Time to Teach: Will New Reading Legislation Help or Hinder Instruction?

Newsletter

Photo by CDC on Unsplash

When Wisconsin approved new reading legislation, I was opposed to several parts of it. In particular, the push to retain 3rd graders if they weren't deemed proficient by state exams would have been tragic (and a reality in other states). Thankfully there was enough pushback to remove this part of the language from the bill.

What did make it through in Wisconsin is referred to as Act 20. In our first year of implementation, it's too early to tell whether it will lead to better readers and more equitable outcomes for all students.

What is clear with this mandate is the extra unfunded responsibilities that have been added to the already overflowing plates of elementary teachers and administrators. None of these required actions have been financially supported by the state; the $50 million allocated for this initiative is tied up in lawsuits due to politics and a lack of empathy by some for the educators who are trying to implement these requirements.

One big challenge right now are the personal reading plans, or PRPs for short. These "mini-IEPs", as one teacher described them to me, are required for all students who score below the 25th percentile on the state-approved screener. This responsibility, which includes progress monitoring and family communication, is shouldered by K-3 classroom teachers, interventionists, special education teachers, and specialists. These added tasks don’t replace any of their current ones.

The outcomes are teachers:

• coming in on weekends,

• canceling interventions, and

• working over their lunch breaks to meet these requirements.

I don't want to take a half-glass empty attitude toward this initiative. I do see benefits coming from this legislation. For example, I believe some districts who have not paid close enough attention to their students’ reading data are now doing so. I'm not opposed to top-down decisions if it means students finally get the support they need in a more consistent manner.

But if we take a step back and look at this change from a systems perspective, how will all this additional time teachers are spending on administrative tasks influence their efforts to teach students to read?

A theoretical position is that with more data and administrative oversight to ensure student supports are documented and monitored (PRPs), teachers will be able to respond more effectively to their kids' needs. However, what seems to be countering this initiative is the messiness and nontechnical reality of teaching readers. For example, if teachers are spending all this time organizing the data and formulating plans, when will they be able to prepare effective instruction, especially with each other in teams? What matters with these screeners is oral reading fluency (ORF, grades 1-3). This is but one measure that is absorbing a large amount of teachers' time and energy. Naturally, teachers have less time and energy to assess students' comprehension and meaning-making (you know, the purpose for reading).

With the subsequent hyper-focus on a specific literacy outcome comes the potential for the narrowing of the curriculum. It's "if the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail", only the reverse. If ORF is the ticket to proficiency, will anyone be surprised if schools overcorrect their instructional efforts to reach this outcome? What is the fallout?

I can imagine: less or no independent reading, little student talk around text, lack of voice and choice in what to read—all reading activities that have great benefits for reading achievement and motivation, yet could become optional or even nonexistent due to how our state has defined a successful reader.

Finally, with these curriculum and assessment conditions, what type of teachers are we going to attract and keep in the profession? Speaking only for myself, I would not enter the teaching ranks if I knew an inordinate amount of my time would be spent dotting i's and crossing t's instead of teaching readers. I completed administrative tasks as a principal so that teachers could be freed up to do what they do best. I see this legislation increasing teacher turnover due to deprofessionalization, i.e. legislators telling teachers how to teach. We chase reading outcomes but never actually teach readers.

What to do? I think that question deserves a future post (or three). Initial thoughts:

• If overwhelmed by the mandates, do the minimum required of the legislation.

• Collect and organize measures that matter, that offer a richer picture of what it means to be a reader (although that requires more time).

• Become a positive deviant by opting out of negative practices, for example teaching the curriculum like a script.

Join me in exploring productive responses to a potentially unproductive initiative.

Related Resources

• I am now on Bluesky and avoiding Twitter, for obvious reasons. In that space today, I posted a link to a terrific video conversation with Peter Johnston and Kathy Champeau. They shared practical strategies and research that supports student engagement strategies - a positive response to limited legislation.

• One of the studies Johnston and Champeau reference is research by Guthrie and Humenick (2004), which found reading engagement strategies can lead to large effects on both students motivation to read and reading achievement. I believe you can download the original study here for free.

• For full subscribers, I am sharing a data discussion protocol for teachers and teams interested in creating more equitable student literacy outcomes. In complex times, I believe we need simple tools to help make sense of all the information we receive. You can download it below.

If budgets don’t allow for a paid subscription, reach out to me here to request one for free. No questions asked.