The Foundation Board and Staff Financials Contact Us
Foundation Announcements We Know What Works. Why Don't We Take Action? What's The Plan for Us? The Truth About Our Failing Schools
Grants Ciresi Walburn Leadership Fellows
Annual Grant Application
Demand Great Things.
 
 

The research and science are clear: We know how to teach kids to read. Explicit and consistent instruction in phonics and decoding is fundamental to developing skilled readers. Too many districts, schools, and classrooms across Minnesota are ignoring the science of reading and use “whole language” or “balanced literacy” English Language Arts (ELA) curriculums, which do not include nearly enough explicit phonics instruction to ensure all students become strong readers.

It’s time to for Minnesota schools to ditch outdated methods for teaching students to read and write and for every classroom to adopt curriculum, instructional materials, interventions, and teacher development and training based on the science of reading, ensuring all students have a strong foundational understanding of phonics and decoding.

Lack of high-quality literacy instruction is not an issue that’s limited just to large urban public-school systems or poorer counties in Greater Minnesota.

So, why can’t little Sven and Helga read?

Because even though scientific research has shown how children learn to read and how they should be taught, many schools and districts aren’t being given the tools to implement a structured approach to literacy instruction or, in some cases, are actively resisting implementation as they cling to their outdated and invalidated techniques.

Often, when students can’t read, there is enormous blame spread around—kids are blamed for not caring or trying hard enough, parents are blamed for not reading to their children or fostering a love of literature, or poverty is blamed for enacting barriers that some consider too challenging to overcome.  

The root cause, however, is much simpler: even though research has demonstrated that it’s possible to teach almost all kids how to read by focusing on systematic, structured, and evidence-based reading instruction, many Minnesota schools and classrooms disregard the science and continue to utilize disproven methods to teach kids how to read.

Lack of high-quality literacy instruction is not an issue that’s limited only to large urban public-school systems or poorer counties in Greater Minnesota. Many suburban school districts serving predominantly students from wealthy families also use debunked approaches to teach literacy, ignoring decades of research on how young brains learn to read.

Families with financial means help to mask the lack of high-quality literacy instruction by paying–in some cases thousands of dollars—for private reading tutoring to help their children succeed. For most Minnesota families, however, expensive one-on-one tutoring isn’t an option, and the results are as predictable as they are alarming: nearly half of all Minnesota students are reading below grade level. More specifically, more than two-thirds of Minnesota students of color are below grade level in reading, and more than 40% of white Minnesota students aren’t reading on grade level, either.

The research shows us that for only about 35-45% of young readers does literacy come relatively easily. For more than half of all kids, “code-based, systematic, and explicit instruction” using science of reading principles is essential.

Arguments have been made that if all parents just read to their kids, it would solve our literacy crisis. Research does not back up this assertion. Unlike learning how to speak, human brains are not automatically wired to learn how to read. The research shows us that for only about 35-45% of young readers does literacy come relatively easily. But for more than half of all kids, code-based, systematic, and explicit instruction using science of reading principles is essential. For 10-15% of students (including those, for example, who experience dyslexia), this structured literacy approach will need to be even more intensive. The idea that simply reading to children will help them to acquire the skills necessary to do so themselves flies in the face of research. And, while a structured and explicit phonics-based approach is essential for about half of all children, the truth is that this approach actually benefits all students. Even students who learn to read with relative ease can benefit from structured literacy instruction when it is coupled with enrichment opportunities and more challenging content.

 
 

Unlike predictable or repetitive texts, decodable books are simple books written for beginning readers that encourage children to sound out words using decoding strategies rather than guessing words from pictures or predicting words based on other “cues.”

If we’re going to solve our literacy crisis, we need to stop blaming students, parents, or poverty, and focus our efforts on ensuring all students receive evidence-based reading instruction using a structured approach to develop foundational reading skills by relying on the science of reading. Specifically, this includes curriculum, instructional materials, interventions, and teacher development and training based on the acquisition of language, phonemic or phonological awareness, phonics and decoding, spelling, fluency, vocabulary, oral language, and comprehension that can be differentiated to meet the needs of individual students.

Early readers should be given decodable texts, which play an important role in phonics instruction and help to build confidence. Unlike predictable or repetitive texts, decodable books are simple books written for beginning readers that encourage children to sound out words using decoding strategies rather than guessing words from pictures or predicting words based on other “cues.” Decodable book sets are sequential in nature and build knowledge gradually, starting with very simple words and slowly adding words with more syllables and complex phonic structures. Eventually, readers are able to easily “decode” words as their brains are wired to recognize the sounds that each part of a word makes.

