Pennington Publishing Blog

Standards-based education is at an important crossroads. Having largely captured the focus of the educational reform movement over the last 20 years, standards-based instruction is now the norm in all 50 states. Although some states have rescinded their adoption of the Common Core State Standards and some, like Texas, never did adopt the Standards, each state has its own Standards. More rigorous than previous state standards, teachers and district administrators are scrambling to align curriculum to the instructional demands of the Common Core English Language Arts Standards.

Although much discussion has ensued over the Common Core Standards insistence that literacy instruction must be a shared responsibility within the school, the largest burden still falls on the shoulders of ELA teachers. Of the four Reading, Writing, Speaking and Listening, and Language Strands, the Language Strand presents the greatest challenge for many teachers. Most ELA teachers simply have not had the undergraduate or graduate coursework to prepare them to teach the L.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 Standards in grammar and usage, mechanics, spelling, language application, and vocabulary.

The author of the Pennington Publishing Blog, Mark Pennington, has written a comprehensive Grades 4-12 language series to help ELA teachers teach each of the Common Core Language Standards. Following are articles, free resources, and teaching tips from the Pennington Publishing Blog regarding the Common Core English Language Arts Standards. Bookmark and visit us often. Also, check out the quality instructional programs and resources offered by Pennington Publishing.

English-language Arts Standards and the Common Core

Common Core Literalism

https://blog.penningtonpublishing.com/reading/common-core-literalism/

Some educators are taking the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in a wooden literal sense: not at all in the ways that the Common Core authors intended the Standards to be used. The CCSS authors trust administrators, teachers, and publishers to exercise some judgment regarding the implementation of the Standards. This is especially true with necessary prerequisite skills and with remediation. The Standards were not intended as educational straight-jackets.

Response to Intervention and the Common Core

https://blog.penningtonpublishing.com/reading/common-core-di-rti-and-ell/

RTI (Response to Intervention), ELL, ESL, and ELD (English Language Development), and DI (Differentiated/Individualized Instruction), instructional strategies are all validated in the Common Core State Standards. Common Core writers have clearly gone out of their way to assure educators that the Standards establish the what, but not the how of instruction.

Grammar and the Common Core

https://blog.penningtonpublishing.com/grammar_mechanics/grammar-and-the-common-core/

I hear the same two comments at English-language arts conferences all the time: 1. “I’ve heard that research has proven grammar, usage, mechanics, spelling, and vocabulary instruction doesn’t work.” 2. “I teach grammar and they seem to get it. They pass my tests and do okay on the standardized tests, but they don’t transfer the learning to their writing or speaking. And they just don’t retain what we’ve covered. Their next-year teacher always asks why I don’t teach grammar, usage, mechanics, and spelling.” So, how can we respond to these comments and what instructional approaches do work to teach the Common Core Language Standards?

Common Core Instructional Minutes

https://blog.penningtonpublishing.com/reading/time-for-the-common-core/

How much to teach, not what to teach or how to teach are the questions keeping English-language arts teachers up at night. How much to teach for each of the four Common Core State Standard ELA Strands? Is there really time to teach all of the Common Core ELA Standards? Check out this balanced approach with detailed instructional times.

Common Core Academic Language Words

https://blog.penningtonpublishing.com/reading/common-core-academic-language-words/

Yes, the Common Core authors view literacy development as a mutual responsibility of all educational stakeholders. Yes, history, science, and technology teachers need to teach domain-specific academic vocabulary. However, there is a difference between academic language and academic vocabulary. The latter is subject/content specific; the former is not. Reading more challenging expository novels, articles, documents, reports, etc. will certainly help students implicitly learn much academic language; however, academic language word lists coupled with meaningful instruction do have their place. So, which word lists make sense?

Turning Dependent into Independent Readers

https://blog.penningtonpublishing.com/reading/turning-dependent-into-independent-readers/

The new Common Core State Standards for English-language Arts makes a compelling case for not doing business as usual in our ELA classrooms. That business consists of the traditional “sage on the stage” methodology of reading an entire novel or play out loud (or with CD) and parsing paragraphs one at a time. Our new business? Scaffolding just enough reading strategies and content as we act as “guides on the side” to facilitate independent reading. In other words, the days of  spoon-feeding have got to go.

Common Core Greek and Latinates

https://blog.penningtonpublishing.com/reading/common-core-greek-and-latinates/

The bulk of Vocabulary Standards are now included in the Language Strand of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). Greek and Latin affixes (prefixes and suffixes) and roots are key components of five of the grade level Standards: Grades 4-8. Which Greek and Latin affixes and roots should we teach? How many should we teach? How should we teach them?

Grammar, Mechanics, Spelling, and Vocabulary

https://blog.penningtonpublishing.com/grammar_mechanics/teaching-the-language-strand/

Grammar, Mechanics, Spelling, and Vocabulary is part of a comprehensive Grades 4-12 language program, designed to address each Standard in the Language Strand of the Common Core State Standards in 60-90 weekly instructional minutes. This full-year curriculum provides interactive grammar, usage, mechanics, and spelling lessons, a complete spelling patterns program, language application openers, and vocabulary instruction. The program has all the resources to meet the needs of diverse learners. Diagnostic assessments provide the data to enable teachers to individualize instruction with targeted worksheets, each with a formative assessment. Progress monitoring matrices allow teachers to track student progress. Each instructional resource is carefully designed to minimize teacher preparation, correction, and paperwork. Appendices have extensive instructional resources, including the Pennington Manual of Style and downloadable essay-comments. A student workbook accompanies this program.

Overview of the Common Core Language Strand

https://blog.penningtonpublishing.com/grammar_mechanics/overview-of-the-common-core-language-strand/

English-language arts teachers have long been accustomed to the four-fold division of our “content” area into Reading, Writing, Listening, and Speaking. These divisions have been widely accepted and promoted by the NCTE, publishers, and other organizations. In a nod to the fearsome foursome, the Common Core State Standards in English Language Arts maintains these divisions (now called strands)with two notable revisions: Speaking and Listening are combined and Language now has its own seat at the table. So who exactly is this new dinner guest? For those just beginning to explore the CCSS Language Strand, an overview may be helpful.

Common Core Essay Writing Terms

https://blog.penningtonpublishing.com/writing/common-core-essay-writing-terms/

I propose using the CCSS language of instruction for the key writing terms across all subject disciplines in elementary, middle school, and high school. Some of us will have to come down out of our castles and give up pet writing terms that we’ve used for years, and ones that, indeed, may be more accurate than those of the CCSS. But for the sake of collaboration and service to our students, this pedagogical sacrifice is a must.

Common Core Grammar Standards

https://blog.penningtonpublishing.com/grammar_mechanics/common-core-grammar-standards/

The Common Core State Standards in English Language Arts are divided into Reading, Writing, Speaking and Listening, and Language strands. The Common Core Grammar Standards are detailed in the Language Strand. It is notable that grammar and mechanics have their own strand, unlike the organization of many of the old state standards, which placed grammar and mechanics instruction solely within the confines of writing or speaking standards.

Of course, the writers of the Common Core use the ambiguous label, Language, to refer to what teachers and parents casually label as grammar and mechanics or conventions. To analyze content and educational philosophy of  the Common Core State Standards Language Strand, it may be helpful to examine What’s Good about the Common Core State Standards Language Strand? as well as What’s Bad about the Common Core State Standards Language Strand? chiefly from the words of the document itself.

How to Teach the Common Core Vocabulary Standards

https://blog.penningtonpublishing.com/reading/how-to-teach-the-common-core-vocabulary-standards/

What most teachers notice after careful reading of the Common Core Vocabulary Standards is the expected breadth, complexity, and depth of instruction across the grade levels. These vocabulary words require direct, deep-level instruction and practice in a variety of contexts to transfer to our students’ long-term memories. So what instructional strategies make sense to teach the Common Core Vocabulary Standards? And what is the right amount of direct, deep-level vocabulary instruction that will faithfully teach the Common Core Vocabulary Standards without consuming inordinate amounts of class time? Following is a weekly instructional plan to teach the L.4, 5, and 6 Vocabulary Standards.

