Here's What States Can Do to Truly Boost Student Literacy
Some states are incentivizing schools to teach systematic phonics AND build kids' academic knowledge and vocabulary.
Unlike most other developed countries, the United States leaves decisions about curriculum to local school districts—and often to principals and even individual teachers. Especially in the area of reading, the result has been instruction that doesn’t work for many students. One reason is that teachers often don’t have time to find or create good materials. Another is that during their training, most educators have absorbed beliefs that contradict what science has discovered about how people learn to read—and how they learn in general.
With reading, a big problem is that the standard approach to teaching children to sound out words, or “decode,” isn’t systematic enough for many kids. Quite a few states have passed legislation requiring that teacher training and curriculum materials follow the “science of reading,” which is often seen as centering on decoding skills.
But decoding is only one part of the issue. An even more widespread and better hidden aspect is the standard approach to teaching comprehension, which focuses on “skills” like “making inferences,” divorced from any particular content. As scientists have known for decades, reading comprehension depends far more on knowledge—either of the topic or of general academic vocabulary—than on abstract skills. Children of more highly educated parents are better able to pick up academic vocabulary at home, but others depend on school for that.
The most effective way to ensure all kids will have the vocabulary to understand what they’re expected to read at higher grade levels is to begin immersing them in a knowledge-building curriculum early, while they’re still learning to decode.
An effective literacy curriculum will:
· spend at least two or three weeks on a topic, going beyond fiction to include social studies and/or science content;
· provide all students with access to complex text through read-alouds rather than limiting them to text they can decode themselves;
· guide teachers to ask questions about the texts’ content that establish literal comprehension and also require analysis;
· follow a logical sequence of topics through the school year and across grades;
· and ensure that students are engaging in listening, speaking, reading, and writing activities that all center on the same content.
A few states have gone beyond decoding instruction to also focus on encouraging schools to switch to a curriculum that builds knowledge. While none has mandated a particular curriculum, they have provided information about materials that are likely to work and incentives for schools to use them.
New York was in the vanguard in 2011, putting what may have been the first knowledge-building literacy curriculum online as a freely available “open educational resource,” or OER, along with a math curriculum. By 2017, those materials were among the most commonly used across the country. Now there are perhaps half a dozen knowledge-building literacy curricula, with several available as OERs.
More recently, other states have taken different approaches. In addition to creating its own OER literacy curriculum beginning in 2013, Louisiana has established a rating system for other curricula and made it easier for districts to purchase those that build knowledge. Tennessee has a rating system and has done lots of outreach to districts. Crucially, both states have worked to ensure that educators get effective, ongoing support in implementing the new curricula, and both have seen a high degree of uptake. The most recent state to join this trend is Texas.
Like New York, Texas is making curricula freely available online to districts, schools, individual teachers, and parents—and the subjects covered go beyond reading and math. Some of the curricula have been developed from scratch, while others have been adapted to align with Texas’s academic standards. For elementary literacy, the state contracted with a company called Amplify to create a Texas-specific version of its knowledge-building curriculum, including Spanish-language versions of all materials. The effort is part of the state’s response to the challenges of remote learning during the pandemic: the materials are designed to be used for remote and hybrid as well as face-to-face instruction.
To focus on Texas history and culture, Amplify created several new units. For example, a fifth-grade unit revolves around Juneteenth, the federal holiday commemorating the end of slavery that has its origins in Galveston. A third-grade unit on jazz includes material on Texas musicians. Other tweaks were made to align the curriculum to Texas academic standards, such as a unit covering cursive writing in third grade.
The curriculum appears to be popular. LaShon Ormond, head of humanities curricula at Amplify, says the response to an initial pilot program was “overwhelmingly positive.” So far, 210 of the 1,200 school districts in Texas have used state grants to purchase print versions of the online Amplify materials, according to Lily Laux, Deputy Commissioner of School Programs at the Texas Education Agency.
The advantage of free curriculum is that it’s available to anyone—wealthy districts, poor districts, individual teachers, and parents. But that can also be a disadvantage. A good curriculum is designed to be implemented as a coherent whole, but teachers often pick and choose lessons or units, and they may be more likely to do that with materials available online. They may also lack the training needed to adopt an approach that is radically different from what they’re used to.
