# data[].attributes.headline
Leveled Reading Groups Don't Work. Why Aren't We Talking About It?

# data[].attributes.subject
Leveled Reading Groups Don't Work. Why Aren't We Talking About It?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Leveled Reading Groups Don’t Work. Why Aren’t We Talking About It?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
You might want to sit down for this one, friends. The most pervasive practice in K–5 reading instruction is probably small group work in which students are grouped by reading level. Experts estimat…

# data[].attributes.body
Yep....all the stuff.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
An important national conversation about how we teach reading has been gaining major momentum over the last 6 months, as reading instruction has been in The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the EdWeek editorial pages, and I-could-go-on.

I've been summarizing this "literacy tsunami" for educators. Lately, the updates have come fast and furious!

Trying to catch the wave? I got you, friend.

Here's an executive summary of the 7 key themes, with plenty of links to additional reading:

1. Media Coverage About Reading Instruction Has Been Everywhere

In September, a documentary-plus-article called Hard Words: Why aren't kids being taught to read? went viral, spawning other articles and kicking off a national dialogue.

See how the wave gained momentum by reading along here:

2. Concerns About Teacher Prep Are a Theme

Hard Words exposed shortcomings with the literacy coursework in many teacher preparation programs.

EdWeek explored it in Teachers Criticize Their Colleges of Ed. for Not Preparing Them to Teach Reading.

In a recent Chalkbeat survey, most teachers agreed that their preservice training didn't adequately cover reading. Also, teachers say that "American schools pay little attention to the science behind reading instruction."

Powerful accounts have emerged, like the experience of kindergarten teacher Lindsay Kemeney, who learned key research while supporting her dyslexic son:

"I became angry. Why was I never taught about dyslexia? Why was I never taught about the National Reading Panel (2000)? Why was I never taught about structured literacy? Why was I never taught about explicit, systematic phonics and phonemic awareness? Why wasn't I told that there was a method that would reach ALL learners and not just the top 40%? Why aren't teachers given this vital information?"

3. Concerns About Reading Instruction Are Another Theme

Simply put, decades-old research has conclusively shown us how kids learn to read, yet those evidence-based practices are missing from many classrooms. Twenty years ago, the research was crystallized by the National Reading Panel - then it informed our new state standards - but unfortunately, curriculum and practice have been slow to catch up.

Literacy goddess and Common Core lead author Sue Pimentel summarized the concerns in a recent EdWeek piece, Why doesn't every teacher know the research on reading instruction? (Republished here without a paywall.) Literacy guru Tim Shanahan also writes frequently about it.

The refrains:

4. District Leaders Call it a 'National Reading Crisis'

Brian Kingsley, Jared Myracle, and Robin McClellan penned a recent, viral EdWeek editorial on all of the above, We Have a National Reading Crisis - republished here without a paywall.

They speak with refreshing humility about their own learning journeys:

"It's perfectly possible to become a principal or even a district curriculum leader without first learning the key research. In fact, this was true for us.

We each learned critical reading research only after entering district leadership."

They also issue a powerful call to action:

"Educators urgently need a national movement for professional learning about reading. We should declare a No Shame Zone for this work-to make it safe for all educators to say, 'I have unfinished learning around literacy.'"

If you read one thing in this whole blog, read what Jared, Robin, and Brian have to say.

5. Talk of Solutions is the Silver Lining

Yes, there is good news! (Woot.)

Many point to a recent "curriculum renaissance" that makes it easier to bring evidence-based practices into classrooms today than it was just two years ago, thanks to a recent surge in research-aligned options.

Now, I know curriculum isn't historically a hot category. (#Understatement.) But the curriculum landscape has changed dramatically, and it's worth a new look.

To understand why district leaders are buzzing about curriculum, read Brian Kingsley's blog, Literacy is the Innovation Opportunity of 2019, for two good reasons:

1. Brian serves as CAO in Charlotte-Mecklenburg (NC), the 18th-largest district in the US, and he previously served as CAO in Wake County (NC, #15) and Broward County (FL, #6). No one knows more about improving reading instruction across schools than Brian Kingsley.

2. He's quite optimistic. "Vastly improved reading outcomes are actually within reach," he writes. We should all know his reasons for saying so.

Then read about the promising outcomes and powerful stories coming out of other districts. It's persuasive stuff, y'all.

Additional Must-Know Info:

Two respected curriculum reviewers, EdReports and Louisiana Believes, make it easy to find the quality materials, and to pinpoint issues in any materials that you adopted pre-curriculum renaissance.

6. Parent Advocacy is Emerging

This national conversation has been public, often playing out in social media. EdWeek noted this trend: "Platforms like Twitter and Facebook have exploded with parents, researchers, and educators advocating for a systematic approach to teaching reading." This has pulled in parents, especially the active dyslexia parent community.

For example, EdWeek's Stephen Sawchuk interviewed Moms who've been writing Open Letters to their district, calling for better reading practices. What I find striking is that the Moms are incredibly well-informed. One of their open letters made an issue of the EdReports review of the district's curriculum (spoiler: it's not good). The moms reference the same research base and reading practices cited above. It seems that Dyslexia Moms are doing their homework.

The chatter in the Twitterverse suggests that dyslexia advocates are organizing regionally and nationally. I'm predicting an increase in informed advocacy by parents.

7. Professional Learning Is Becoming the Hot Topic

With leaders calling for a "national movement for professional learning about reading," the obvious question becomes: where can folks go to learn the key research?