CCSS Language Progressive Skills

https://blog.penningtonpublishing.com/grammar_mechanics/ccss-language-progressive-skills-standards/

The Language Strand has been one of the most controversial components of the COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS FOR ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS & LITERACY IN HISTORY/SOCIAL STUDIES, SCIENCE, AND TECHNICAL SUBJECTS. One of these components stirring up heated debate has been the Language Progressive Skills document.

Common Core Curricular Crossover

https://blog.penningtonpublishing.com/reading/common-core-curricular-crossover/

The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) produces some interesting curricular crossover. The traditional English-language arts divisions of reading, writing, listening, and speaking have been replaced with four new strands: reading, writing, speaking and listening, and language. The six Standards of the Language Strand borrow a bit from each of the traditional divisions. The inclusion of the Language Strand as its own set of Standards has created some concern in the ELA community.

Spelling Word Lists by Grade Levels

https://blog.penningtonpublishing.com/spelling_vocabulary/spelling-word-lists-by-grade-levels/

As an MA Reading Specialist and author of quite a few spelling curricula (eight at last count), I’m often asked about spelling word lists by grade levels. Which words are right for which grade levels? Is blank (substitute any word) a third or fourth grade word? Which spelling words are the most important ones to practice? The short answer is…

Common Core Content Area Reading and Writing

https://blog.penningtonpublishing.com/reading/common-core-content-area-reading-and-writing/

Nothing in the new Common Core State Standards (CCSS) has worried English-language arts teachers more than “The Great Shift.” This shift changes the emphasis of reading and writing in K-12 English-language arts (ELA) classrooms from the literature and narrative to the informational (to explain) and argumentative (to persuade) genres. Hear are some relevant tactics to assist ELA teachers in spreading the wealth (pain) of the new Standards.

Standards and Accountability

https://blog.penningtonpublishing.com/reading/standards-and-accountability/

A recent discussion on my favorite site, the English Companion Ning, made me take a critical look at just what has engendered the recent demands for increased accountability in our public schools. Both Democrats and Republicans are playing the blame game and teachers are the easiest targets. As a public school teacher, my initial response has been defensive; however, upon a bit of reflection I’m thinking that teachers may well largely be to blame–not for the “sorry state of public education” as our critics claim, but for the very accountability movement that is being used to attack us. We teachers are often our own worst enemies. Check out this article, published in the Answer Sheet of The Washington Post.

Why and How to Teach Complex Text

https://blog.penningtonpublishing.com/reading/why-and-how-to-teach-complex-text/

A growing body of research presents a challenge to current K-12 reading/English-language Arts instruction. In essence, we need to “up” the level of text complexity and provide greater opportunities for independent reading. The Common Core State English-language Arts Standards provides a convincing three-reason argument in support of these changes in instructional practice. Following this rationale, I will share ten instructional implications and address a few possible objections.

Common Core State Writing Standards

https://blog.penningtonpublishing.com/writing/common-core-state-writing-standards/

The Common Core State Writing Standards have used a rather utilitarian approach to categorize essays into two classifications: argument and informational/explanatory writing.  The approach used by the English-language Arts committee was to examine the writing assignments of freshman English college professors then define the essay accordingly for the purposes of the Common Core State Writing Standards.

How to Teach the English-language Arts Standards

https://blog.penningtonpublishing.com/reading/how-to-teach-the-english-language-arts-standards/

Every English-language arts teacher shares the same problem—too much to teach and not enough time to teach it. So, where are the magic beans that will allow us to teach all of the have-tos (think ELA standards) and still have a bit of time to teach the want-tos? Following are a few suggestions to help the clever ELA teacher have her cake and eat it, too.

Should We Teach Standards or Children?

https://blog.penningtonpublishing.com/reading/should-we-teach-standards-or-children/

The excesses of the standards-based movement frequently run contrary to the need to differentiate instruction, according to the diagnostic needs of children.

More Articles, Free Resources, and Teaching Tips from the Pennington Publishing Blog

Bookmark and check back often for new articles and free ELA/reading resources from Pennington Publishing.

• Free Teaching Reading Resources
• Grammar and Mechanics
• Vocabulary
• English-language Arts Standards
• English-language Arts Instruction
• Essay Resources and Lessons
• The Writing Process/Writers Workshop
• Writing Style
• Spelling
• Structural Analysis/Syllabication/Oral Language
• ELA/Reading Assessments
• Independent Reading
• Reading Intervention (RtI Resources)
• EL/ESL/ELD
• Assessment-based Individualized Instruction/Differentiated Instruction
• Critical Thinking
• Study Skills
• Test Preparation
• Developmental Characteristics
• Professional Development
• Literacy Centers
• Close Reading
• Reading Comprehension

*****

Pennington Publishing’s mission is to provide the finest in assessment-based ELA and reading intervention resources for grades 4‒high school teachers. Mark Pennington is the author of many printable and digital programs. Please check out Pennington Publishing for assessment-based resources created for teachers by a fellow teacher.

Grammar/Mechanics, Reading, Spelling/Vocabulary, Study Skills, Writing Common Core Standards, Common Core State ELA Standards, Common Core State English Standards, Common Core State Standards, Common Core State Writing Standards, ELA, ELA scope and sequence, ELA standards, English curriculum, English standards, English-language arts, English-language Arts standards, grammar standards, how to teach ELA standards, listening and speaking standards, Mark Pennington, national ELA standards, national standards, race to the top, reading standards, response to intervention, RTI, standards-based, teaching English, Teaching the Language Strand, vocabulary standards, writing standards

A growing body of research presents a challenge to current K-12 reading/English-language Arts instruction. In essence, we need to “up” the level of text complexity and provide greater opportunities for independent reading. The Common Core State English-language Arts Standards provides a convincing three-reason argument in support of these changes in instructional practice. Following this rationale, I will share ten instructional implications and address a few possible objections.

1. Text complexity is the most important variable in reading comprehension. The level of difficulty is a more important variable in reading comprehension than is a reader’s degree of mastery of inferential reading strategies or critical thinking skills. In other words, what you read is more of an issue than how you read. Now applying reading strategies and critical thinking skills can certainly scaffold a reader’s ability to comprehend difficult text, but vocabulary, text organization, and sentence length seem to be more crucial variables.

From the Common Core State English-language Arts Standards Appendix A…

In 2006, ACT, Inc., released a report called Reading Between the Lines that showed which skills differentiated those students who equaled or exceeded the benchmark score (21 out of 36) in the reading section of the ACT college admissions test from those who did not. Prior ACT research had shown that students achieving the benchmark score or better in reading—which only about half (51 percent) of the roughly half million test takers in the 2004–2005 academic year had done—had a high probability (75 percent chance) of earning a C or better in an introductory, credit-bearing course in U.S. history or psychology (two common reading-intensive courses taken by first-year college students) and a 50 percent chance of earning a B or better in such a course.

Surprisingly, what chiefly distinguished the performance of those students who had earned the benchmark score or better from those who had not was not their relative ability in making inferences while reading or answering questions related to particular cognitive processes, such as determining main ideas or determining the meaning of words and phrases in context. Instead, the clearest differentiator was students’ ability to answer questions associated with complex texts. Students scoring below benchmark performed no better than chance (25 percent correct) on four-option multiple-choice questions pertaining to passages rated as “complex” on a three-point qualitative rubric described in the report. These findings held for male and female students, students from all racial/ethnic groups, and students from families with widely varying incomes.

2. Post K-12 text complexity in college, the workplace, and in popular media has remained constant or increased in terms of levels of difficulty over the last fifty years.