Texas is minimizing that risk by offering grants to districts that cover training grounded in the specifics of the curriculum. To date, 146 districts are getting that kind of support, and Ormond says the level of “professional learning” Texas is providing is far higher than usual.
Another possible pitfall—and one that has been particularly obvious lately—is political controversy over curriculum content generally. Some on the right have been calling for “curriculum transparency”—requiring schools to make their materials public—to prevent what they consider indoctrination. An online, freely available curriculum is by definition transparent. And Texas has been the scene of curriculum battles not only in recent months but also a decade ago, when a state-sponsored collection of online lesson plans was dropped after conservative activists raised objections.
But the current effort hasn’t drawn significant political pushback, perhaps because the curriculum is transparent. One of the complaints a decade ago was that the online lesson plans couldn’t be accessed by parents. Now, they can.
The results of a knowledge-building literacy curriculum often aren’t apparent overnight, at least as reflected in standardized reading test scores. But there’s growing evidence that this approach works. If other states are interested in raising literacy rates—especially for their most vulnerable students—they would do well to keep a close eye on what Texas is doing.
This post originally appeared in a slightly different form on Forbes.com.
Reading and compiling knowledge should dance with each other. The more you read, the more you know and understand, and conversely. Sometimes I feel like teachers' academies actually fear this. Because of course it's power. I remember how this worked as early as middle elementary school (grades 4 and 5).
The basic knowledge needed to understand text was only partially provided by the school classroom. The rest of it was compiled by an extended social conglomeration - including libraries, magazines, newspapers, movies, television, peer discussions, family conversations, and just about everything else. The vision and the hearing was always directed outward. There was no private screen (smartphone) nor were there ear-buds. Learning and understanding was dependent upon external sources, of people, and of informational packages, not necessarily privatized.
Why this was important was the fact that actual learning, building knowledge, increasing reading aptitude were not compartmentalized down into one narrow pedagogical exercise. A kid was surrounded by it all the time, every day.
One may argue that this is what internet connection and computerized devices are for, and a function they perform. Obviously, this is not the case. How many kids will wake up in the morning and immediately spend an hour looking up online all kinds of cool bits of knowledge that they can memorize and impress their friends with.
And yet, back in the day (the very early 1960s) this is exactly what kids would have done had such a device existed. Why? Because it was already hardwired into us. It was a natural thing. It did not feel alien or foreign.
But yes - a combination of knowledge building plus systematic phonics will go miles and miles toward actually bringing kids up to their proper developmental stage in reading. And with a strong emphasis on memory.
One of the negative impacts on memory work is the idea that at the touch of an ever-present button, you can just look a thing up - no need to memorize.
Imagine trying to think one's way through a complex layered thought process that requires calling to mind hundreds of facts, nuances, and impressions, suspicions, experiences, etc. As fast as what the speed of a mind actually is. Now, imagine having to look up almost all of those, which means stopping the process before it really gets started. Most kids would give up after about 2 minutes.
Because it would quickly get just that tedious.
When I was a kid, there was a game I used to play with my own brain. I think I remember calling it the thought train. You let your mind wander (when you're sitting by yourself with nothing particular to do, or otherwise unengaged in anything much) and thoughts lead to other thoughts. After about 4 or 5 minutes of this, you stop. And reverse, going the other way, back to the initial thought, recognized which thought led to the next. Pretty nifty exercise.
By this measure, the memories of many children now, are 9-pound weaklings. Sure I hated memory work when it was memorizing 47-verse old English ballads. But far more than just the latest episode of a TV show stuck like glue.
And lastly -as with so many things, practice makes perfect. And if it doesn't make it perfect, it makes it pretty damned good anyhow. So there are two choices: reading like pulling teeth. Or reading to find out what happens next, or how this thing works, and why it does. Reading as an active and engaged curiosity machine. Which is a thing you can't teach to a kid. You can either wake it up, or put it to sleep. The rest is a natural process, either way.
It’s true that reading is a construct based on decoding words automatically & fluently, and that vocabulary is a predictor of reading comprehension; however, as an education evaluator, learning specialist & language pathologist I have seen too many classrooms without explicit reading instruction. If children cannot decode automatically & fluently no amount of vocabulary building will help them be literate.