Even with new curricula and good intentions, old teaching habits die hard. A veteran literacy coach describes how schools can break the cycle and improve reading outcomes.
Most excellent. Thank you. I did have a question-what does she mean by “focusing on skills and strategies.” I agree with this and I didn’t understand why it’s mutually exclusive.
We need students to have a toolbox of strategies explicitly taught to develop skills to access complex content.
“ If we want students to understand complex texts, we must give them access to rich, knowledge-building content—not just lessons on how to “identify the author’s purpose.” That means reading and discussing meaty texts, writing thoughtfully about them, and exploring important ideas central to those texts in depth. It means content, not just comprehension strategies.”
I think the author is referring to "Skill of the Week" model where students learn a discrete skill each week (finding the mood, finding the theme, identifying figurative language, etc.), and then practice applying it with random texts.
I wondered the same thing. A theme chart is not a bad thing that needs to be ditched. It would depend upon how she was using it (skill of the week verse part of her comprehension plan). Same with leveled texts. They shouldn’t be used for decoding but still have a place with more experienced readers. I worry that we confuse teachers if they feel as though theme charts and leveled texts are no longer in vogue. Both have a place and time and are methods for impact if used well.
You're absolutely right that students need a toolbox of strategies, as do teachers.
Here's what is going on: The "Science of Reading" LETRS training, that teachers were mandated to take, resulted in teachers saying things like "Why am I doing read-alouds? This isn't helping with all the phonics-related skills I've been told are so important."
So the "Knowledge Matters Campaign" is here to remind us that background knowledge is necessary for reading comprehension (like some of us didn't know that already), but you should only give your students "the right knowledge," like the "knowledge" that's in the "knowledge-based curriculums" such as Amplify CKLA, Wit & Wisdom, etc.
It's essentially marketing dressed up as being helpful. Does that make sense?
In 2nd grade my son was told to stop reading about Greek mythology at night and, instead, focus on "just right" books. This was after NYC Reads had been implemented and we had the new "Science of Reading" curriculum. I ignored the teachers' advice.
One of the problems is that school districts like my former district change curriculum every few years so all the time and training teachers receive is constantly changing. Another big issue in my opinion is that the reading specialists and sped teachers don’t necessarily receive the same training or curriculum so students may receive different instruction depending on the teacher they are with. And don’t forget the aides that are amazing but don’t have the training either. It’s complicated. Glad I retired a few years back and don’t have to deal with that anymore.
It’s a challenging situation for teachers- the teachers I worked with truly wanted the best for their students without any politics involved. I spent years studying one ELA curriculum or another as the district changed their minds. I just wanted to teach my littlest students (kindergarten and 2nd grade) to love reading and to set them up for success as readers and writers because truly reading and writing go hand in hand.
Re: "school districts like my former district change curriculum every few years so all the time and training teachers receive is constantly changing."
That's by design. Think about it: the Knowledge Matters Campaign is a marketing push for the "knowledge-based" curriculums, such as Amplify CKLA and Wit & Wisdom.
When these curriculums have run their course, the next reform movement will come along and teachers will be forced to implement that one "with fidelity."
Elena Aydarova has their number, though. She says, "So (the Science of Reading) is actually an onslaught on progressive pedagogy. It is actually an attack on civil rights and social justice because the people who support this movement, or who are writing materials for this movement question the agenda of justice, equity, and diversity. Hirsch, Ed Hirsch, who developed Core Knowledge Language Arts, blames multicultural education for the achievement gaps."
Having founded and launched the Knowledge Matters campaign a decade ago, I can speak with some authority on this subject: it is not a marketing campaign for anyone’s curriculum.
The lack of awareness that reading comprehension is largely domain-specific (not a transferable skill) is not a manufactured crisis. It is real and troubling.
After 10 years in the ed reform industry, you're not solving any problem that you didn't have a hand in creating.
