Literacy Now

Remember getting a love note? How many times did you read it? How many times did you try to determine the sincerity behind it?

Love notes are why students need to have access to love stories and books about relationships at the intermediate level. I know some teachers think the topic is taboo and should be avoided so as not to encourage such feelings at school. That is like trying to stop a runaway train in a snowstorm.

Often we ask the legendary question to students, “What are you interested in?” There is a variation in answers and many boys and girls are too embarrassed to say, “love” even though that is what consumes their thoughts from fifth grade until prom. Boys are not about to willingly go to their teacher and say, “Hey teach, I am interested in a love story” or “Mr. Stygles, I need a book on relationships.” The student most certainly expects a raised eyebrow or a barrage of questions about why. Instead, boys will say they are interested in motorcycles, football, or baseball to avoid shame.

This is a tragedy. Last week, I embarrassed myself by admitting such an opinion in a conversation amongst consummate book lovers. I recall when I finally started admitting that I liked love stories, it all began with the Scarlet Pimpernel in 10th grade. I became a bit of a romantic afterwards, but who wants to be caught dead with books like that. I mean, my literary hero is Mr. Darcy, for heaven's sake. But how do we get kiddos to feel this comfortable with books of this content? The market is swamped with books like this and most are written off as girl books.

This year, we started our class by reading Firegirl by Tony Abbott, the tragic story of girl burned head to toe. She was bullied, teased, and missed tons of school for appointments. But one boy—one overweight, shy boy had the courage to talk to Firegirl. He established a relationship with her, in light of social consequences and that symbolized the courage we all wish to have. While they never dated, which is what the kids immediately want to happen, we, as a class, certainly felt he fell in love with her. Even if they were “just friends,” they came to care for each other. If you haven't read the book, I'll save the ending. It’s a killer—that eternal feeling of wanting that one moment to last forever.

The next class read-aloud was Joan Bauer's Hope Was Here, the tale of a young waitress somewhat irritated with the world. In a mix of politics, thugs, and cancer, there is love. Bauer expertly crafted the developing relationship between Braverman and Hope. Students waited and waited, chapter after chapter, for Braverman or Hope to finally announce their feelings. Hope had a rule though, never date the cook. Every single student anxiously waited for Hope to break the rule. Then it happened. The dinner “date” between the two at the restaurant was not quite Jasmine and Aladdin flying around the world on a carpet, but it's that moment where time stops and the world is owned by two people. The kids roared in applause and celebration when the date finally happened.

Look at Smile. Though not about love per se, the whole premise was about a girl crazy about a boy. What is at the heart of Tale of Desperaux and the Tiger Rising? These are captivating books. Kids want to read them. Kids love the books when they read them. If books are students connections to the world or a lens in which to see the world, why do we shut them down when it comes to talking about how people interact? Is that not character analysis? Theme? Author's craft? (Do you know how hard it is to wrap that one moment in time up into the perfect narrative?)

A rich literature (circle) conversation would be so much deeper and profound if students felt as ease to discuss relationship between characters, as opposed to retelling events and stating opinions about main events. What really was the most important part of Hope Was Here? Was it really G.T. winning the election? Or was it Hope and Braverman finally working up the nerve to do what every reader waited to read?

Let’s face it, even Ariel gave up her family and kingdom in the sea for a prince in The Little Mermaid. We teach this to our toddlers and preschoolers. Love is a part of our culture. I encourage students to embrace books about love and relationships to let them escape into a world where love is eternal and rejection is a fantasy. Children have the right to be romantic dreamers and believe in a world of happiness, hope, and happily ever after. If books are based on author's experiences or we are supposed to learn from books, wouldn't we want kids to read books of such subject matter? Maybe these books will even teach or encourage students how to engage in appropriate relationships, preventing classroom complications.

Justin Stygles is a sixth grade language arts teacher and IRA Advisory Committee of Teachers (ACT) committee member based in Norway, Maine. He also serves as the state’s Maine Reading Association coordinator. 

When we set out to create a literacy coaching model we spent time thinking about why coaches were important and how they ultimately could impact teacher learning. We sat around tables and discussed articles about the importance of coaching in a variety of fields such as in medicine, in sports, and in business. One pattern that emerged from our initial research was how the most elite and already accomplished athletes and surgeons had coaches. Coaching was not about remediation in these fields. In many schools and districts educational coaching, on the other hand, is viewed as an intervention for less effective or early career teachers. It was as if the message was implied, “Coaching is for those who need extra help.” Our conclusion from the research and from speaking with a variety of professionals who have coaches led us to a different message: “Everyone can benefit from a coach.” It became important as we began to think through the logistics of the model to keep this in mind.