I would emphasize Brian Kingsley's point on professional learning: many district leaders tout the PD that accompanies the excellent, research-aligned curricula, because of the powerful comprehensiveness at play: giving teachers both the research and research-aligned tools. Read more from Brian.

Where can folks start learning right this minute? Well, I filled this blog with links for a reason, friend! Happy clicking-and-learning.

Additional Professional Learning: My Short List

A group of savvy district leaders created an excellent curation of reading research and articles; it's great for getting started.

Achieve The Core holds excellent webinars that are on point and earn raves.

Also, I'd suggest checking the reviews of your ELA curriculum on EdReports and Louisiana Believes. If your curriculum is not "all-green" on EdReports and/or Tier 1 on Louisiana Believes, you'll want to understand the gaps in the materials.

There are other options... more than I can fit in an exec summary, but I'll try to write about them soon. I also see efforts underway to create new professional learning opportunities... watch this space!

The Equity Opportunity Within

This conversation can feel daunting, 'cause it's a lot to process. Yet it's inspiring, too:

Poor literacy outcomes for our most vulnerable students are the equity issue of our time. We now have real opportunity to improve reading outcomes in a significant way - and that should inspire us all!

I share the optimism of Brian Kingsley and the other pioneers in this space, because I've seen the work in districts that are elevating their reading game by aligning with these practices. I became a curriculum evangelist by hearing the educator feedback in districts that implemented "all-green" curricula and supported their teachers with excellent PD in the process... it's a game-changer. I wish I could take you into those classrooms... it would quickly compel you, too.

My optimism increases every time I see educators sharing research! So please Be Sweet and Tweet informative pieces. Give out research like candy at your PLC meetings. Skywrite it above elementary schools. Let's keep bringing more educators into this important national conversation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
An important national conversation about how we teach reading has been gaining major momentum over the last 6 months, as reading instruction has been in The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the EdWeek editorial pages, and I-could-go-on. I've been summarizing this "literacy tsunami" for educators.

# data[].attributes.body
from  2017—starts w/ CCore, may want to skip to:
14:00 mins define literacy
18:30 evidence & research
24:00 independent reading

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
David Abel talks with Dr. Timothy Shanahan about the state of literacy in US schools, and what the research is telling us to do differently. Dr. Timothy Shanahan is Distinguished Professor Emeritus at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and former director of reading for the Chicago Public Schools. He is author/editor of more than 200 publications, and served on the author team of the Common Core State Standards. Professor Shanahan is past president of the International Literacy Association. He was inducted to the Reading Hall of Fame in 2007, and is a former first-grade teacher. For more information, visit his blog: www.shanahanonliteracy.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
‎UnboundEd Podcast: Research Backed Literacy, Higher Standards, and Their Impact - Dr. Timothy Shanahan on Apple Podcasts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
‎David Abel talks with Dr. Timothy Shanahan about the state of literacy in US schools, and what the research is telling us to do differently. Dr. Timothy Shanahan is Distinguished Professor Emeritus at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and former director of reading for the Chicago Public Schoo...

# data[].attributes.headline
Teach content knowledge or reading skills?

# data[].attributes.subject
Teach content knowledge or reading skills?

# data[].attributes.body
Read & watch videos before you make your decisions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Friends, let's talk about poorly-understood research that has the potential to turbocharge your reading outcomes:

Students' background knowledge matters more to their reading comprehension than their reading skill. REALLY.

Research has proven this, most famously in The Baseball Study by Recht & Leslie.

This video explains the study so well in 3 minutes that I am just gonna insist that you watch it right now, 'cause I can't write it any better. (I'll wait.)

Alternately, this outstanding Learning to Read Primer (Part 2) explains the Baseball Study on pages 4 through 8. In addition, Part 1 frames the research beautifully (especially pg. 10-14).

Eye-opening stuff, right?!?

Cognitive science guru Daniel Willingham summarizes the same research in a video (skip to 5:25). He notes that this study has been repeatedly replicated with other subjects - from photocopy technology to the Vietnam War - with the same outcome. (In fact, he noted in a tweet thread that researchers have stopped trying to replicate this study because "the effect is known;" instead, they account for this significant effect in statistical analysis.)

The upshot: background knowledge is key to reading comprehension.

Equity enthusiasts, take note: when this research sinks in, you realize that privileged students start on third base from a literacy perspective. ( See what I did there?) They arrive at school with the benefit of more travel, museum visits, and parents talking about geeky academic stuff, so they just know more about the academic world. We need to be especially focused on building content knowledge for our less privileged students. Kids from less affluent families show up with lots of knowledge about their worlds, but not about the subjects that show up on assessments (think science, social studies, the arts).

Another key equity insight: content knowledge is an even greater predictor of comprehension for English language learners. This research truly holds the keys to equitable reading outcomes.

The takeaway for all students: background knowledge about a subject fosters reading comprehension.

So, what are we doing about this information in schools? We're spending loads of time on science and social studies in order to teach kids about the world, giving them a rich bank of content knowledge to propel their reading success... right?

Wrong. We've actually been spending less time on those subjects. The Knowledge Matters campaign notes "a period of de-emphasizing science and social studies at the elementary grades" over the last 20 years, in which "time spent in 1st-4th grade social studies and science classes has decreased - down by nearly an hour and a half a week."