From the Common Core State English-language Arts Standards Appendix A…

Research indicates that the demands that college, careers, and citizenship place on readers have either held steady or increased over roughly the last fifty years. The difficulty of college textbooks, as measured by Lexile scores, has not decreased in any block of time since 1962; it has, in fact, increased over that period (Stenner, Koons, & Swartz, in press). The word difficulty of every scientific journal and magazine from 1930 to 1990 examined by Hayes and Ward (1992) had actually increased, which is important in part because, as a 2005 College Board study (Milewski, Johnson, Glazer, & Kubota, 2005) found, college professors assign more readings from periodicals than do high school teachers. Workplace reading, measured in Lexiles, exceeds grade 12 complexity significantly, although there is considerable variation (Stenner, Koons, & Swartz, in press). The vocabulary difficulty of newspapers remained stable over the 1963–1991 period Hayes and his colleagues (Hayes, Wolfer, & Wolfe, 1996) studied.

3. K-12 text complexity has declined over the last fifty years.

From the Common Core State English-language Arts Standards Appendix A…

Despite steady or growing reading demands from various sources, K–12 reading texts have actually trended downward in difficulty in the last half century. Jeanne Chall and her colleagues (Chall, Conard, & Harris, 1977) found a thirteen year decrease from 1963 to 1975 in the difficulty of grade 1, grade 6, and (especially) grade 11 texts. Extending the period to 1991, Hayes, Wolfer, and Wolfe (1996) found precipitous declines (relative to the period from 1946 to 1962) in average sentence length and vocabulary level in reading textbooks for a variety of grades… Carrying the research closer to the present day, Gary L. Williamson (2006) found a 350L (Lexile) gap between the difficulty of end-of-high school and college texts—a gap equivalent to 1.5 standard deviations and more than the Lexile difference between grade 4 and grade 8 texts on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).

http://www.corestandards.org/

Ten Implications for K-12 Instruction

1. Higher Expectations

Clearly, we teachers need to “up” the level of difficulty of text and provide the scaffolds students need to understand that text. We need to challenge our students to struggle a bit. We can’t focus all of our instruction on the lowest common denominators.

2. Vocabulary

We need to use a systematic approach to vocabulary instruction including teaching structural analysis, context clues, and rote memorization and practice in what Isabel Beck calls “Tier Two” words that have high utility and applicability in academic language. Our students have got to master frequently used Greek and Latin affixes and roots.

3. Sentence and Text Structure

We need to not only analyze sentence and text structure, but also practice variations and complexities in our students’ writing. Good writers are better equipped to understand the complexities of how ideas are presented in academic text. The reading-writing connection is teachable.

4. Content

We need to teach the prior knowledge that students need to access difficult text independently. And we need to share and coordinate the load with our colleagues. For example, are our novels, poetry, and writing assignments aligned with what our students are learning in their history classes? We need to work smarter, not harder.

5. Reading Strategies

We need to be both content and process-driven. If we do not provide the tools and practice for our students, “reading to learn” will never work. Our elementary colleagues have largely handled the “learning to read,” but we need to apply the basic to the complex.

6. Critical Thinking

We need to teach the elements of logic and higher order thinking are prerequisites to understanding difficult reading text. Recognizing both solid and fallacious reasoning is an essential reading skill.

7. Expository Text

We need to put aside our exclusive love of literature and poetry for the sake of our students. College, workplace, and popular media texts are overwhelmingly expository in nature. We can do both.

8. Novel Selection

We may need to let go of traditional novels. Let’s take a hard look at what we are teaching to maximize content and process instruction. For example, Reading Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry may cover the content and standards nicely for an eighth grade ELA class, but the largely fifth grade reading level does not provide the text complexity that our students need. Additionally, shorter novels, selections, poems, articles, etc. will do the job more efficiently and with greater variety.

9. Differentiated Instruction

We need to recognize that all of students simply do not read at the same levels. Students have  different reading issues that inhibit their abilities to comprehend challenging text. We have to find out who has what issues and adjust our instruction accordingly. It does no good to play the “blame game” on previous teachers. We teach standards, but we also teach students. Diagnostic reading assessment has got to be a given for the conscientious reading/ELA teacher.

10. Independent Reading

We need to stop being co-dependents. The Common Core emphasis on CLOSE READING STRATEGIES can can be overdone. We do have to transfer the demands of accessing text over to students at some point. Plus, we need to fight the hard fight and require students to read at home. The amount of independent reading needed to increase even one grade level in terms of reading comprehension and vocabulary development necessitates reading at home.

Possible Objections and Howevers

We can certainly question the adequacy and accuracy of the tools used to measure text complexity. However, we all know that our students’ biology textbooks are more difficult than the Manga and Twilight that are students are reading.

What about the joy of reading? We want to create lifelong readers, not factory-trained automatons for the needs of academia, the workplace, and popular media. Reading trash can be entertaining. However, text complexity does not preclude reading for fun. The ability to read and understand more complex text should expand and enhance that experience.

What we teach in K-12 is in-it-of-itself valuable and relevant to the needs of our students. It may also be foundational in terms of content and process for greater text complexity. We are not just training students for future college, careers, and citizenship; we are teaching students now. However, can’t we have our cake and eat it, too? If our students need to know about chimpanzee behavior, can’t we replace Curious George with a scientific journal?

Reading, Spelling/Vocabulary Common Core Standards, Common Core State ELA Standards, Common Core State English Standards, Common Core State Standards, Common Core State Writing Standards, ELA, ELA in-service, ELA standards, English curriculum, English grammar, English standards, English-language arts, English-language Arts standards, grammar standards, how to teach ELA standards, independent reading, independent reading levels, lexiles, listening and speaking standards, Mark Pennington, mechanics, national ELA standards, national standards, race to the top, readability, reading comprehension, reading standards, reading strategies, response to intervention, RTI, standards-based, teaching English, teaching literature, text difficulty, vocabulary standards, writing standards

Independent reading homework is the best solution for extending learning after school. Following is a specific action plan for establishing an effective and sustainable independent reading homework plan. First, let’s deal with the usual excuses as to why teachers avoid assigning reading as homework.

Excuse #1: Reading in class shows students the value we place on independent reading to develop lifelong readers.

 

I’ve never been a fan of dedicating precious instructional class time to independent reading: SSR (Sustained Silent Reading), DEAR (Drop Everything and Read), FVR (Free Voluntary Reading), etc. The research is conclusive that independent reading in class without accountability is not effective. Additionally, in-class independent reading results in reduced recreational reading at home. See Erbeli and Rice (2022) and Merke, Ganushchak, van Steensel (2024).

Plus, instructional time is reductive. Time allocated to ineffective practice takes away time from doing what works. We do have research about “what works” in terms of reading. The key features of each reading program or intervention are explicit instruction and accountability. An example of such producing high effects? reciprocal teaching.

Excuse #2: Some students don’t want to read at home.

 

Some students love to read on their own at home; others not so much. As a dad of three boys, my boys fit into the latter category. They did not hate reading, but would have much rather spent after school time playing video games or sports. However, now, as adults, they see merit in my daily reading requirement and two of three have grown into voracious readers. Similarly, feedback from my students has confirmed the same results: “Mr. Pennington, I never liked reading until you made me read so much this year.”

Reading is like trying a new food or drink. The food or drink can be an acquired taste, but you have to consume it over a period of time to teach your taste buds to like it. Put another way, you’ll never truly appreciate a certain painter’s technique until you’ve looked at a number of paintings, taken an art history class, or tried painting yourself. As John Dewey said long ago, we “learn by doing.”

Excuse #3: Some students won’t read at home.

 

To hold students accountable for reading at home, I’ve tried an array of accountability measures with upper elementary, middle school, and high school students throughout my teaching career in a number of different schools. Double-entry journals, logs, quizzes, marginal annotations, book reports, and more. Success rate has varied depending upon the school.

At my last 70% AFDC, multi-culture, multi-language, semi-urban middle school, about 50% of my students consistently completed their independent reading assignments with those methods of accountability. The 50% who didn’t read at home? I figured I set the table; it’s up to them to eat.