The fact that background knowledge aids comprehension was known long before you and your "knowledge-based curriculums matter" campaign came around. Ed reform advocates like yourself fueled an overemphasis on skills, which kills the love of reading, which causes a dearth of background knowledge. So now you're here to sell the solution to a problem you caused. Meanwhile, the standardized test scores you say mean there's a "crisis" are both misleading and never really change. It's less of a crisis than a SNAFU, but I'm sure that it's a great situation if you're in the ed reform/selling curriculums industry.
Whenever you want to quit being part of the problem, you could maybe roll up your sleeves and try to teach, rather than just trying to tell real teachers that they're doing it wrong. I'm sure there'll probably be a pay cut involved, but you might actually do some good in the world.
I don’t expect anyone to follow my career and work. But it’s 20 years, not ten. And all of them *critical* of skills-driven literacy instruction, and clear-eyed about the negative effects of testing:
It seems like the Knowledge Matters Campaign is just a marketing push for "knowledge-based" curriculums, such as Amplify CKLA and Wit & Wisdom, a pivot after some teachers expressed frustration with their students' reactions to an overemphasis on discrete skill drill at the expense of meaning making, and a collection of "read-alouds" that aren't relevant to their students. And this essay seems like a call to administrators to "micromanage harder." Why do I get the feeling that all the "science of..." reforms are just old Taylorism resurrected?
Give teachers autonomy and ownership over their own curriculum and instruction, and they'll be both more invested in the results and less likely to be frustrated and burn out. If whatever they're doing is working for their students, let them keep doing it. Lead; don't micromanage.
And reject "crisis" narratives because standardized tests are not just flawed, they are engineered to fail a predictable portion of students. By design, a curve creates winners and losers. And those “losers” are too often students of color, students with disabilities, low-income students, and multilingual learners, the very students our institutions claim they want to support.
Most excellent. Thank you. I did have a question-what does she mean by “focusing on skills and strategies.” I agree with this and I didn’t understand why it’s mutually exclusive.
We need students to have a toolbox of strategies explicitly taught to develop skills to access complex content.
“ If we want students to understand complex texts, we must give them access to rich, knowledge-building content—not just lessons on how to “identify the author’s purpose.” That means reading and discussing meaty texts, writing thoughtfully about them, and exploring important ideas central to those texts in depth. It means content, not just comprehension strategies.”
I think the author is referring to "Skill of the Week" model where students learn a discrete skill each week (finding the mood, finding the theme, identifying figurative language, etc.), and then practice applying it with random texts.
I wrote about this issue here: https://www.goyen.io/blog/instruction-in-the-light
Oh my gosh—absolutely in love with the Goyen institute! I don’t have to do it alone anymore!!!! so amazing. And excellent article. 100 percent agree!
Thanks for the link. Looking forward to reading. And oh God—that method is a disaster!!! Criminal.
I wondered the same thing. A theme chart is not a bad thing that needs to be ditched. It would depend upon how she was using it (skill of the week verse part of her comprehension plan). Same with leveled texts. They shouldn’t be used for decoding but still have a place with more experienced readers. I worry that we confuse teachers if they feel as though theme charts and leveled texts are no longer in vogue. Both have a place and time and are methods for impact if used well.
You're absolutely right that students need a toolbox of strategies, as do teachers.
Here's what is going on: The "Science of Reading" LETRS training, that teachers were mandated to take, resulted in teachers saying things like "Why am I doing read-alouds? This isn't helping with all the phonics-related skills I've been told are so important."
So the "Knowledge Matters Campaign" is here to remind us that background knowledge is necessary for reading comprehension (like some of us didn't know that already), but you should only give your students "the right knowledge," like the "knowledge" that's in the "knowledge-based curriculums" such as Amplify CKLA, Wit & Wisdom, etc.
It's essentially marketing dressed up as being helpful. Does that make sense?
In 2nd grade my son was told to stop reading about Greek mythology at night and, instead, focus on "just right" books. This was after NYC Reads had been implemented and we had the new "Science of Reading" curriculum. I ignored the teachers' advice.