It's important here to note that many opponents of this type of evidenced-based reading instruction claim that science of reading refers only to phonics instruction. This couldn’t be further from the truth. No reasonable proponent of decoding would equate “decoding” with “reading.” In order for a student who is fluent at decoding to become a reader, they must develop comprehension skills; what is decoded must also be understood.

Dr. Hollis Scarborough invented the concept of the Reading Rope in the early 1990s and she used it to help parents understand the various skills their children needed to master to become proficient readers.

In fact, advocates of science-based literacy instruction acknowledge how complicated reading is. Dr. Hollis Scarborough invented the concept of the Reading Rope in the early 1990s and she used it to help parents understand the various skills their children needed to master to become proficient readers. Originally, she twisted together a model made of pipe cleaners to demonstrate her point. Scarborough’s Reading Rope contains two main sections: Word Recognition (including phonics, decoding, and recognition of familiar words) and Language Comprehension (including vocabulary, background knowledge, and different literary genres). Woven together, these “strands” become the rope that represents complete skilled reading. All the components are interconnected and interdependent—if just one strand is weak, it affects the rope (and the reader) as a whole.

Therefore, even as students are learning to decode words by sounding them out, they should be experiencing high quality children’s literature (being read to every day by a teacher or parent) in order to expose them to more complex vocabulary and sentence structure than they encounter in decodable texts.

By explicitly teaching syllables, phonemes (the 44 separate units of sound in the English language), and spelling-sound correspondence (the relationship of the letters in the alphabet to the sounds they produce), students will be able to “graduate” to more complex texts where they can begin to develop the skills needed to comprehend new material. In other words, as readers become fluent at decoding text, they free up mental space to understand increasingly complex vocabulary and themes.

If we teach literacy correctly, by third grade most students would not need explicit phonics anymore. It’s in this way that students will transition from “learning to read” to “reading to learn.” All children deserve this solid foundation, because students who do not have fundamental word recognition skills will not be able to access higher level texts and will fall further and further behind in school (with predictable consequences to follow).

Now is the time for education leaders to ensure every Minnesota student has access to science-based literacy instruction. Here’s where they can start…

A Feasible, Responsible Menu of Solutions Should Include:

Eliminating the use of “whole language” or “balanced literacy” instruction in Minnesota classrooms.

More than 20 states—but NOT Minnesota—ban “whole language” or “balanced literacy”

instruction. Too many districts, schools, and classrooms across Minnesota use “whole language” or “balanced literacy” English Language Arts (ELA) curriculums, which ignore decades of research and do not include nearly enough explicit phonics instruction to ensure all students become strong readers.

Proponents of “whole-language” instruction argue that learning to read is a natural process and that children will instinctively learn to read if they’re surrounded by books—similar to how humans learn to speak. But the scientific consensus is that whole-language instruction, as well as “balanced literacy” that is deeply rooted in whole language, are not as effective as a phonics-based approach.

Hold schools and school districts accountable for improving literacy for all students, regardless of their background

Schools and school districts must be held accountable for implementing science-based literacy strategies with fidelity and urgency. The state should require schools to set specific, measurable targets for students achieving growth and proficiency of grade-level literacy standards. Students who do not reach appropriate literacy benchmarks should be provided with individualized plans and targeted interventions to help them catch up and reach proficiency.

Require Minnesota district to use a high-quality, structured literacy curriculum based on the science of reading.

State leaders, including the legislature and Minnesota Department of Education, should require all districts and schools to adopt curriculum and teaching materials that include explicit and systematic instruction in phonics and decoding, especially in early elementary grades. All schools should use a structured literacy approach to reading instruction where teachers carefully structure their lessons to ensure students acquire the following literacy skills:

  • phonological and phonemic awareness;

  • phonics, decoding, and fluency;

  • vocabulary and oral language; and

  • comprehension.

Provide more funding to train teachers in the science of reading, including LETRS training

All teachers in Minnesota who work with students who are developing their literacy skills—including elementary school teachers, reading interventionists, and middle school English Language Arts (ELA) teachers—should be required to receive and complete sufficient training to provide comprehensive reading and oral language instruction, including explicit, systematic, evidenced-based instruction on foundational reading skills. One example of such training is Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling (LETRS), which is and in-depth professional development approach that follows the science of reading. The state should provide funding to school districts to cover the costs of teachers attending LETRS training, as well as resources to cover the costs of substitute teachers for those attendomg the training during the school year.

Where to Learn More:

APM Reports Documentary Series