So, that's problem #1. We're ignoring the research on content knowledge-as-reading-catalyst with the diminished time for science and social studies.

Where's the extra classroom time going? It's going to reading instruction: "time dedicated to reading instruction has increased - to more than two-and-a-half hours a day."

That sounds smart... until you look at our outcomes. We've added time for reading instruction across our schools, yet we have essentially flat reading outcomes in the same period (in addition to the gutting fact that only a third of our students are proficient readers, as Emily Hanford reminds us):

Why isn't the extra time for reading - which is surely intended to improve reading outcomes - paying off? Here's what researchers find: the additional time tends to be used on reading strategies and skills instruction. There's a place for that instruction, but it has unfortunate diminishing returns, and we're overdoing it. Which is problem #2.

The Knowledge Matters folks say it best: 'Instead of using the extra time to read, discuss, and understand texts that intentionally build students' vocabulary and knowledge of key topics in science and social studies, an excessive focus has been put on practicing reading comprehension skills such as "finding the main idea," "making inferences," and "understanding text features."'

Literacy experts believe that problems #1 and #2 conspire to explain our poor national reading outcomes.

So, let that sink in... in our quest to improve reading outcomes, we've been decreasing time on the very subjects that build content knowledge for kids, which hamstrings our reading outcomes... and we've given more time to reading instruction, using approaches that don't move the needle on reading outcomes.

GAH.

School Yourself

More folks need to know this essential info! And you, friend, may want to know more.

Here are my fave resources for explaining and understanding this research, besides the ones above. (Which are fabulous and all. I could Tweet that 3-minute video on The Baseball Study all day long... I've seen it drop more jaws than anything else I have ever shared, on any topic.)

Want a layman-friendly intro to the research? How to Get Your Mind to Read by Daniel Willingham is an excellent primer, and an easy share with parents. Read it, Tweet it, hand it out at your next PLN meetup.

Want to understand this research within the broader context of how kids learn to read? These Learning to Read Primers ( Part 1 and Part 2) are outstanding. Must-read. Share with everyone you know.

Want to go deeper on the background knowledge research? In 10 minutes, Daniel Willingham makes it all super-tangible in this info-rich video:

Want instructional guidance on building content knowledge? The Knowledge Matters campaign's superb informational overview is your must-read. Come for the research, stay for the examples of what good looks like at a classroom-level.

Want to understand why spending loads of time on reading skills and strategies isn't a successful approach? Read Can Reading Comprehension be taught? by Daniel Willingham.

Want to go deep on this topic? Natalie Wexler wrote the book on it, and the whole world seems to be reading The Knowledge Gap right now.

Want to persuade someone that this research truly matters? Sue Pimentel, literacy goddess and lead author of the CCSS in ELA, names it as one of her three Must-Wins to improve reading outcomes in Education Week.

Want to laugh at '80s hairstyles while you watch educators experience this principle in action? This video is one part genius explanation ( really... it's legit informative), one part comic relief, one part proof that we have known this research for a looooooong time:

School Your Friends

I'd say that this is the most 'Aha!' moment-generating info in all of K-12 education.

It's not completely unknown to educators. I meet plenty of savvy literacy leaders who know it. My Mom knew it before I knew it. Still, my travels in K-12 suggest that maaaaaybe 10% of educators know this info. We gotta change that.

So please, friends, post it, Tweet it, email it, preach it. Skywrite it if you can. Knowledge matters to reading comprehension, and we can propel kids' reading outcomes if we align our instruction around that truth.

Applying This Research In Classrooms

A postscript, added after my wise Mom pointed out some gaps in the piece.

Solutions I Dig:

I would want educators to read this and think, "My school should consider how we're building content knowledge for our students, at the same time as we're supporting their foundational skill development in reading. That's the game-changing Both-And."

My favorite solution in this regard is purpose-built curriculum. Sue Pimentel put it best:

"Given that time is a scarce commodity in most schools, the takeaway for school leaders is to incorporate rich content, organized around conceptually-related topics, into the reading curriculum so that students learn new information about the world while they develop as readers."

Exemplars help, so here's one: the EL Education K-5 Language Arts curriculum builds each unit around a text set on a science or social studies topic:

I hope to write more about some other knowledge-building curricula in the months to come. In the meantime, you can read about these curricula in classrooms via the Knowledge Matters school tour.

Not Good:

I would not want anyone to think that I recommend scaffolding the heck out of every text, spoon-feeding the info contained within to students before they read, in a well-intentioned but misguided attempt to build background knowledge for kids. Students should be acquiring their knowledge about the world from the texts (or better yet, text sets), not from overteaching.

Good talk, y'all.

Extra Credit

Hey socialites, if you're gonna share in social, here's my fave quote from the insightful Knowledge Matters piece. Share on!