Take for example, a principal who is concerned about one of her teacher’s effectiveness. We did not want coaching to turn into fixing this perceived problem, where the principal would come to the literacy coach and ask her to help this teacher. As soon as coaching becomes about fixing problems, it takes on a deficit lens. A deficit lens is one where the support is viewed as an answer to a problem and focuses on something wrong that needs to be changed. In schools where coaching is created around a deficit lens, it is embarrassing to work with the coach. It means you are ineffective.

Taking on an Asset Lens

It became clear we wanted to create an asset lens rather than a deficit lens with the literacy coaching model. We wanted the literacy coach to be sought after, to be viewed as a collaborator, and to be appreciated as a support for all teachers. In order to do this we needed to clearly articulate and create a model with the belief teachers were already effective practitioners, and every one of us can learn and grow. We took on this asset lens in a few intentional ways:

• Make coaching available to all teachers, encouraging veterans as well as early career teachers to take advantage of the resource.
• Start from strengths, assume the best, and work with what is successful in each teacher’s classroom.
• Commit to offering teachers choice in coaching and not having administrators force or nominate teachers as candidates.

Offering Choice

At the start of the coaching model a digital invitation was sent to all literacy teachers in the district letting them know they could sign up for coaching, every six weeks a new set of teachers would be selected for this support. Not surprisingly, teachers were not signing up. We realized many teachers held deficit beliefs about literacy coaching or were unsure about what it was and why it would be helpful. They were nervous and apprehensive.

In an effort to build momentum and teacher enthusiasm, we considered who would be strong candidates for the initial rounds of support. We made a list of teachers who were already viewed by their colleagues and the school community as strong teachers. Some had dozens of years of experience and some had only a dozen months in the district. A short list of ideal candidates was created and we invited them to a meeting to discuss the literacy coaching model. When the teachers arrived and sat around the long, rectangular table, they seemed to be taking in who was there and asking the question, “Why me?” So, the first topic we addressed was why them. We explained coaching meant collaboration and that we wanted to offer all teachers the opportunity to work with a coach to deepen their already strong practices. We went on to explain that a coach was a gift, a support system, and an opportunity they could choose. Every teacher at that first meeting signed up for coaching on his or her own.

When word spread that teachers did sign up for the first round of literacy coaching, their colleagues were surprised at the names on the list. In a deficit model the weakest and least experienced teachers would be given a coach. In this instance, the names represented the most experienced teachers who were viewed as leaders and experts. Teachers began to ask, “How can I get a coach, too?” After the first round of coaching, when the sign-up went out again, many teachers added their names to the list. 

One of our biggest take-aways from the creation of a literacy coaching model was the importance of taking on an asset lens. If you are in the midst of creating your district’s literacy coaching model ask yourself, “How can I create a culture where literacy coaching is viewed as a resource for all teachers?”

In our next post, we will share our second take-away: the role and purpose for the coach must be clearly defined.

As a literacy consultant, Gravity Goldberg, helps districts create and sustain effective professional development and literacy coaching models, in addition to managing her blog. In one mid-sized school district, she collaborated with Gail Cordello, a classroom teacher, Chris Fuller, a literacy coach, and Grace White, a district administrator,  to establish a literacy coaching program, and years later, the team continues to meet and share. This post is one in a series from the educators to share their greatest take-aways from their collective experience. You can reach Goldberg at gravity@drgravitygoldberg.com.

Reading is something most high school students take for granted, but if you ask teachers around the country, they say many students lack the basic literacy skills necessary for learning.

A 10th-grade teacher, Sandi, told us nearly all of her 30 inner-city students are behind in reading by one or more grade levels and need individual and small-group instruction on basic literacy skills. Sandi has little help from her school district to support intervention, but she does her best. She modifies lessons, scours thrift stores for simpler texts, and works with students during her lunch break and after school.

“My heart breaks every day,” Sandi says. “I try to walk a tightrope between teaching the kids what they’re supposed to know for the state standards and coming back to help with really basic skills.”

Research suggests these problems start early in a child’s schooling. If students aren’t reading on level by third grade, they’re likely to fall further and further behind as they progress through school.

Why Is Third Grade So Important?