However, things changed a number of years ago. I read an article by Michael Gerson lamenting the “soft bigotry of low expectations.” I took that one personally. I committed to raising my expectations of my students, parents, and myself and finding new motivators to get all my students to read at home.

Accountability: What I’ve Learned that Works for Independent Reading Homework

 

No, not book reports, reading logs, dialectical journals, summaries, etc. Too time-consuming for students and too much grading.

Instead, I developed an independent reading program based upon “reading discussions.” Students read at home for 25 minutes per day, 4 days per week and lead a 3-minute literary discussion with their parent, grandparent, or caregiver for each of those days. The 4-day requirement offers flexibility to families to negotiate which days of the week will best fit into family schedules. I devolved the accountability for these reading supervision and discussion assignments to the student-parent partnership. In other words, parents grade their children on the quality of the discussion and I count the points.

Doubts: You don’t know my students and parents.

 

Now, I know what some of you are thinking because I had similar thoughts. This independent reading homework might work fine for primary grades, but upper elementary and middle school students are not going to talk to their parents about their reading, and parents are not going to take time to discuss “school work” on a consistent basis with their kids. “That’s the school’s job!” Yes, I’ve heard that response from quite a few parents and my principal.

I’ve found these pre-conceptions to be largely unwarranted. As a work-in-progress I have learned a few things about getting students to read at home and earning buy-in from parents:

1. Implementing an independent reading homework plan requires a considerable amount of time, communication, and energy up front. First of all, both students and parents need training and practice in how to select appropriate independent reading level books. I value student choice, but I also demand optimal levels for vocabulary and reading comprehension development. I am an MA reading specialist, so I’m biased. I want my cake and eat it, too.

2. I require parent attendance at Back-to-School Night for a brief training on how to conduct a three minute reading discussion with their child after the child has completed 25 minutes of independent reading. Oh yes, I’ve taken heat for this mandate from parents and my administration. However, I am persistent, kind, and insistent. I let parents know that if they can’t attend, I will arrange subsequent meetings in-person or via ZOOM. Knowing that they will have to eventually attend, parents show up in droves to my class at Back-to-School Night. By the way, I also hold a session at the end of the night for parents unable to get off work early and for parents with two or more children at school who must pick and choose which teacher to visit. I also contact our district and schedule translators for non-primary English speakers. I also rely on students to translate for their parents.

Instead of the traditional Back-to-School Night review of the course syllabus, I use the time to train parents how to discuss reading with their children whether they have read the same book or not. I offer this deal, tongue-in-cheek: If you discuss what your child is reading four days of the week (you and your child pick the days) for three minutes, this will save me the class time I need to complete all essays, reports, grammar, etc. in class, so you don’t have to work on these with your child at home. No parent has ever rejected this deal.

Teachers will want to know what I do with the few hold-outs who won’t attend Back-to-School Night and refuse to attend my parent training. I don’t fight the battle. I let my students do so, and they are so much more effective than I at convincing their parents to attend. Here’s what to do: I don’t allow students to complete reading homework for credit until their parents have been trained. Since my reading homework counts for 15% of their grade, I substitute additional writing, vocabulary, and grammar practice that the individual students need, based upon the results of their diagnostic assessments for the same 15%. Believe me, students would rather read their choice of a book than complete one of my grammar worksheets. Students get their parents to the make-up trainings.

My success rate? In my best year I got 123 of 125 parent, guardian, or grandparent representatives trained and participating in the four times per week, three minute reading discussions with their children.

3. I take time in class to train students in how to lead a three-minute book discussion about what they read that day. I tell students and parents to mutually agree upon which four days of the week will be set aside for reading independent for 25 minutes, followed by a three minute discussion of that day’s reading. To help students lead the discussions, I developed SCRIP (Summary, Connect, Re-read, Interpret, and Predict) reading comprehension cue bookmarks to help students self-monitor as they read and form the basis of their three minute discussion. I do a lot of “think alouds” to model talking to the text and “making a movie” of the text in one’s head to practice the internal reader-author/text interaction, so that students can replicate this interaction in their discussions with their parents.

4. I train parents how to grade the quality of the daily reading discussions, 10 points per session possible according to these criteria:

• Points are not awarded for reading; they are awarded for discussion. I provide a simple grading rubric for each level of points earned at my parent trainings.
• The student leads the discussion for the full three minutes and encourage parent response.
• The student uses the SCRIP reading comprehension cues to analyze, and not just summarize the daily reading.
• One 25 minute reading per day; one reading discussion per day. No doubling up.

I use a simple weekly recording log which indicates the title of the independent reading, the pages read for each day, the parent score for each discussion (in pen), and the parent signature (with a note if I have any doubts). The log covers two weeks to reduce grade input time for me.

5. After years of assigning this reading homework, I’ve learned the value of replicating this interactive discussion with peer relationships via book clubs, literature circles, and online discussion groups. These interactions provide variety and a bit of respite for parents, but I keep the student-parent discussions as my standard “go-to” procedure. This means of accountability for independent reading homework works remarkably well for high school students. I served as a high school reading intervention teacher for 4 years, BTW.

Results: Does this Independent Reading Program Work?

 

1. My students read more pages than students in other classes. Beyond what we read together in class, my students are reading 100 minutes per week at home. Contrast that with one of my colleagues who does SSR in class for 10 minutes, three days per week.

2. Parents love this reading homework. It provides 12 minutes (three per four days of reading discussion) of interaction with their children per week. So much more meaningful than the “So how was school today? query with the usual “Same as usual” response! And note that students need their parents to earn points.

3. Some parents will cheat. When I see 10/10 each day, I send home a brief reminder of my discussion criteria. Parents hate being caught, and will reform after a reminder. Of course, I never say they’re cheating:)

4. After the up front investment in time, communication, and energy, absolutely no correction of other means of reading accountability are necessary. I would much rather train parents to provide the accountability than to grade, say, a set of 150 double-entry response journals every few weeks.

5. Students make significant growth in vocabulary acquisition and reading comprehension with this approach to independent reading, as indicated by my own assessments and standardized tests.

This independent reading program at home frees me up to teach other ELA and reading Standards in the classroom. Instead of taking up valuable class time with sustained silent reading… Check out my dialog with Dr. Stephen Krashen for more on independent reading.

*****

Get the SCRIP Comprehension Cues FREE Resource:

Get the Diagnostic ELA and Reading Assessments FREE Resource:

*****

Reading, Spelling/Vocabulary context clues, DEAR, independent reading, Mark Pennington, reading comprehension, reading homework, reading standards, reading strategies, self-monitoring, SSR, Teaching Reading Strategies

The Common Core State Standards for English-language Arts makes a compelling case for not doing business as usual in our ELA classrooms. That business consists of the traditional “sage on the stage” methodology of reading an entire novel or play out loud (or along with the audio book) and parsing paragraphs one at a time. Our new business? Scaffolding just enough reading strategies and content as we act as “guides on the side” to facilitate independent reading. In other words, the days of  spoon-feeding have got to go.

I can hear the excuses. But they won’t read it on their own. They won’t understand it on their own. My students have varied reading levels. We have core novels and plays to teach—that’s our job. Yes, those are valid concerns; however, there are proven means to ameliorate those concerns.

Following is the rationale for creating independent readers, then an analysis of the teacher-dependent status quo, and finally a few practical ideas to minimize scaffolding and maximize comprehension of challenging text.

Reading Independently: The Rationale

Excerpts from the Common Core State Standards for English-language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects Appendix A | 2…

Being able to read complex text independently and proficiently is essential for high achievement in college and the workplace and important in numerous life tasks. Moreover, current trends suggest that if students cannot read challenging texts with understanding—if they have not developed the skill, concentration, and stamina to read such texts—they will read less in general. In particular, if students cannot read complex expository text to gain information, they will likely turn to text-free or text-light sources, such as video, podcasts, and tweets. These sources, while not without value, cannot capture the nuance, subtlety, depth, or breadth of ideas developed through complex text. As Adams (2009) puts it, “There may one day be modes and methods of information delivery that are as efficient and powerful as text, but for now there is no contest. To grow, our students must read lots, and more specifically they must read lots of ‘complex’ texts—texts that offer them new language, new knowledge, and new modes of thought” (p. 182).