Thanks for spreading the word about this essential research. Kids win when we bring this conversation to new education PLCs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Essential Research No One Knows: Knowledge Matters To Reading Comprehension

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Friends, let's talk about poorly-understood research that has the potential to turbocharge your reading outcomes: Students' background knowledge matters more to their reading comprehension than their reading skill. REALLY. Research has proven this, most famously in The Baseball Study by Recht & Leslie. This video explains the study so well in 3 minutes that I...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Blast from the Past: This entry first posted on April 28, 2018 and re-posted on November 23, 2019. I thought it a good idea to re-issue this posting now because of MIke Schmoker's recent column in Education Week ( https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2019/11/20/how-to-make-reading-instruction-much-much.html). I know lots of educators love the idea of working with small groups in reading, but that is not always best practice (though under the right circumstances it can be useful). This blog explores the ins and outs (and ups and downs) of small group instruction in reading. Hope you all have a happy Thanksgiving).
Teacher question: I was curious what your thoughts are regarding small group instruction in Elementary school during the ELA block. I'm unaware of any definitive research on the effect size of small group instruction or the impact it has regarding student achievement in reading. There seems to be a few different schools of thought: direct whole group instruction for all components of reading, shortened whole group reading followed by differentiated small group instruction, whole group instruction followed by student work groups facilitated by teacher walking around. It seems all three could be effective depending on the students, the teacher and rigor of text or content being used. However, I'm curious if there is a research-based recommendation?
Shanahan's response:

What a smart question.

Small group teaching is ubiquitous in elementary reading. Sixty-years ago (when I was being taught to read) the same was true-though since our classes then were so large, "small group" usually meant groups about the size of today's typical classroom enrollment!

A hundred years ago there was a great deal of within-class grouping, but that was due to the pervasive one-room schoolhouse. The "groups" were the "grades" that the kids were in (my dad, for years, bragged that he "graduated at the top of his class"-meaning that the other kid flunked).

When I was first exploring the idea of becoming a teacher myself, the lore of the time was that reading teachers always had three reading groups: the Robins, Blue Jays, and Crows. As a teacher's aide it looked that way to me, and I certainly wasn't surprised during student teaching when Mr. Krentzin had me take over his reading groups one at a time, so I could ease into it.

As a primary grade teacher, I always grouped my kids for reading instruction. (Studies since the 1960s usually report that more than 90% of primary grade teachers group for reading instruction, and the numbers are still high in grades 4 and 5, as well).

Nevertheless, I've been surprised recently by the odd practice of organizing instruction specifically around the idea of "small group" teaching. In the past, the grouping was to match book levels to the kids' reading levels (let's face it, the Crows just can't keep up).

But this is different: by organizing the schedule around "small group time" these schools are promoting the idea that small group teaching is valuable-no matter what the teacher may be teaching or what the kids' levels may be or what the materials are that they are using.

That makes your question especially timely. Does small group teaching advantage kids in learning to read?

John Hattie identified three meta-analyses on small group instruction and reported it to have a medium-to-large effect (.49) on learning. However, few of the studies in those meta-analyses focused on reading, they weren't always comparing small group teaching to whole class instruction, and some of the reading studies were from back in the day when 45-60 kids in a class was common practice. Several of the studies were based on secondary school and college teaching, too.

Robert Slavin also conducted a best-evidence synthesis of research on grouping back in the 1980s (effect size of .32). But at that time, he found no reading studies that compared grouping for reading instruction with whole class teaching.

Not exactly the evidence base I'd want to use for recommendations about elementary reading instruction.

However, even if we were to rely on those meta-analyses, the payoff of grouping for reading instruction had lower effects than was found for the other subjects (only .13), and it mattered a great deal how large the groups were-groups of 5 or larger received little or no learning benefit from within-class grouping (Lou, et al., 1996).

There are a couple of sizable individual studies I think we need to consider, however.

For example, Kamil and Rausher (1990) conducted a study in which they compared whole class reading instruction with small group teaching in a large suburban school district. Surprisingly, they found that small groups "were not superior to whole class" teaching in terms of learning. There was just "too much variance within classrooms for the grouping patterns to have much of an impact."

Even more sobering is a large study of grouping in reading conducted by Sørensen & Hallinan (1986). They found small group teaching more effective than whole class instruction-that is, if one compares 30 minutes of small group teaching versus 30 minutes of whole class teaching, the kids in the small group tend to make larger learning gains.

However, they also found small group teaching provides kids with fewer learning opportunities. Basically, teachers teach more when teaching whole class.

Comparing equal amounts of small group teaching with whole class teaching might make sense to researchers, but it has little to do with the actual circumstances of classrooms. If a teacher has three groups who each receive 20 minutes of teaching, this should not be compared with 20 minutes of whole class instruction... but with 60 minutes-the time it takes to teach the three groups (in fact, it might even be fairer to compare it with 65-75 minutes because it takes transition time to switch out these groups).

When one compares small group and whole class instruction in this more meaningful way, small group teaching loses its advantage; that is, no differences in average achievement.

But, that doesn't mean there's no impact. What Sørensen & Hallinan (1986) concluded was that the high groups tended to get more learning opportunities in small group instruction than the low groups. And, since race and SES are correlated with reading, Black kids and poor kids (and I imagine ELLs) are more likely to find themselves in the low groups. Thus, there is no overall or average learning benefit for small group teaching, but there is a bit of rotation that ensures that minority kids make the least progress.

My conclusion from this is that small group teaching is beneficial in that it improves the impact of a lesson on the kids who are taught the lesson. But amount of instruction matters, too, and when kids are grouped they are necessarily going to get less teaching. It's a tradeoff at best. But we also need to be concerned about the lower readers who tend to be somewhat disadvantaged by this approach.

I'm not willing to give up altogether on small group instruction (or even individual teaching)-because there can be useful learning advantages from it. But I'd never organize classrooms so as to ensure that they specifically deliver small group teaching. And, I'd always try to minimize small group teaching whenever possible for the sake of efficiency.

