There were two huge developments in the literacy world early this year. First, the emergence of a phonics program that could impact outcomes 鈥�dramatically.鈥� Gains for 1st graders from the foundational skills curriculum created by researchers at the University of Florida Literacy Institute were found to be equivalent to an extra year and a half of instruction. If widely and well implemented, UFLI Foundations and programs like it could be game-changers.
The second development is bleak. We鈥檝e recently learned that reading levels have plunged to historically low levels: 40 percent of our students scored at the 鈥渂elow basic鈥� level in reading on the 2024 National Assessment of Educational Progress, and the gap between low and high readers is wider than ever. This should scare the hell out of 糖心动漫vlog. Poor readers are more likely to drop out of high school and endure a cascade of negative life consequences.
These developments should wake us up to a gargantuan opportunity. They will certainly test our resolve: Is the ability to read, write, and speak effectively truly a K-12 priority?
Because we鈥檝e known how to ensure record levels of literacy for some time now. We know, for instance, that students who read ample amounts of grade-level, knowledge-rich text will鈥攊nexorably鈥攄evelop powerful vocabularies and become fluent, competent readers. We already know how to increase reading time and reading stamina. Common sense are available to any teacher who wants to expand daily reading volume (and writing and discussion) threefold or more. One key practice is acquainting students with vocabulary they will need before reading begins. Another is directing students to read and reading to them in manageable and increasingly longer increments, punctuated by peer interaction and writing. These practices will never fail us.
We鈥檝e also learned that some of the most pervasive literacy practices are counterproductive. We know that teaching multiple ability-based groups while most students work at unsupervised 鈥渃enters鈥� is likely . We know that an excessive reliance on worksheets, group work, skills instruction, and screen time supplant core literacy activities鈥攖he purposeful reading, writing, and discussion that should pervade the disciplines but don鈥檛. We know that off-grade learning materials hundreds of hours of school time every year.
Our two-hour literacy blocks represent an especially ripe opportunity for improvement: The dominance of the small-group model greatly reduces time with the teacher. One-hundred and twenty minutes divided by four to five groups (with transitions) means students only receive 20 to 30 minutes of actual instruction. And the literacy centers鈥攐n which this model often depends鈥攃ontinue to be rife with the kinds of cut, color, and paste activities that I鈥檝e observed for decades.
There鈥檚 nothing new or exotic in these do鈥檚 and don鈥檛s of highly effective literacy instruction. Students thrive where they are given their due.
We鈥檝e known how to ensure record levels of literacy for some time now.
But decades on, we have yet to get our literacy house in order. Our priorities lie elsewhere鈥攚ith confusing, overloaded literacy standards, with ill-conceived programs, or with wholly unproven, often tech-based innovations that seduce us with their newness. Once-trusted literacy organizations are now telling us to 鈥溾�� book reading and essay writing. After all, we鈥檙e now in the age of 鈥渄igital literacy.鈥�
These infatuations only divert us from the less sexy but guaranteed necessities of literacy acquisition. As Doug Lemov tells us, 鈥淟ow tech, high text. 鈥� Read and read and read. Write and write and write.鈥� I would add: Have students and discuss and discuss what they read and write about. That鈥檚 how schools like View Park Prep in California, Brockton High School in Massachusetts, La Cima Middle School in Arizona, and others were able to achieve dramatic increases in student literacy in as little as a school year.
Lives are at stake. We can continue to dither while students and teachers wait. Or we can use these two developments as a launching pad for profound improvements in authentic literacy.
How can we seize this moment and turn it to good? For one thing, our practice-oriented education books and journals can more prominently feature frank critiques of common but ineffective practices and routines. For another, they can encourage submissions on how successful schools benefit from practices like the above鈥攁ccompanied by evidence of measurable student outcomes.
To stay on track, 糖心动漫vlog should examine every aspect of literacy instruction in the bright light of evidence鈥攁nd jettison the least effective practices. Moreover, every faculty, district office, and school board meeting should include concrete discussions and celebrations of how best practices are being monitored, adjusted, and improved by teacher teams. This means scrutinizing standardized test scores but more importantly (in my view), local, short-term, written assessments鈥攆or single literacy lessons and units.
Why haven鈥檛 we done this yet? Perhaps grade inflation has sapped the urgency needed to make fundamental improvements to literacy practice鈥攖o classroom practice overall. We would do well to remind ourselves, too, that in the areas of both curriculum and instruction, most schools have yet to many practices with the greatest scientific backing.
If we act boldly in response to these developments, outcomes will improve apace, perhaps spectacularly. And that 40 percent of below basic readers will shrink precipitously.