A turning away from complex texts is likely to lead to a general impoverishment of knowledge, which, because knowledge is intimately linked with reading comprehension ability, will accelerate the decline in the ability to comprehend complex texts and the decline in the richness of text itself. This bodes ill for the ability of Americans to meet the demands placed upon them by citizenship in a democratic republic and the challenges of a highly competitive global marketplace of goods, services, and ideas.

The Teacher-Dependent Status Quo

College Preparation

There exists “a serious gap between many high school seniors’ reading ability and the reading requirements they will face after graduation. Furthermore, students in college are expected to read complex texts with substantially greater independence (i.e., much less scaffolding) than are students in typical K–12 programs. College students are held more accountable for what they read on their own than are most students in high school (Erickson & Strommer, 1991; Pritchard, Wilson, & Yamnitz, 2007).

College instructors assign readings, not necessarily explicated in class, for which students might be held accountable through exams, papers, presentations, or class discussions. Students in high school, by contrast, are rarely held accountable for what they are able to read independently (Heller & Greenleaf, 2007). This discrepancy in task demand, coupled with what we see below is a vast gap in text complexity, may help explain why only about half of the students taking the ACT Test in the 2004–2005 academic year could meet the benchmark score in reading (which also was the case in 2008–2009, the most recent year for which data are available) and why so few students in general are prepared for postsecondary reading (ACT, Inc., 2006, 2009).”

The Achievement Gap

It should be noted also that the problems with reading achievement are not “equal opportunity” in their effects: students arriving at school from less-educated families are disproportionately represented in many of these statistics (Bettinger & Long, 2009). The consequences of insufficiently high text demands and a lack of accountability for independent reading of complex texts in K–12 schooling are severe for everyone, but they are disproportionately so for those who are already most isolated from text before arriving at the schoolhouse door.

A Few Practical Ideas

It is important to recognize that scaffolding often is entirely appropriate. The expectation that scaffolding will occur with particularly challenging texts is built into the Standards’ grade-by-grade text complexity expectations, for example. The general movement, however, should be toward decreasing scaffolding and increasing independence both within and across the text complexity bands defined in the Standards.

1. Teach students to select independent reading books appropriate to their instructional reading levels.

https://blog.penningtonpublishing.com/reading/how-to-determine-reading-levels/

2. Hold students accountable for independent reading.

https://blog.penningtonpublishing.com/reading/how-to-get-students-to-read-at-home/

https://blog.penningtonpublishing.com/reading/how-to-use-graded-literary-discussions/

3. Avoid read-arounds and reading large portions of text in class.

https://blog.penningtonpublishing.com/reading/to-read-or-not-to-read-that-is-the-question/

https://blog.penningtonpublishing.com/reading/why-round-robin-and-popcorn-reading-are-evil/

4. Differentiate instruction according to diagnostic reading data.

https://blog.penningtonpublishing.com/reading/the-dos-and-donts-of-differentiated-instruction/

https://blog.penningtonpublishing.com/reading/ten-criteria-for-effective-elareading-diagnostic-assessments/

5. Don’t teach to the LCD (Lowest Common Denominator).

https://blog.penningtonpublishing.com/reading/dont-teach-to-the-lcd/

6. Teach self-monitoring reading comprehension skills.

https://blog.penningtonpublishing.com/reading/how-to-teach-reading-comprehension/

https://blog.penningtonpublishing.com/reading/how-to-increase-reading-comprehension-using-the-scrip-comprehension-strategies/

https://blog.penningtonpublishing.com/reading/how-to-use-think-alouds-to-teach-reading-comprehension/

7. Strike the appropriate balance between teaching students and the ELA standards.

https://blog.penningtonpublishing.com/reading/how-to-teach-the-english-language-arts-standards/

https://blog.penningtonpublishing.com/reading/should-we-teach-standards-or-children/

8. Teach fluency.

https://blog.penningtonpublishing.com/reading/how-and-why-to-teach-fluency/

https://blog.penningtonpublishing.com/reading/how-to-differentiate-reading-fluency-practice/

9. Teach vocabulary and structural analysis.

https://blog.penningtonpublishing.com/reading/the-problem-with-most-vocabulary-instruction-part-1/

https://blog.penningtonpublishing.com/reading/how-we-learn-vocabulary-from-reading-part-ii/

https://blog.penningtonpublishing.com/reading/how-to-double-vocabulary-acquisition-from-reading-part-iii/

10. Share the independent reading and reading strategies load.

https://blog.penningtonpublishing.com/reading/learning-to-read-and-reading-to-learn/

11. Maximize teaching the text, not the personal application of the text.

https://blog.penningtonpublishing.com/reading/into-through-but-not-beyond/

12. Teach the reading-writing connection.

https://blog.penningtonpublishing.com/reading/twelve-tips-to-teach-the-reading-writing-connection/

*****

Get the SCRIP Comprehension Cues FREE Resource:

Get the Diagnostic ELA and Reading Assessments FREE Resource:

*****

Reading, Spelling/Vocabulary Common Core Standards, Common Core State ELA Standards, Common Core State English Standards, Common Core State Standards, Common Core State Writing Standards, ELA, ELA standards, English curriculum, English standards, English-language arts, English-language Arts standards, how to teach ELA standards, independent reading, independent reading levels, Mark Pennington, national ELA standards, national standards, race to the top, reading homework, reading standards, response to intervention, RTI, teaching English, Teaching Reading Strategies, writing standards

Teacher burn-out is real. We begin with high expectations of ourselves and idealism; however, after a few years the drudgery sets in. ELA teachers seem to burn-out more often than their colleagues in other disciplines. What causes burn-out and how can we work through this phase in our teaching careers?

None of us gets into the teaching profession with the hopes of being mediocre. All ELA/reading teachers want to do their best for their students. But how can we give our best when so many impediments stand in our way? I’m not talking about the usual ones we discuss in the staff room: discipline problems, overbearing administrators, bothersome parents, lack of materials. I’m talking about the all of the stuff that reductively minimizes our opportunity to be our best. In other words, if we could just rid ourselves (and our students) of… XXXX, we could truly be the teachers we want to be. So, let’s explore the impediments many ELA/reading teachers that keep us from teaching how and what we need to teach, the solutions as to how to reduce or get rid of these in our teaching repertoire, and most importantly what to teach now that the impediments have been removed.

10 Causes of ELA Teacher Burn-out and Solutions

1. Standards

Impediments: Although most teachers support the notion of an instructional scope and sequence, district-state-national standards were not delivered at Mt. Sinai. Some ELA/reading standards are more important than others and we ultimately and practically teach our students, not the standards. Our students are an unruly lot, refusing to progress at exactly the same rates and generally making a mess of our year-to-year academic standards.

Solutions: Establish priorities in terms of instructional time. Does anyone think that an identifying author’s purpose standard merits the same amount of attention as a reading comprehension standard? Develop a balance between teaching grade-level and review standards, according to the needs of your students indicated by diagnostic data.

2. School Culture and Interruptions

Impediments: At the middle or high school level, the ELA classes check out all books in the library, get student identification pictures, get picture re-takes, listen to counselor career presentations, and attend discipline assemblies. Daily announcements, spirit assemblies, guest speakers, phone calls interrupt all teachers. Not to mention the usual bathroom/counselor/nurse passes.

Solutions: Be assertive and learn to say “No.” Get other colleagues on board, work through the appropriate channels, and be willing to compromise; but guard “time on task” and re-visit these impediments regularly—they have a habit of sneaking back in.

3. Traditions

Impediments: 3^rd grade silkworms and the reading incentive program, 4^th grade dioramas and animal reports, 5^th grade sugar cube castles and state reports, 6^th grade science projects and PowerPoint® presentations, 7^th grade African masks and oral reports, Martin Luther King, Jr. essay contest and 8^th grade U.S. Constitution graduation requirement. You get the idea.