Never do with a small group, what you could be done as well with the whole class. I've observed the identical lesson being delivered repeatedly to groups of three, for instance. That is foolish-even if the curriculum director mandated small group teaching. Similarly, the idea that conferencing one-on-one about a book (for 2-5 minutes) is going to take kids to the same depth of interpretation with a text that a group or whole class discussion (for 30-60 minutes) is strikingly unconvincing.

Districts would be wise to provide teachers with professional development in the most effective ways to teach whole classes--including how to use grouping within those classrooms when it is sensible. Seatwork is necessary in both small group and whole class instruction. In the former, the assignments are aimed at keeping the kids busy while the teacher works with other groups, while in the latter the teacher is usually able to circulate among the kids while they work on the assignment (giving support and additional guidance as needed). Perhaps teachers would be better off teaching a whole class lesson, that was followed by individual work done in ability groups (in other words, three or four different follow up assignments based upon the lesson depending on the students' levels). Then the teacher could circulate, helping kids at all levels.

Last week I watched my friend, Catlin Tucker, showing teachers how she organizes her classrooms by task. If kids are working on research projects, she groups them based on what part of the project they are focused on at a given time. That allows her to maximize the power of her instruction, without the inefficiencies of unnecessary grouping.

In other schemes, teachers deliver whole class lessons, monitoring kids' success and then small group work is reserved for re-teaching as needed.

Of course, there are approaches like cooperative grouping that have good research records, but that allow for a mix of whole class, small group, and individual work without the large losses of time evident in most small group centered classrooms. Cooperative grouping, project based learning, and other similar approaches may be beneficial in part because they don't lock kids into reading levels--but encourage work with grade level texts or with a range of text difficulties.

Maximize the amount of learning opportunity that you provide to students. Use groups to focus on different learning tasks or to follow up whole class lessons as needed. Don't group for the sake of grouping and minimize grouping on the basis of reading level-at least beyond grade one.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
teaching reading to a small gropshould reading be taught to a whole class or small group

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
should reading be taught to a small group

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Should Reading Be Taught Whole Class or Small Group?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Should Reading Be Taught to the Whole Class or Small Group? This blog explores the ins and outs (and ups and downs) of small group instruction in reading.

# data[].attributes.body
International Dyslexia Association

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Menu

Contents View

Advertisers

Fall Edition 2019 Barbara Davidson and Natalie Wexler, Theme Editors PERSPECTIVES on Language and Literacy A Quarterly Publication of the International Dyslexia Association Volume 45, No. 4 The Importance of Knowledge 12 Comprehension in Disguise: The Role of Knowledge in Children's Learning Susan B. Neuman 17 Why Children Should Be Taught to Read with More Challenging Texts Timothy Shanahan 25 The Connections Between Writing, Knowledge Acquisition, and Reading Comprehension Judith C. Hochman and Natalie Wexler 31 What a Knowledge-Building Approach Looks Like in the Classroom Barbara Davidson and David Liben 36 Book Reviews Louisa Moats Nancy Chapel Eberhardt

Library

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Menu Contents View Advertisers Fall Edition 2019 Barbara Davidson and Natalie Wexler, Theme Editors PERSPECTIVES on Language and Literacy A Quarterly Publication of the International Dyslexia Association Volume 45, No. 4 The Importance of Knowledge 12 Comprehension in Disguise: The Role of Knowledge in Children's Learning Susan B.

# data[].attributes.body
Interview with Natalie Wexler, author of The Knowledge Gap.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
S1-01. The Knowledge Gap: Natalie Wexler - Science of Reading: The Podcast

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What's broken in our education system? Natalie joins Susan for a provocative talk about her latest book, The Knowledge Gap, and how a knowledge-based curriculum can bring equity into the classroom, and students' futures.Quotes"Kids actually love to learn stuff. They love to feel like they're expe...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In an effort to increase equity, some high schools are eliminating standard classes and enrolling ... [+]
Getty

Garrison Keillor's fictional Lake Wobegon was famously a place where all the children were above average. In one large suburban school district, some high schools are trying to turn that dream into a reality by putting all students in honors classes.

A growing number of high schools in Maryland's Montgomery County, which serves 163,000 students, are doing away with standard classes in subjects like health, social studies, science, and English. Instead, all students are being placed in honors classes. District-level officials say they're not sure how many of the county's 25 high schools have adopted this policy-and they're neither encouraging nor discouraging the trend-but leaders of the local PTA estimate that more than half have gone the honors-only route in at least one core subject.

The impetus is laudable: Educators are concerned that the district's increasing numbers of disadvantaged students -students of color, English language learners and those from low-income families-are ending up in standard classes, while white and Asian students are overrepresented in honors classes.

"We were essentially tracking students," one high school social studies teacher told the Washington Post, "and it was affecting black and brown students disproportionately. We were seeing segregation, for lack of a better word."

Those defending the all-honors idea say it raises teachers' expectations-and most students, they contend, will rise to meet them. Besides, they say, the curriculum and tests are the same for honors and non-honors classes, with the only difference being that students in honors classes are able to get more credit, boosting their GPA and giving them a leg up in college applications. (The district's official guidelines say the curriculum is the same, but "honors courses require greater use of abstract and higher-level thinking skills, and require research and projects of a more rigorous and challenging nature.")