Third grade is a pivotal point in a student’s development because students are learning to read until third grade. After third grade, students are reading to learn. It’s nearly impossible to learn about state history in fourth grade or solve a word problem in eighth grade without being able to read.

Teachers in the later grades aren’t trained to teach basic reading skills, so if a student hasn’t learned to read by the end of third grade, the student is almost certain to struggle.

Studies by the Annie E. Casey Foundation found that 82% of low-income students aren’t reading at grade level when they enter fourth grade, and students who don’t read at grade level by the end of third grade are four times more likely to drop out of high school.

“Walk around my school during a day of state testing,” Sandi says. “Watch the kids look at the standardized test and, one by one, put their heads down because they can’t read it. The text is too difficult.”

Who’s Seeking Solutions?

Fortunately, a number of powerful players have realized the importance of reading on level by third grade.

The Education Trust has identified reading by third grade as one of its six critical areas worth fighting for, and even the White House is paying attention. In September, the administration unveiled My Brother’s Keeper Community Challenge, a campaign to ensure all young people have access to educational opportunities and reading by third grade is one of its six priorities as well.

School districts across the country are refocusing their efforts, too. In Philadelphia, they’re placing an early literacy coach in every elementary school, and in Denver, they’re aiming to have 80% of students reading at grade level by 2020.

The Education Trust uses its Dispelling the Myth Awards program to recognize schools making a difference. Its 2014 winners range from a rural elementary school in Michigan to an urban pre-K through eighth-grade school in Atlanta. All winners boast high rates of reading proficiency, despite above-average levels of student poverty.

Hard Work Leads to Progress

There’s no secret to solving this problem. The solution lies in what we already know: Students need exposure to reading and good teaching to develop literacy skills, and teachers need targeted training and in-classroom coaching to implement best practices in reading instruction.

Sandi’s students still struggle, but she’s starting to see results, and she knows her hard work is worth it.

“I feel a sense of hope when I see a kid sneaking a novel under the desk,” she says. “If they can read, they can do everything.”

Joel Zarrow is the executive director of Children’s Literacy Initiative. CLI is a nonprofit organization that aims to help teachers transform instruction to enable children to become powerful readers, writers, and thinkers. Prior to CLI, Joel served as a senior advisor and consultant for the New Jersey Department of Education, the associate director of Partners in School Innovation, and a board member for Envision Schools, a charter management organization.

Let’s face it: education is, and always has been, a pendulum. It seems as if the people who lead the charge in our educational system feel we have to choose just one way make our children proficient in academics. Then, politicians promote it, college professors seem to be apathetic to it, and, for the most part, teachers accept it, knowing that in a few more years the pendulum will indeed swing back to the other side and strategies and mandates will change yet again.

In the meantime, our students suffer and I wonder, why is there never a middle? We seem to forget pendulums have a middle, directly under the “point of support.” Why then can’t we choose the middle? Isn’t that what we want to be for our students—a point of support?

For our current opposing strategies, consider the sanctioned/safe method of study—Common Core Standards—and, on the other end, a technique that is a little less structured and a little more risky—Project-Based Learning. As often happens, neither of the two “ends of the swing” seem to be the right fit for every child, in every subject, in every situation.

The problem with not recognizing the middle is that we become shortsighted. We start to think all students can learn the same way, and even worse, we believe the same student will learn everything he or she needs to know using that same preferred method. Given our country’s pride surrounding diversity and embracing differences, we should already know this progression just doesn’t make sense. And given current statistics, this theory doesn’t make proficient students, either. 

I do get it. Schools are under significant pressure to perform within the confines of the Standards, and in the minds of administrators it is much easier to perform under what is presumed a stable and more “in the hands of the adult in the room” setting. A given set of standards with specific skill sets does provide a jumping off point for most students and a more discernable way to evaluate progress.

These skill sets, although important, will not provide necessary critical thinking, team-building, creativity, and communication skills needed for our students to survive in today’s real-world scenarios. Furthermore, they will not even provide the skills needed for the students to pass the newest test on the block, Smarter Balance.

On the other hand, PBL provides the opportunity for the student to choose. The teacher no longer does the evaluation or synthesis. Students are actually given the opportunity to formulate their own ideas regarding a given thought or practice. Administrators claim to want this type of learning atmosphere and student, but it has been my experience that they don’t want the methods that will provide them. The push-back for teachers who choose PBL in a Common Core world is often devastating to teachers and students.