Solutions: Develop the mindset that any instructional activity that can achieve the same objectives in a more efficient manner than another instructional activity should be the one you choose. Don’t confuse content and process objectives.

4. Colleagues

Impediments: “We all teach XXXX. It’s a team decision—there is no I in team.” Disagreement is perceived as personal attack. Gossip, friendship, even romance. And colleagues tend to prey upon our good natures to get us to follow their agendas.

Solutions: Affirm your colleagues’ agendas, but don’t get sucked in. Always run a cost-benefit analysis when changing instruction. Being a team player doesn’t mean sacrificing your autonomy. Do what makes sense for you and your students.

5. Scheduling

Impediments: Advanced band is only offered this period, the special education pull-out study skills program, the reading intervention program, the remedial-basic-advanced-honors ELA classes, and the computer lab. And others.

Solutions: The needs of the students should dictate schedules; however, well-intended interventions, pull-out programs, and tracking can reduce the amount of core instructional time each student receives and/or change a teacher’s instructional plans. Insist upon differentiating instruction within the scope of the core ELA curricula and the confines of the regular classroom to address student needs.

6. Pigeonholing

Impediments: Shouldn’t the ELA teachers teach XXXX? Reading (literature and reading skills and SSR), writing, listening, speaking. Note-taking. Critical thinking. Problem-solving skills. Study skills. Career exploration. And let’s add on basic parenting.

Solutions: Preach “all teachers are teachers of reading, writing, and thinking.” Get to know the process-oriented standards of your math, social studies, arts, foreign language, physical education, and science teachers for ammunition and encourage everyone to share the load.

7. Educational Fads

Impediments: Learning styles, rigor and relevance, multiple intelligences, small learning communities, tribes, Cornell notes, reading fads, levels of questioning. And a few hundred more.

Solutions: Before jumping onto bandwagons, talk to veteran teachers for their “what comes around, goes around” perspectives, search the Internet for the real research on any educational fad, and take all professors’ and presenters’ information with grains of salt. Stick to the basics when in doubt.

8. Bureaucracy and Paperwork

Impediments: Progress monitoring charts, skills documentation, reading logs, independent learning goals, student evaluations. Staff meetings. Department meetings. Grade-level team meetings. Cross-disciplinary meetings. Vertical articulation. The mind boggles.

Solutions: Veteran teachers know how to cut corners when they need cutting. Ask them. Insist upon written agendas with time allocations and a time-keeper for meetings. Push to get everything in writing that can be written on an agenda and e-mailed in advance. Hold colleagues accountable for “birdwalking.” Keep business meetings all-business, and schedule personal hang-out/discussion time prior to or after meetings.

9. Testing

Impediments: State testing, district testing, diagnostic assessments, formative assessments, summative assessments. Standardized test preparation. Unit test review.

Solutions: Select colleagues committed to protecting teacher instructional time as district representatives on testing committees. Minimize isolated test preparation. The best test preparation is good teaching in the core ELA instructional components.

10. Ourselves

Impediments: I love to share my personal life with my students. My students love my stories. My students love my jokes. I just enjoy talking with students. I go with the “teachable moments.” I teach more of this because I like it better. I hate teaching, never liked, or I’m bad at XXXX… so I don’t teach it.

Solutions: We are often our own worst enemies. Ask a trusted colleague to observe you, your personal idiosyncrasies, and how you waste instructional time. Video-tape yourself. Don’t confuse your own teaching style with poor time management. Teach all the core curricular components and work on those in which you are weak.

Instructional Priorities

There are curricular priorities that most ELA teachers would agree to teach “if only they had the time.” To be practical as possible, here are the specific “Big Six” ELA instructional components with percentages of instructional time that make sense to allocate to each. Having taught at the upper elementary, middle school, high school, and community college levels, I believe that the core instructional components and allocations of instructional time should remain constant across those levels. Take stock of what you teach and how much time you allocate to each instructional component. And feel free to disagree.

The Big Six

1. Word Study (Vocabulary and Spelling) 16%

2. Grammar and Mechanics 16%

3. Reading Strategies 16%

4. Literary Analysis 16%

5, Writing Strategies 16%

6. Writing Process Papers 16%

That leaves 4% for the impediments that you cannot remove. Such is life.

*****

I’m Mark Pennington, author of the full-year interactive grammar notebooks,  grammar literacy centers, the traditional grade-level 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and high school Teaching Grammar and Mechanics programs, and the value-packed Grammar, Mechanics, Spelling, and Vocabulary BUNDLES.

Teaching Grammar and Mechanics includes 56 (64 for high school) interactive language conventions lessons,  designed for twice-per-week direct instruction in the grade-level grammar, usage, and mechanics standards. The scripted lessons (perfect for the grammatically-challenged teacher) are formatted for classroom display. Standards review, definitions and examples, practice and error analysis, simple sentence diagrams, mentor texts with writing applications, and formative assessments are woven into every 25-minute lesson. The program also includes the Diagnostic Grammar, Usage, and Mechanics Assessments with corresponding worksheets to help students catch up, while they keep up with grade-level, standards-aligned instruction.

Here’s a great example of how to manage time and avoid teacher-burn out with this full-year grammar and mechanics instructional plan:

Get the Grammar and Mechanics Grades 4-8 Instructional Scope and Sequence FREE Resource:

Grammar/Mechanics, Reading, Spelling/Vocabulary, Study Skills, Writing ELA, ELA in-service, ELA instruction, ELA scope and sequence, ELA standards, ELA teaching tips, ELA time management, English curriculum, English grammar, English standards, English-language arts, English-language Arts standards, grammar, grammar standards, how to teach ELA standards, listening and speaking standards, Mark Pennington, mechanics, national ELA standards, national standards, reading standards, RTI, standards-based, teacher burn-out, teaching English, teaching literature, Teaching Reading Strategies, teaching spelling, vocabulary standards, word analysis, word study, writing standards, writing strategies

Overview

Response to Intervention (RtI) is a K-12 site-level decision-making process designed to facilitate and coordinate early and flexible responses to student’s learning and behavioral difficulties. RtI promotes data-based decision-making with respect to service placement and on-going progress monitoring. RtI was introduced as special education policy in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA 2004). It is the law of the land. However, how that law is implemented at school sites will differ widely. Following are a few indicators of what effective and ineffective RtI can look like.

What Effective RtI Looks Like

An RtI team meets regularly at a school site. Composed of resource specialists (special education, reading specialist, EL coordinator), teachers, counselors, psychologists, and administration, most teams designate (or hire at large schools) an RtI coordinator. Typical responsibilities include the following:

Gatekeeping/Decision-Making- The RtI team may review recommendations of Student Study Teams (SST), or replace the SST as program gatekeepers. The team attempts to reduce unnecessary referrals to special education by ensuring that all students in the general education setting have access to appropriate curriculum and instruction at their own levels of need.

Diagnostic Assessment- The RtI team approves appropriate academic and behavioral diagnostic assessments and develops a process for efficient implementation and evaluation of the diagnostic data.

Placement- The RtI team typically follows a three-tiered approach to service placement akin to the Pyramid Model (Fox, Dunlap, Hemmeter, Joseph, & Strain, 2003): Tier 3 includes students requiring intensive instruction; Tier 2 includes at-risk students requiring strategic small group instruction; Tier 1 includes students requiring differentiated instruction within the core class.

Progress Monitoring-RtI requires specific procedures for regular documentation of progress at each assigned level of placement. The RtI team approves appropriate formative assessments and develops a process for efficient implementation and evaluation of the formative data. The RtI team applies this data to adjust tiered placement of students and recommends specific interventions and/or instructional practices to service providers.

Instructional Materials-The RtI team recommends the purchase of instructional materials suitable to the three-tiered instructional design.