This is only the latest twist in a decades-long effort to mold the American high school into an engine of economic justice and social mobility-an effort that has yet to bear fruit. High school used to be an elite institution: in the 19th century, relatively few students went past eighth grade. But between 1870 and 1940, the number attending high school increased by a multiple of almost ninety, even though the country's population only tripled.

Faced with a massive influx of ill-prepared students, high schools introduced tracking. Students headed to college-generally those from wealthier families-were placed on the academic track, while others were relegated to vocational tracks or courses like "Language Activities" and "Health and Happiness." Often students were funneled into tracks based on their IQ scores, which were thought to measure inherent and unchangeable intellectual capacities.

Fortunately, it became politically unacceptable to openly advocate tracking beginning in the late 1960s. But de facto tracking has continued unabated, both between and within schools. The largest-scale form of tracking is socioeconomic school segregation: high schools in poor neighborhoods rarely provide the same quality of education as those in affluent areas. In pursuit of equity, high-poverty schools have started directing more of their students to AP classes. But that that often only leads to watered-down rigor and high rates of failure on externally graded AP exams.

In schools serving diverse populations, tracking is internal. Students from lower-income families usually populate the standard classes, while others enroll in honors-or in "college-level" classes like AP or International Baccalaureate. If schools make honors classes the default setting, as those in Montgomery County are doing, what will likely happen is that higher-achieving students will desert them in favor of those college-level classes, turning honors classes into the de facto standard track.

The reason for the persistence of tracking isn't just a matter of low teacher expectations. Nor is the fundamental cause racism or implicit bias. The basic problem is that-just as in the late 19th and early 20th century-many students, and especially those who are disadvantaged, are arriving at high school unprepared to do high school-level work. The differences in academic ability that become so apparent in high school don't begin there. And as long as educators and reformers keep focusing their efforts at the high school level, without looking carefully at what happens before high school, they're doomed to failure.

If you want to see tracking that is not only openly conducted but enthusiastically embraced-and that is the root cause of the de facto tracking that inevitably occurs in high school-all you have to do is look at American elementary schools. There it's called " leveled reading." The premise is that reading comprehension is a set of skills, like "finding the main idea" and "identifying a sequence of events." Teachers demonstrate those "skills," using a text chosen because it seems to lend itself to whatever the skill-of-the-week is. Students then "practice" the skills using texts at what are considered their individual reading levels, which may be far below their grade level. The idea is that if students master the supposed skills on books easy enough for them to read independently, they'll eventually catch up to where they need to be.

There's no evidence this system works, and for good reason. Cognitive scientists have known for decades that the most important determinant of reading comprehension isn't abstract skill; it's how much background knowledge the reader has relating to the topic. Children who arrive at school with more general knowledge and vocabulary-usually because they've picked it up from their highly educated parents-start out as better readers, and they continue to acquire more and more knowledge through their reading. Their unluckier peers are shunted off to the lowest reading levels, confined to books with simpler concepts and vocabulary.

Especially since the advent of high-stakes reading tests, the lower groups are also the least likely to get exposure to subjects that might actually build their knowledge, because the theory is that working on "reading" is more important. Struggling readers are often pulled out from social studies or science classes to receive extra "skills" instruction. High-poverty schools where test scores are low have virtually eliminated everything but reading and math from the curriculum. And children with relatively little knowledge and vocabulary are unlikely to pick it up from their leveled books, which aren't organized by topic. To build knowledge, a curriculum should stay on the same topic for a couple of weeks or more.

For students whose reading scores are low, the focus on reading "skills" can continue through middle school. When they get to high school, many have had no systematic exposure to history, science-or anything but "reading" and math. That leaves huge gaps in knowledge that can prevent them from understanding and retaining information in high school-level textbooks. If you don't know what Europe is-or the difference between a city and a country-it's a struggle to grasp the issues underlying World War I or II.

"Leveled texts," one reading expert has succinctly declared, "lead to leveled lives." That leveling-or tracking, if you will-isn't impossible to undo once students reach high school, but it requires a lot more than putting everyone in classes labeled "honors." A small but growing number of elementary schools across the country are starting to provide all children with access to the kind of knowledge that kids from more educated families acquire at home-and that equips them for success in high school. That's what needs to happen in Montgomery County and other districts concerned about equity in high school. It may not result in all children being above average, but it should make "average" a lot better than it is now.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
To End High School Tracking,We Need To End Tracking In Elementary School

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Garrison Keillor's fictional Lake Wobegon was famously a place where all the children were above average. In one large suburban school district, some high schools are trying to turn that dream into a reality by putting all students in honors classes.