Don’t get me wrong. I am in no way trying to say there shouldn’t be specific skill sets all students must know. On the other hand, I am also not saying that supplying the students with “big questions” in which they have to work as a team to examine solutions, ideas, and/or processes is not a necessary part of a true education. So, what is the answer?

• Create assignments that use skill sets included in the Common Core, with the core ideas and values that exist in any respectable project management atmosphere.
• Allow students to use their problem-solving skills. This is a necessity to being successful in life.
• Engage students in reading—anything and everything—and teach them how to talk about it.
• Ensure students have a strong skill-set base in math, reading, and writing. This includes being able to evaluate what’s important, what’s not, and what’s different or the same about both.
• Teach students that every idea, thought process, and text has a sequence. Figure it out and you open the door to meaning.
• Allow students to fail. There is something to be said for the idea that failure builds knowledge and character.

Or…simply find the middle and use a little bit of everything.

Pam Andreavich is a middle school writing teacher at a charter school in Middletown, DE. She is an executive board member for Delaware’s Odyssey of the Mind program.

As a literacy consultant for 20 some years, I’d heard this question often. Many teachers fail to understand the value of individual, developmental guidance during the process of writing, especially in the first 18 months of learning to read, as evidenced in research by Marie Clay. While most teachers today agree that writing (encoding) is crucial to decoding, there is much disagreement about how to teach writing.

Changing my mindset

Prior to becoming a literacy consultant, I was a teacher for more than 20 years, but I didn’t understand how conventional writing could help teach beginning reading—I didn’t understand the developmental process of writing. Neither did the kindergarten teacher on my team in the early ‘90s as we tried to develop the best kindergarten literacy program possible. We both truly believed all children learned to read just from being read to, and reading “any way” they could, within a program of immersion and exposure to meaningful print, and we developed such a program. We did include some writing—journal writing, and a story starter every week in centers, but there was no individual, developmental guidance during the process of writing. (We hadn’t heard of Cambourne’s Conditions).

A kindergarten test worth doing

To be sure our program was the “best,” we decided we needed to test the children at the beginning of our program, and again at the end. We used Clay’s Dictation, because along with testing phonemic awareness, it also tests the alphabetic principle which signifies the beginning of reading. At the end of the year we were shocked by what we saw! Our highest score was 22 out of 37, and the lowest was a zero (with four other scores only slightly above)! My fellow teacher and I were heartsick. We had failed five children by not teaching them the alphabetic principle and it was they, not us, who would bear the burden of not being able to read or write. I decided to give writing a “hard look” and I began to read everything I could find on the subject which led me to a wealth of research.

Experts taught me that writing is of major importance to early reading progress. Furthermore, a writing workshop is the best structure to use for writing, because it is based on and promotes Cambourne’s Seven Conditions of Learning: immersion, demonstration, approximation, time, responsibility, feedback, and expectation. This structure and these conditions provide for developmental learning and individual guidance during the process of writing which is important for all children, but absolutely critical to the child who is falling behind, as many scholars know.  

I began implementing writing workshops in kindergartens. In the past 20 some years, every student in every classrooms where I’ve served as a consultant has passed Clay’s Dictation with flying colors. The lowest score recorded in any of these classrooms was a 22 out of 37, the next lowest a 28, and all the rest were over 30 with many children having perfect scores 37/37. (Today they also pass the PALS Test). All these children can read and write.

Writing Workshop allows for all the right conditions of learning literacy

The appropriate transformations that enable children to understand message at the early reading stage take place only in the presence of print, and when the child is engaged and actively seeking to discover how his/her oral and written language are related, according to Clay. Writing prevents learners from overlooking many things they need to know about print, and reveals things that the teacher needs to know. All children can be introduced to a writing program at some level with which he or she can engage, and then go forward with the teacher providing some individual, developmentally appropriate strategies at points of need within a writing workshop, as seen and described in my video and book, Helping Children Become Readers Through Writing. (Note: we will refer to videos produced to support Helping Children Become Readers Through Writing. The time will refer to particular sections of the video, but will be hyperlinked to the entire video.)

Unfortunately, for kindergartners and preservice teachers, all schools do not provide writing workshops based on Cambourne’s Conditions, and this was the dilemma facing Dr. Cindy Cate and myself as we tried to plan a “hands-on” program for her preservice teachers who would work with younger children.

What is considered learning? 80% or 100%?