Instructional Coaching-The RtI team works with site and district administration to coordinate professional development to ensure that service providers are equipped to deliver the research-based interventions appropriate to student needs.

What Ineffective RtI Looks Like

RtI can certainly look like “the same old sow with new lipstick.” New terms can substitute for old ones and the process for delivering instructional and behavioral support to students can remain essentially the same. Following are a few pitfalls to avoid in developing the RtI process:

We’re Not on the Same Page-All team members need to be thoroughly acquainted with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA 2004) and related research.

Not Everyone Is Involved-RtI will fail if it is or is perceived as a “top-down” decision-making entity. Teachers are key to RtI success. Parent buy-in is essential.

Too Much Time and Overwhelming Paperwork-RtI needs to be efficient. Ironically, many of the old, inefficient means of individual diagnostic and formative assessments and record-keeping for progress-monitoring are promoted in much of the RtI literature. To secure long-lasting support, time and paperwork have to be minimized without sacrificing accuracy.

No Professional Development-Without the investment of quality site-based in-service training and support, the RtI process will be compromised.

No Budgetary Support-The three-tiered model requires purchase of instructional materials appropriate to each intervention. Resource specialists and teachers cannot be expected to re-invent the wheel or simply “water-down” the core instructional materials for service delivery.

Following are free diagnostic reading assessments, created by a team of reading specialists, that are user-friendly, simple to score and analyze, and designed to enable resource specialists and teachers of all levels of expertise to differentiate reading instruction: penningtonpublishing.com 

*****

The Science of Reading Intervention Program: Word Recognition includes explicit, scripted instruction and practice with the 5 Daily Google Slide Activities every reading intervention student needs: 1. Phonemic Awareness and Morphology 2. Blending, Segmenting, and Spelling 3. Sounds and Spellings (including handwriting) 4. Heart Words Practice 5. Sam and Friends Phonics Books (decodables). Plus, digital and printable sound wall cards and speech articulation songs. Print versions are available for all activities. First Half of the Year Program (55 minutes-per-day, 18 weeks)

The Science of Reading Intervention Program: Language Comprehension resources are designed for students who have completed the word recognition program or have demonstrated basic mastery of the alphabetic code and can read with some degree of fluency. The program features the 5 Weekly Language Comprehension Activities: 1. Background Knowledge Mentor Texts 2. Academic Language, Greek and Latin Morphology, Figures of Speech, Connotations, Multiple Meaning Words 3. Syntax in Reading 4. Reading Comprehension Strategies 5. Literacy Knowledge (Narrative and Expository). Second Half of the Year Program (30 minutes-per-day, 18 weeks)

The Science of Reading Intervention Program: Assessment-based Instruction provides diagnostically-based “second chance” instructional resources. The program includes 13 comprehensive assessments and matching instructional resources to fill in the yet-to-be-mastered gaps in phonemic awareness, alphabetic awareness, phonics, fluency (with YouTube modeled readings), Heart Words and Phonics Games, spelling patterns, grammar, usage, and mechanics, syllabication and morphology, executive function shills. Second Half of the Year Program (25 minutes-per-day, 18 weeks)

The Science of Reading Intervention Program BUNDLE  includes all 3 program components for the comprehensive, state-of-the-art (and science) grades 4-adult full-year program. Scripted, easy-to-teach, no prep, no need for time-consuming (albeit valuable) LETRS training or O-G certification… Learn as you teach and get results NOW for your students. Print to speech with plenty of speech to print instructional components.

SCIENCE OF READING INTERVENTION PROGRAM RESOURCES HERE for detailed product description and sample lessons.

Get the SCRIP Comprehension Strategies FREE Resource:

Get the Diagnostic ELA and Reading Assessments FREE Resource:

Reading, Spelling/Vocabulary, Study Skills IEP, intervention programs, Mark Pennington, math intervention, reading intervention, remedial reading, response to intervention, RTI, special education, SSTs, student study teams, vertical teaming

Administrators, special education teachers, ELD and EL coordinators, reading specialists, teachers, and parents need to work together to mesh Response to Intervention (RtI) guidelines with resources, personnel, and schedules  to plan and implement effective reading intervention programs that will work for their own schools. Following are eight intervention models with proven track records. After all, why re-invent the wheel? Each of the following models is described and analyzed in pro-con format and includes suggestions for successful adaptations and preparations for your school site.

1. The Early-Late Reading/English-language Arts Model

Description

All students are grouped according to reading (or literacy) levels. The lower-middle group is scheduled to begin school, say 55 minutes before core instruction. The middle-upper group is scheduled to begin after the early group is dismissed. This traditional elementary school model has now been implemented by some middle schools. High schools and community colleges traditionally have larger student populations, which provide greater schedule flexibility with extended morning and afternoon classes at some sites.

Pro

*Reduces class size for both remedial and other readers

*Does provide a specific daily time for reading remediation

Con

*Reduces the instructional time for other content areas

*Arbitrary placement of students into “high” and “low” groups

Suggestions

*Make early-late placement flexible so students can transition from early to late and from late to early.

2. The After-School Remedial Reading Model

Description

Students are flexibly grouped according to reading levels. Teachers and/or instructional assistants provide compensatory instruction beyond the instructional day. Both full-year and half-year intensive programs are typically used in this model.

Pro

*Provides compensatory instruction so that students are able to “catch up” and “keep up” with grade-level instruction

*Is easily scheduled and allows for flexible student groupings and “in and out” transitions

Con

*Budgetary considerations

*Student and parent “buy-in”

Suggestions

*Explore flexible teacher scheduling e.g., split-schedules, part-time hires, shared contracts.

*Use a highly-trained reading teacher with excellent curricular resources.

3. The Pull-Out Remedial Reading Model

Description

Students are pulled from Reading/English-language Arts instructional blocks according to diagnostically assessed reading deficits and receive reading instruction, frequently from special education specialists.

Pro

*Does not disrupt student schedule

*Students can be remediated in ability groups

Con

*Interrupts student and teacher instruction and students miss out on core instruction

*Pull-outs can be perceived as embarrassing for students

Suggestions

*Pull out students at beginning or ending of period or during assigned reading time.

*Use a highly-trained reading teacher with excellent curricular resources.

4. The Reading Elective Model

Description

Students are assigned to a remedial reading class in lieu of their elective.

Pro

*Students can be scheduled throughout the day in roughly defined ability groups

Con

*Replaces the students’ elective choices

Suggestions

*Use a highly-trained reading teacher with excellent curricular resources.

5. The Replacement Model

Description

Students are assigned to a remedial reading class in lieu of their language arts, physical education, science, or social studies core classes, or combination thereof.

Pro

*Students can be scheduled throughout the day in roughly defined ability groups

Con

*Students miss out on grade level instruction

Suggestions

*Use a highly-trained reading teacher with excellent curricular resources.

6. The Reading/Language Arts Block Model

 Description

The school schedules an extended period (or days) of reading/language arts with time within the block allocated to Tier I and II differentiated reading instruction.

Pro

*Does provide for a specific time for reading intervention

*Does not disrupt student schedules

Con

*Requires all teachers to be proficient in and committed to remedial reading instruction

*May not provide enough time for remedial reading instruction

Suggestions

*Need school-wide professional development in remedial reading instruction.

7. The Heterogeneously Grouped Differentiated Instruction Model

Description

Students are grouped heterogeneously with the expectation that teachers will teach Tier II or III reading skills through differentiated instruction.

Pro

*Mixed class provides opportunities for flexible grouping and peer tutoring

*Does not disrupt student schedule

Con

*Requires all teachers to be proficient in and committed to remedial reading instruction

*May not provide enough time for remedial reading instruction

Suggestions

*Need school-wide professional development in remedial reading instruction.

8. The ELD and SDAIE Grouped Instruction Model

Description

English-language learners are grouped according to CELDT or other assessments into leveled ELD or SDAIE classes to receive differentiated reading instruction, support content instruction, and maximize language acquisition. Separate newcomers classes are usually the norm.