# data[].attributes.body
A visual tour of how we learn to read.

# data[].attributes.body
(Yes, more from Amplify, but with solid sources & easy-to-read format)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Science of reading Five insights you can start using todayTOOLKITScience of reading toolkit | 2ContentsFive insights you can start using todayWhat the research tells us . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3The right way to teach foundational skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Content knowledge is key . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13Understanding dyslexia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17Better data drives better instruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21Putting it all together . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24This is a toolkit that provides you and your team a quick and easy overview of the latest research of the science of reading.Science of reading toolkit | 3What the research tells usThe science of readingScience of reading toolkit | 4What the research tells us: The science of readingWe all want students to succeed-but how do we do that? First, educators must know the science behind reading. How does the brain learn how to read? It's not as simple as memorizing every word-that's impossible. Once you understand how the brain reads, you can help your students learn key foundational skills, build background knowledge, and lay the foundations for success in college and their careers.This toolkit is a self-study resource to help you deepen your understanding of reading science and leverage it in your practice. We've curated articles with the best research on how kids learn to read-from how the brain learns to decode, to strategies you can bring back to your classroom, school, and district. Let's get started!Science of reading toolkit | 5The simple view of readingTo understand the science of reading, we must understand the Simple View of Reading. This model states that to achieve reading comprehension, students really need two things: * The ability to decode written words* Understanding what the words mean,or language comprehensionThis piece from the ParkerPhonics blog explains the Simple View and provides recommendations for classroom practice."The Simple View of Reading: Still Conclusive After 33 Years" by Stephen ParkerScience of reading toolkit | 6How the brain learns to readHow does the brain learn to read? Are there neurological differences in the brains of readers versus nonreaders? This guide walks through how your brain makes connections between spoken and written words, how it practices decoding letters and words, and what patterns the top-performing schools and districts are following to achieve early reading success.Learning to Read A Primer | Part One by Amplify StaffScience of reading toolkit | 7The right way to teach foundational skillsAll students benefit from explicit, systematic foundational skills-starting with sounds firstScience of reading toolkit | 8Why sound-first mattersIn this excerpt from "Read About It: Scientific Evidence for the Teaching of Reading," researcher Kerry Hempenstall describes the importance of phonemic awareness: it is a critical predictor of success in learning to read, and of overall academic performance.Read About It: Scientific Evidence for Effective Teaching of Reading by Kerry HempenstallScience of reading toolkit | 9Why structured literacy mattersReading specialist Nancy Young explains the "ladder of reading" and how all students benefit from explicit, systematic foundational skills instruction."Nancy's Ladder of Reading" by Nancy Young Next >

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Science of reading Five insights you can start using todayTOOLKITScience of reading toolkit | 2ContentsFive insights you can start using todayWhat the research tells us . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

# data[].attributes.body
Short video explanation.

# data[].attributes.headline
Easy ways to increase phonemic awareness in your classroom.

# data[].attributes.subject
Easy ways to increase phonemic awareness in your classroom.

# data[].attributes.body
The Literacy Collective is an Australian podcast with explicit tips (and free PDFs!) for teaching foundational skills.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Please leave us a comment as we want to make sure we are providing YOU with everything you need. We think you're awesome and have chosen an amazing career guiding our little learners to a path of success!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
#001 What Is The Prerequisite To Fast Tracking Reading Success? - The Literacy Collective

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Episode 1 reveals the 8 core strategies to fast track literacy success. We hone in on the Phonemic Awareness skills that every successful reader needs. Loads of helpful hints and tips to incorporate into your classroom today. FREEBIES below (because I love to spoil you): for practical strategies that will instantly improve your literacy outcomes....

# data[].attributes.body
Game changer: "The Baseball Experiment"

# data[].attributes.body
Straightforward information.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Reading Writing Relationships | Shanahan on Literacy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Reading Writing Relationships, This entry explores three major ways that reading and writing can be combined in the classroom to enhance literacy achievement.

# data[].attributes.body
Judith Hochman & Natalie Wexler wrote the book, The Writing Revolution, a simple way to teach writing starting with sentences. Here's Hochman talking about her work.

# data[].attributes.body
Let's confirm our definitions of each.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What is the difference between differentiation and scaffolding? While educators have long defined these strategies as being almost identical, they are, in fact, in sharp contrast to one another. Differentiation adjusts the text to the child, while scaffolding enables the child to read and comprehend at a higher level.
The concept of differentiating instruction is close to celebrating its 100 th birthday. In comparison, the idea of scaffolding instruction is a mere 41 years old. In truth, adults have been scaffolding their children's learning since we emerged as humans, but in the quest for efficiency educators have paid more attention to differentiation than to scaffolding. These two concepts, differentiation and scaffolding, guide how we think about instruction, but rarely do we see them in conflict. It is only by contrasting them do their differences, their positives and negatives, emerge.

We have long known that the students in any classroom vary in ability, skills and interests. These differences were brought to clear focus in the early 1900s with the invention of the standardized test, giving educators a tool to identify the level or the abilities of their students. At the same time other educators worked out procedures for rating the reading level or difficulty of texts - readability formulas (Chall, 1988). Later, in the 1940s Betts (1946) created the concept of independent, instructional and frustration levels. Now teachers could match students to texts using an informal reading inventory and a readability formula. The current Lexile system that levels books and students is just a contemporary upgrade for matching students to text and for differentiating instruction.

Scaffolding has a more recent history, emerging as psychologists studied how adults help children solve problems and learn. In the often-repeated statement, scaffolding is a "process that enables a child or novice to solve a problem, carry out a task or achieve a goal which would be beyond his unassisted efforts (Wood, Bruner & Ross, 1976)." Scaffolding is a process of enabling the child to read and comprehend at a higher level, while differentiation is a process of adjusting the text to the child, what Hoffman (2017) calls the "just right" level. With strong scaffolding children can reach beyond their instructional or their independent reading level (Spache, 1972).

There are several conflicts between differentiation and scaffolding, even after we acknowledge that teachers can differentiate more than the reading level of the text. Teachers can differentiate the time they spend with students, the size of the instructional group, and the type of instruction. In practice, especially in the guided reading approach, determining the just right level of the text is paramount. Scaffolding assumes that a teacher or a student can select a challenging text and with assistance read, comprehend and enjoy it.