One of the problems is that school districts like my former district change curriculum every few years so all the time and training teachers receive is constantly changing. Another big issue in my opinion is that the reading specialists and sped teachers don’t necessarily receive the same training or curriculum so students may receive different instruction depending on the teacher they are with. And don’t forget the aides that are amazing but don’t have the training either. It’s complicated. Glad I retired a few years back and don’t have to deal with that anymore.
It’s a challenging situation for teachers- the teachers I worked with truly wanted the best for their students without any politics involved. I spent years studying one ELA curriculum or another as the district changed their minds. I just wanted to teach my littlest students (kindergarten and 2nd grade) to love reading and to set them up for success as readers and writers because truly reading and writing go hand in hand.
Teaching is a political act, whether we like it or not.
Re: "school districts like my former district change curriculum every few years so all the time and training teachers receive is constantly changing."
That's by design. Think about it: the Knowledge Matters Campaign is a marketing push for the "knowledge-based" curriculums, such as Amplify CKLA and Wit & Wisdom.
When these curriculums have run their course, the next reform movement will come along and teachers will be forced to implement that one "with fidelity."
Elena Aydarova has their number, though. She says, "So (the Science of Reading) is actually an onslaught on progressive pedagogy. It is actually an attack on civil rights and social justice because the people who support this movement, or who are writing materials for this movement question the agenda of justice, equity, and diversity. Hirsch, Ed Hirsch, who developed Core Knowledge Language Arts, blames multicultural education for the achievement gaps."
https://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/podcast-saldana-aydarova
Having founded and launched the Knowledge Matters campaign a decade ago, I can speak with some authority on this subject: it is not a marketing campaign for anyone’s curriculum.
Not any particular curriculum maybe, but it feeds the churn.
Drum up a crisis, micromanage/blame the teachers, publishers make more money at the expense of taxpayers, lather, rinse, repeat.
The lack of awareness that reading comprehension is largely domain-specific (not a transferable skill) is not a manufactured crisis. It is real and troubling.
After 10 years in the ed reform industry, you're not solving any problem that you didn't have a hand in creating.
The fact that background knowledge aids comprehension was known long before you and your "knowledge-based curriculums matter" campaign came around. Ed reform advocates like yourself fueled an overemphasis on skills, which kills the love of reading, which causes a dearth of background knowledge. So now you're here to sell the solution to a problem you caused. Meanwhile, the standardized test scores you say mean there's a "crisis" are both misleading and never really change. It's less of a crisis than a SNAFU, but I'm sure that it's a great situation if you're in the ed reform/selling curriculums industry.
Whenever you want to quit being part of the problem, you could maybe roll up your sleeves and try to teach, rather than just trying to tell real teachers that they're doing it wrong. I'm sure there'll probably be a pay cut involved, but you might actually do some good in the world.
I don’t expect anyone to follow my career and work. But it’s 20 years, not ten. And all of them *critical* of skills-driven literacy instruction, and clear-eyed about the negative effects of testing:
https://www.educationnext.org/lets-tell-truth-high-stakes-tests-damage-reading-instruction/
Over and out.
So anchor charts--which fully support executive function--are a no-no, according to this coach?
It seems like the Knowledge Matters Campaign is just a marketing push for "knowledge-based" curriculums, such as Amplify CKLA and Wit & Wisdom, a pivot after some teachers expressed frustration with their students' reactions to an overemphasis on discrete skill drill at the expense of meaning making, and a collection of "read-alouds" that aren't relevant to their students. And this essay seems like a call to administrators to "micromanage harder." Why do I get the feeling that all the "science of..." reforms are just old Taylorism resurrected?
Give teachers autonomy and ownership over their own curriculum and instruction, and they'll be both more invested in the results and less likely to be frustrated and burn out. If whatever they're doing is working for their students, let them keep doing it. Lead; don't micromanage.
And reject "crisis" narratives because standardized tests are not just flawed, they are engineered to fail a predictable portion of students. By design, a curve creates winners and losers. And those “losers” are too often students of color, students with disabilities, low-income students, and multilingual learners, the very students our institutions claim they want to support.