My testing matched Clay’s observations. Indeed 80% of kindergartners and first graders do learn to read and write on their own regardless of the teacher’s methodology; these children are flexible and able to re-orient their previous learning to the teacher’s demands.  However, with observant, supportive teachers guiding them during their process of writing, this 80% would learn to think through their reading and writing more “closely,” often generating further learning or inquiry as seen with Ryan (36:47-37:22).

What about the remaining 20%? Programs that do not allow for some individual, developmentally appropriate guidance during the process of writing or “lock-step” programs that demand a young child’s first steps into literacy be predetermined, such as teaching letters, words, and skills in isolation first while downplaying the need to work at understanding message, may be an insurmountable barrier which turns these children off into a side-road of failure. This 20% needs frequent opportunities to write and test the rules of literacy they are discovering as they actively seek to discover how their oral and written language are related, as reported by Clay. They need guidance that focuses on constructing meaning while learning strategies to aid them during the process of writing such as the Letter Name Strategy (25:02-25:33). This guidance must be individual and developmentally appropriate, or these children will struggle with literacy all their lives.

Passing the pen to Dr. Cindy Cate

My reading methods course is packed with 100 preservice teachers divided into 4 sections. We meet two times a week for an hour and 15 minutes. Luckily we have a hands-on place to practice literacy planning, instruction, and assessment. Classes are held in a literacy lab within a kindergarten-second grade elementary school, and there is also a 15-hour practicum.

I welcome the idea of setting up practicums for each preservice teacher, and I try to place them in classrooms that mirror my curriculum. In these practicums, preservice teachers document their student’s literacy behaviors, strengths and needs which guides their instruction. This documentation is supported by class discussions and required course readings.

In the beginning of the semester, the first three chapters of Arlene’s bookare required reading, because they focus on guiding the emergent writer-reader. Additionally, we view her instructional video and read Chapter five in conjunction with the video.  The preservice teachers were eager to apply the lessons in the classroom.

Once they were well into their practicums, I was approached with confusions and disappointment from those working with kindergarten students who did not have a writing workshop. These students didn’t know why their practicum experiences should be so different from what they were learning. They wondered how they would be able to foster their students’ literacy growth stage from emergent to early writer-readers.

Unfortunately, it is a fact many kindergarten classrooms do not implement a writing workshop that embraces immersing children “in the process of meaningful writing where the proper conditions of learning language are valued,” as recommended by Schulze. These conditions, based on Cambourne’s research, are discussed during the first week of classes with my preservice teachers for good reason. Similar to what Schulze cites, I, too believe that teaching preservice teachers “how” to teach reading and writing in a workshop, literacy lab environment is the only structure or approach to use.

I rely on Cambourne’s Seven Conditions, the consistent referencing of these conditions support the activities and assigned tasks in my reading methods course. Cambourne informs us that the same conditions that support children as they develop oral language can be used as a developmental model for all literacy learning—basically, using strengths to teach weaknesses (Routman).  Preservice teachers easily latched on to these conditions, especially when they read sections of Arlene’s book and were able to connect them to what they know they are learning.

When my preservice teachers share their documentations of their students’ behaviors, strengths and needs, we discuss the methods they used and weigh their usefulness against Cambourne’s Conditions as to being developmentally appropriate. For example, one of the preservice teachers reported his kindergartner’s assignment was to copy the letter “M” repeatedly on a worksheet, however, the kindergartner did not understand how to communicate his oral language into written language yet. The class decided because the kindergartner had not been “immersed” in the process of writing, and did not yet understand the alphabetic principle, he did not have the “responsibility” to derive any learning from this assignment. For letter knowledge to transfer to conventional writing, letters are learned best in the “process of writing” as can be seen with Trent (32:13-33:51).

This is how we resolved our problem of “haves” and “have nots.” Even though all my students couldn’t have a hands-on practicum experience in a writing workshop based on Cambourne’s Conditions, we were able to provide a positive experience through class discussion utilizing Cambourne’s Conditions.

Arlene C. Schulze is a longtime reading teacher-specialist, consultant and author, and she remains active as a literacy coach and speaker in Wisconsin promoting writing's value to reading, especially  on the emergent reading level and author of Helping Children Become Readers Through Writing. Cindy Cate, a graduate of UWSP, worked as  a Title I reading teacher and specialist in the Appleton Area School District of WI.  Currently she is an assistant professor of reading for UWSP .  Her doctoral study focused on preservice teacher's perceptions of planning reading instruction, and currently she chairs the preservice teacher committee of the Wisconsin State Reading Association.