1. When differentiation is the dominant philosophy, placing students in the "just right" level becomes the goal but instruction varies little (Hoffman, 2017). When scaffolding is the focus, teachers think about how to help a students read interesting but more difficult books.

2. When differentiation is the focus student choice is confined by their designated reading level; they are a level 34. When scaffolding is the focus, student choice expands as teachers provide the instruction allowing students to succeed.

3. When the focus is on differentiation, a system of leveling books defines the reader (Hoffman, 2017). Book leveling often ignores interest, theme and background knowledge. Scaffolding does not define the reader; the reader defines himself through the books and articles he chooses to read.

4. In differentiated instruction once the teacher has selected the "just right" book, the instruction is relatively routine. There is pre-reading instruction where students preview the text, build knowledge and vocabulary. During reading the teacher prompts, questions and guides the comprehension. After reading the students summarize and review. Scaffolding demands that the teacher has a theory of the task. The teacher must understand how a book is structured and how it is read. The teacher must also posses a theory of the performance characteristics of the students (Woods, Bruner & Ross, 1976).

Where are the students in the process of reading a book and how do I assist them?
What scaffolding tasks should you be looking for in a reading program?

Woods and his colleague highlight several important scaffolding tasks (Woods et al, 1976).

Recruit the interest of the students before reading. In the Read Side by Side Reading Program, the teacher models reading the blurb to gain interest and set a purpose for reading. Students learn to engage in this task whenever they read, whether with the teacher or independently.

Simplify the task by guiding the students' inferential reasoning. In the Read Side by Side Reading Program, the teacher guides students inferential thinking through modeling and guided practice. Students learn to use the text as evidence of their thinking, and have access to the text to support inference generation.

Pace the instruction so that the students do not lag. In the Read Side by Side Reading Program, the teacher uses a slower pace at the beginning of the text when students are organizing and processing new information. The teacher then increases the pace across the text as students gain background knowledge, and become more familiar with the author's style.

Mark the critical features of the task and model the task. In the Read Side by Side Reading Program, the task is clearly stated at the beginning of each lesson and the teacher clearly models the task. Students have the support of the teacher as well as his/her peers. This aligns to the theory of scaffolding, which suggests that students can only imitate acts that they can partially complete on their own.

The theory of scaffolding provides a far more complete description of how to promote growth in reading. Differentiation, to the extent that it is important, is a theory of where to begin. It does not tell how to get to where we want to go. Scaffolding does.
Want to learn more about the Read Side by Side Reading Program mentioned in this article? Please visit www.readsidebyside.com

Written by Peter Dewitz, Ph. D.
Read Side by Side Publications, LLC.
Director of Research

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Conflict Between Differentiation and Scaffolding

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What is the difference between differentiation and scaffolding? While educators have long defined these strategies as being almost identical, they are, in fact, in sharp contrast to one another. Differentiation adjusts the text to the child, while scaffolding enables the child to read and comprehend at a higher level.

# data[].attributes.body
This podcast shares short (under 20 min) interviews with leading researchers in reading instruction. Here's one about comprehension with Dr. Margaret McKeown (2/6/17).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
comprehension instruction:  focus on content or strategies? with dr. margaret mckeown

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
‎Voice of Literacy: Comprehension instruction: Focus on content or strategies? with Dr. Margaret McKeown on Apple Podcasts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
‎Show Voice of Literacy, Ep Comprehension instruction: Focus on content or strategies? with Dr. Margaret McKeown - Feb 6, 2017

# data[].attributes.headline
The Connection Between Writing, Knowledge Acquisition & Reading Comprehension

# data[].attributes.subject
The Connection Between Writing, Knowledge Acquisition & Reading Comprehension

# data[].attributes.body
by Judith Hochman & Natalie Wexler. See the podcasts (column 2) featuring the authors.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Get access to files anywhere through secure cloud storage and file backup for your photos, videos, files and more with Google Drive.

# data[].attributes.headline
Applying the Science of Reading in the Classroom

# data[].attributes.subject
Applying the Science of Reading in the Classroom

# data[].attributes.body
Free webinar (already been recorded)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This is a free edWebinar from edWeb.net. A CE certificate will be emailed to you within 24 hours of the live event. Join edWeb.net to download a personalized CE certificate from your edWeb member homepage. If you miss the live session, a link to view the recording will be sent within 24 hours of the live event.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
meeting registration: structured literacy: applying the science of reading in the classroom | anymeeting - online meetings

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Meeting Registration: Structured Literacy: Applying the Science of Reading in the Classroom | AnyMeeting - Online Meetings, Video Conferencing and Webinar Service

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Meeting Registration: Structured Literacy: Applying the Science of Reading in the Classroom - Web Conferencing, Video Conferencing and Webinar Service. Produce your own high quality online meetings and webinars, with registration service, polling, surveys and more. Get started for free!

# data[].attributes.headline
FP Benchmark Assessment -- Doesn't look right, sound right or make sense

# data[].attributes.subject
FP Benchmark Assessment -- Doesn't look right, sound right or make sense

# data[].attributes.body
Discussion around the effectiveness of FP Benchmark Assessment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System: Doesn't Look Right, Sound Right, or Make Sense | Reading Rockets

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
My district, like so many others, uses Fountas and Pinnell's Benchmark Assessment System (BAS) as the primary measure of student reading progress. But if you've had doubts about the assessment and the ways BAS data is often used, you're on to something...