Pro

*Narrows ability grouping by language development levels

*Differentiates instruction

*Provides extensive support for newcomers

Con

*Limits student scheduling

*Tracking affects student attitude and behavior

*Requires extensive ELD or SDAIE expertise

Suggestions

*Train a cadre of teachers in specific teaching strategies.

*Guarantee “in and out” program mobility for students.

The Science of Reading Intervention Program: Word Recognition includes explicit, scripted instruction and practice with the 5 Daily Google Slide Activities every reading intervention student needs: 1. Phonemic Awareness and Morphology 2. Blending, Segmenting, and Spelling 3. Sounds and Spellings (including handwriting) 4. Heart Words Practice 5. Sam and Friends Phonics Books (decodables). Plus, digital and printable sound wall cards and speech articulation songs. Print versions are available for all activities. First Half of the Year Program (55 minutes-per-day, 18 weeks)

The Science of Reading Intervention Program: Language Comprehension resources are designed for students who have completed the word recognition program or have demonstrated basic mastery of the alphabetic code and can read with some degree of fluency. The program features the 5 Weekly Language Comprehension Activities: 1. Background Knowledge Mentor Texts 2. Academic Language, Greek and Latin Morphology, Figures of Speech, Connotations, Multiple Meaning Words 3. Syntax in Reading 4. Reading Comprehension Strategies 5. Literacy Knowledge (Narrative and Expository). Second Half of the Year Program (30 minutes-per-day, 18 weeks)

The Science of Reading Intervention Program: Assessment-based Instruction provides diagnostically-based “second chance” instructional resources. The program includes 13 comprehensive assessments and matching instructional resources to fill in the yet-to-be-mastered gaps in phonemic awareness, alphabetic awareness, phonics, fluency (with YouTube modeled readings), Heart Words and Phonics Games, spelling patterns, grammar, usage, and mechanics, syllabication and morphology, executive function shills. Second Half of the Year Program (25 minutes-per-day, 18 weeks)

The Science of Reading Intervention Program BUNDLE  includes all 3 program components for the comprehensive, state-of-the-art (and science) grades 4-adult full-year program. Scripted, easy-to-teach, no prep, no need for time-consuming (albeit valuable) LETRS training or O-G certification… Learn as you teach and get results NOW for your students. Print to speech with plenty of speech to print instructional components.

SCIENCE OF READING INTERVENTION PROGRAM RESOURCES HERE for detailed product description and sample lessons.

Get the SCRIP Comprehension Strategies FREE Resource:

Get the Diagnostic ELA and Reading Assessments FREE Resource:

Literacy Centers, Reading, Spelling/Vocabulary EL reading, esl reading, intervention models, Language!, Mark Pennington, reading comprehension, reading intervention, reading programs, reading strategies, remedial reading, response to intervention, RTI

As we all know. the LCD is a math term for lowest common denominator. However, the acronym can also refer to reading. Unfortunately, we reading teachers, especially reading intervention teachers, often wind up teaching to the LCD (the Lowest Common Denominator). Perhaps I  had better explain…

Problems

• We may spend an inequitable amount of time, resources, and personal teacher attention on students who need instructional remediation. Our desire to see every student succeed often means that we give more to the neediest. Remedial instruction often includes more instructional time within the school day. “Early Bird” classes in primary, intervention classes in intermediate, middle, and high schools provide that additional time. Our schools fund these special classes, which often include lower teacher to student ratios and more supplies (such as remedial texts) to students who perform lower than grade-level norms. Within the “regular” class setting, students with instructional and/or behavioral challenges receive more personal teacher attention than do other students. Now, few teachers would argue that these students do not deserve this additional time, resources, and personal teacher attention. This would run counter to “who we are” as educators. However, in the real world there are fiscal, legal, and systemic constraints. All students can certainly be labeled as needy—think middle-performing and gifted students… Don’t these students deserve equitable time, resources, and teacher attention? Teachers are less comfortable with the concept of “taking away” instructional time, resources, and personal teacher attention. But, schools are reductive entities. Giving more there takes away from here.

• We may slow down the instructional pace to ensure that all students have a greater chance at mastering our teaching objectives. Typically, this means that we repeat instruction, provide additional examples, and spend more time on guided practice. Increased success in mastery of the teaching objectives for remedial students often comes at the cost of boring middle-performing and gifted students to tears.

• We may cater to the perceived needs of remedial students. Beyond special classes, we spoon-feed alternative instruction (pre-teach/re-teach, TPR, student choice, learning styles, and more) within the classroom. Teachers may provide peer tutoring or use instructional aides to monitor progress of remedial students and especially special education students. Teachers repeat or re-explain whole-class instructions to individuals. In catering to the needs of some students, we may find ourselves unintentionally lowering expectations for these students. For example, we may be advised to reduce the class or homework for individual students. We may choose to ignore teaching certain challenging standards. We may adjust tests, grading scales, or the type of assigned work.

Solutions

• Commit to spending an equitable amount of time, resources, and personal teacher attention on all students. Often, this means middle-performing students who can get “lost in the shuffle.” Think of the student names that are hardest to learn. They belong to your middle-performing students. I will bet that you quickly and more easily learn the names of your students with instructional or behavioral challenges and the names of your brightest students.

• Be an anti-tracking advocate. Tracking students assumes that there is such a possibility of a homogeneous class. There is no such animal. For example, as a reading specialist I can assure you that lumping together a group of remedial readers into an intervention class does not make homogeneous instruction possible. Students are remedial readers for a wide-variety of reasons. At the other end of the spectrum, no two gifted students are gifted in the same way. Tracking costs additional money. Reducing class sizes for some raises class sizes for others. Scheduling tracked classes is a nightmare and involves real costs. We can also discuss the negative social stigma for some students that often derives from tracking.

• Differentiating instruction for all of your students means that all deserve your personal attention. All students need to be personally challenged at the points of their diagnostically assessed instructional needs. Affording equitable personal teacher attention does not necessarily mean that you interact in the same way with each student; however, assigning appropriate learning activities needs to reflect that goal.

• Speed up your instructional pace. You don’t have to become a “fast-talker,” but becoming consciously aware of how you manage class time, and especially how you deliver instruction, is essential to the success of all of your students. Counter-intuitively, remedial students benefit from a “hurried, yet relaxed” instructional pace. Setting a daily time for differentiated instruction will allow you to judiciously address students who need more time.

• Guard time-on-task zealously. Use the full amount of class time by designing effective “openers” and “closers.” Train your students to make quick instructional transitions. Know your own proclivities. If you are the “funny teacher,” tell fewer jokes. If you are the “share my personal life teacher,” tell less stories and spend more time on Facebook®. Having a peer observe your time-on-task instructional patterns can be an eye-opening experience. Advocate forcefully for fewer class interruptions.

• If two instructional activities or methodologies accomplish the same mastery, teach the one that takes less time. To tread on a few cherished traditions: sugar cube or toothpick forts and castles, dioramas, masks, oral book reports from every student, and quite a few science projects just have to go. Process and fun are fine, but we have choices to make as professionals.

• We know from years of educational research that maintaining high expectations for all students is essential to their success. Guard against those that would provide the “realistic” caveat to that statement. Maintain your idealism that all students can and must learn. Treat students as individuals and know their needs, but don’t cater to them and avoid spoon-feeding. Encourage independent learning and maximum effort from your students.

Teachers are habitual creatures, just as are our students. It takes time to change from teaching to the Lowest Common Denominator to differentiating instruction for all of your students.

*****

Get the SCRIP Comprehension Cues FREE Resource:

Get the Diagnostic ELA and Reading Assessments FREE Resource:

*****

Reading, Writing best teaching practices, differentiated instruction, differentiating instruction, equitable instruction, gifted students, learning centers, learning styles, Mark Pennington, reading fluency, reading intervention, reading programs, remedial reading, Rick Wormeli, RTI, special education, Teaching the Language Strand, tracking