teachers to dispense with reading altogether. “In social studies and science, and these days, even in English classes,” he said in an interview, “teachers either don’t assign any readings or they read the texts to the students.” Struggling readers aren’t being given the chance — or the tools — to tackle complex material on their own.

    Instead, Shanahan believes all students should read grade-level texts together, with teachers providing more support for those who need it.

    Related: Our free weekly newsletter alerts you to what research says about schools and classrooms.

    “What I’m recommending is instructional differentiation,” he said in our interview. “Everyone will have the same instructional goal — we’re all going to learn to read the fourth-grade text. I might teach a whole-class lesson and then let some kids move on to independent work while others get more help. Maybe the ones who didn’t get it, read the text again with my support. By the end, more students will have reached the learning goal — and tomorrow the whole class can take on another text.”

    27 different ways

    Shanahan’s approach doesn’t mean throwing kids into the deep end without help. His book outlines a toolbox of strategies for tackling difficult texts, such as looking up unfamiliar vocabulary, rereading confusing passages, or breaking down long sentences. “You can tip over into successful reading 27 different ways,” he said, and he hopes future researchers discover many more. 

    He is skeptical of drilling students on skills like identifying the main idea or making inferences. “We’ve treated test questions as the skill,” he said. “That doesn’t work.”

    There is widespread frustration over the deterioration of American reading achievement, especially among middle schoolers. (Thirty-nine percent of eighth graders cannot reach the lowest of three achievement levels, called “basic,” on the National Assessment of Educational Progress.) But there is little agreement among reading advocates on how to fix the problem. Some argue that what children primarily need is more knowledge to grasp unfamiliar ideas in a new reading passage, but Shanahan argues that background knowledge won’t be sufficient or as powerful as explicit comprehension instruction. Other reading experts agree. Nonie Lesaux, dean of the Harvard Graduate School of Education who specializes in literacy in her own academic work, endorsed Shanahan’s argument in an October 2025 online discussion of the new book. 

    Shanahan is most persuasive in pointing out that there isn’t strong experimental evidence to show that reading achievement goes up more when students read a text at their individual level. By contrast, a 2024 analysis found that the most effective schools are those that keep instruction at grade level. Still, Shanahan acknowledges that more research is needed to pinpoint which comprehension strategies work best for which students and in which circumstances.

    Misunderstanding Vygotsky

    Teachers often cite the Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky’s “zone of proximal development” to justify giving students books that are neither too easy nor too hard. But Shanahan says that’s a misunderstanding of Vygotsky’s work.

    Vygotsky believed teachers should guide students to learn challenging things they cannot yet do on their own, he said.

    He offers an analogy: a mother teaching her child to tie their shoes. At first, she demonstrates while narrating the steps aloud. Then the child does one step, and she finishes the rest. Over time, the mother gradually releases control and the child ties a bow on his own. “Leveled reading,” Shanahan said, “is like saying, ‘Why don’t we just get Velcro?’ This is about real teaching. ‘Boys and girls, you don’t know how to ride this bike yet, but I’m going to make sure you do by the time we’re done.’ ”

    Related: What happens to reading comprehension when students focus on the main idea

    Shanahan’s critique of reading instruction applies mainly from second grade onward, after children learn how to read and are focusing on understanding what they read. In kindergarten and first grade, when children are still learning phonics and how to decode the words on the page, the research evidence against small group instruction with different level texts isn’t as strong, he said. 

    Learning to read first – decoding – is important. Shanahan says there are rare exceptions to teaching all children at grade level. 

    “If a fifth grader still can’t read,” Shanahan said, “I wouldn’t make that child read a fifth-grade text.” That child might need separate instruction from a reading specialist.

    Advanced readers, meanwhile, can be challenged in other ways, Shanahan suggests, through independent reading time, skipping ahead to higher-grade reading classes, or by exploring complex ideas within grade-level texts.

    The role of AI — and parents

    Artificial intelligence is increasingly being used to rewrite texts for different difficulty levels. Shanahan is skeptical of that approach. Simpler texts, whether written by humans or generated by AI, don’t teach students to improve their reading ability, he argues.

    Still, he’s intrigued by the idea of using AI to help students “climb the stairs” by instantly modifying a single text to a range of reading levels, say, to third-, fifth- and seventh-grade levels, and having students read them in quick succession. Whether that boosts comprehension is still unknown and needs to be studied.

    AI might be most helpful to teachers, Shanahan suspects, to help point to a sentence or a passage that tends to confuse students or trip them up. The teacher can then address those common difficulties in class. 

    Shanahan worries about what happens outside of school: Kids aren’t reading much at all.

    He urges parents to let children read whatever they enjoy — regardless if it’s above or below their level — but to set consistent expectations. “Nagging may not be effective,” he said. “But you can be specific: ‘After dinner Thursday, read the first chapter. When you’re done, we’ll talk about it, and then you can play a computer game or go on your phone.’ ”

    Too often, he says, parents back down when kids resist. “They are the kids. We are the adults,” Shanahan said. “We’re responsible. Let’s step up and do what’s right for them.”

    Contact staff writer Jill Barshay at 212-678-3595, jillbarshay.35 on Signal, or [email protected].

    This story about reading levels was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Proof Points and other Hechinger newsletters.

    This <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org/proof-points-shanahan-leveled-reading/”>article</a> first appeared on <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org”>The Hechinger Report</a> and is republished here under a <a target=”_blank” href=”https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/”>Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src=”https://i0.wp.com/hechingerreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/cropped-favicon.jpg?fit=150%2C150&amp;ssl=1″ style=”width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;”>

    <img id=”republication-tracker-tool-source” src=”https://hechingerreport.org/?republication-pixel=true&post=113055&amp;ga4=G-03KPHXDF3H” style=”width:1px;height:1px;”><script> PARSELY = { autotrack: false, onload: function() { PARSELY.beacon.trackPageView({ url: “https://hechingerreport.org/proof-points-shanahan-leveled-reading/”, urlref: window.location.href }); } } </script> <script id=”parsely-cfg” src=”//cdn.parsely.com/keys/hechingerreport.org/p.js”></script>

    Source link